guys this is a simple plugin that does not too a fine search of what your city is, but rather just the country and plonks a flag next to your name. Unfortunately I can’t do anything to change that.
Bahrainiac
And here I though you were referring to the lovely lady’s two nuclear tipped missiles……… =D
Seriously, does this mean that we cannot have social gatherings at our private residences?:roll: Can’t sit by the pool with a beer??:no: Or worse, lay in my hammock in my own garden with sundowner?? =(
Oh the humanity!!!!
Boozer
Hey, I didn’t know they still refer to clubs as ‘discos’.
Hajji Zaal
So, at last, school-aged children and the mosque-going God fearers will be spared the nuisance of some unwanted demeanours that are caused- or attracted by alcohol consumption and cheap-art trading on their door steps. That cannot be all that wrong.
Would it be all to wrong if, a five-star hotel offers space for rent in its main hallway, and, forgetting to specify in its ads the types of bids that would be entertained or rejected, declines to accept otherwise qualifying bids from fresh fish traders demanding half the space on offer while total demand is for 99% of the total space?
Why would it righful for the hotel to reject the bids from fish traders, but it would be so wrong to cleanse school and mosque areas of unfit, activity, even if it otherwise legal activity but fits another type of locale?
Bahrainiac
All the more reason for the Saudis to head to Dubai!!! 8) Holy Cow!!! I just had an idea!! Clever is the candidate who uses this for their campaign slogan this weekend ” A vote for me is a vote for no booze, discos, hookers! Which will mean less traffic, and more importantly, less Saudis!” The guy gets my vote!!! =P
naddooi
*shock*
They DO realise that a lot of money that WON’T be coming into Bahrain anymore? I mean, I can’t stand saudi’s myself, but they DO bring a lot of money into this country… Plus, lower alcohol sales, lower customs incomes… and the snowballs effect continues!
And really, whats with the vagueness everwhere? What areas are we talking about here?
On a brighter note, is you flag tag tor proof? 😉
Ali
You all totally misunderstood the news. If a hotel operates in a residential area then they won’t give it a license to sell, meaning no change to 99.9% of other places. It is actually not a bad idea, think of the children who would live nearby these hotels.
Actually, initially it appears a good idea. All those brothels on Exhibition Road are disgusting and a shame on Bahrain (yes, I don’t buy any of that “choice” crap).
HOWEVER, what is going to happen with the lovely restaurants in Adliya?
The thing is, we do not need a law like this. Prostitution is illegal already anyway, so why not just arrest a few of the punters at these “discos” and they will frighten them off back to their country, then the places will close down.
Of course, the new rule doesn’t affect 5 star hotels in non residential areas, does it Mahmood? Why is that? Anyone got any ideas?
AGA
This discussion and the comments are strangely familiarto me. No thobes or beards, but you might find a pair of wooden shoes in the closet. =P
Jasra-Jedi
Once you start, where do you stop?
in Afghanistan, when the Taliban first came to power, everyone was pleased because they controlled the streets and made it safe for people. Then, once they got power and controlled the streets, no alochol in residential areas, no women, wine or drugs, and then finally, no education for women and strict sharia law. they started spreading their values, which were vehemently anti women, anti freedom of speech, anti liberalism,anti everything. and of course, anti islam.
And we ended up with a way of life for women, and for any free minded invidual that is akin to death. Oh, I forgot to mention, that the Taleban also made quite abit of money from opium.
Look at Kuwait and Iran today. Both run by Islamists, or so called Islamists. Both with alcohol bans. And both with HUGE drug problems in their cities.
You CANNOT shut off the Gulf from the rest of the world. You cannot do it in the name of Islam or Shi’ism or Sunn’ism or Wahabbi’ism or whatever it is you want to call it.
So .. if you start shutting down hotels and seedy little places in the name of vice and virtue, it is ONLY a matter of time before the whole socity collapses.
Most of the men in beards and turbans, be they Sunni or Shia, are obsessed with women and sex. Thats why we heard more about Nancy fri**in Ajram last year than land zoning or ownership.
I would rather have the ho’s in Adliya than have to be told what I can and cannot wear, and study, and speak.
Besides … WHO do you think PAYS for the dolly girls?? Men!!!! Why dont you just ban the Saudi’s from coming altogether? (no pun intended) And then what, ban homosexuals?? Or govern how many times a day people should be havign sex? (in Islamically compliant ways, of course)
Guys .. get with the program. You cannot overturn human nature or DNA or biology. It is impossible. The church couldnt do it. The mosque certainly cant. Just look at Kuwait .. how ismalist their parlaiment is, and how they define homosexuality .. (only those who are done to are gay, not the other way round).
methinks the turbanned & long bearded ones doth protest too much. i think that if they all jsut had a bit of fun here and there, we would ALL be better of. And I would be able to guarantee that the next generation of little bahraini girls would be able to go to school freely …
Ibn
ROFL Jasra!
Man…that made me laugh.. 😆
-Ibn
Kamal
Bahrain follows an islamic culture, drinking is prohobited in islam, and if ppl here would vote on whether drinking shud be banned,, most would probably support this idea.. every1 is going on bout how this brings money into the country and tourism levels would drop wen drinking is banned,, but dont u know that this money is haram.. i know i sound like one of these salafists,, but im only a muslim who cares about his country…
Ibn
Kamal,
every1 is going on bout how this brings money into the country and tourism levels would drop wen drinking is banned, but dont u know that this money is haram
*Sigh* If its prohibited, then prohibit yourself. Just who has put you in charge of prohibiting me?
But why stop with alcohol? I have a much better idea. Sharia-state! Afterall, we wouldnt want to live in a place that is haram right?
And finally, if you really cared about your country, you wouldnt try to attribute religious dogma as a source of its laws.
-Ibn
jasra jedi
it isnt said that alcohol is haram .. it is said that one should not pray when one is under the influence .. besides, in the day of the prophet, everyone was walking around half drunk on date wine .. he had to clean the bedouins up!
It seems not everyone is understanding the new law. From what i understand it is NEW licences that will not be granted. And even if the old ones are revoked then i dont see it as a problem cos then the lower 3 star places shut down and bahrain will be a better place. its the 3 star places that have the most violence and prostitution. The lesser of those means a better country.
I do not support a total ban! That will just loose the charm and excellent night life (Compared to this God forsakin country) of bahrain. I think Bahrain should redirect the income it receives (which is already happening) towards real estate and finance and forget the cheap measly dinars that come for alchol and prostitutes.
I hate saudis and have always done so for their driving and puny brains. Maybe this change will bring more uperclass EDUCATED saudis to the country so we can meet them and understand that they are not all cheap, dirty, filthy shi*t holes that they are.
The 5 star hotels and resturants will NEVER be affected and evreyone knows why. So what is the problem here? Isnt it good to make our country a more classy better place rather than a cheap brothel that everyone seems to think it is?
Ali M — Are you OK with expensive brothels? Or against brothels in general?
In other words, are you against them in principle, or only against “cheap” brothels for aesthetic reasons?
Brothels have been part of human culture for thousands of years. The first historical record of women offering themselves for sex was in Sumaria, Babylonia– in religious temples, as part of their religious rituals. For them, sex was part of the seasonal regenerative process — and did not have the kind of negative implications more modern religions associate with it.
Brothels are like restaurants — some clean and tidy with excellent service and high quality product; other’s like ‘greasy-spoons’ — meaning dingy, dirty establishments with soiled dishes, rude waiters, and stale, tasteless food.
So, would a four-star brothel in a secluded location in a non-residential area get your seal of approval — with or without Saudi clientèle? Or do all brothels get thumbs down?
JJ
expat
All I know is that we travel across from Saudi for the weekend occasionally to enjoy some ‘normality’. Last weekend we came across and enjoyed a very civilised dinner at a lovely restaurant which I guess is in a residential area with some jazz (musicians invited from overseas) and had 2 glasses of wine with our dinner. Please,please, please…..I just want to keep doing just what we did. The hope of the occasional civility is what ensures that those of us over the causeway maintain manageable stress levels. This sounds like the beginning of the slippery slope to exactly what we have over here, and let me tell you, that’s no fun.
Komta Kinte
MINSAF (winnow) & MINKHAL (sieve) ARE NEEDED
Guys, ONE: the instrument is “documents from the Information Ministry’s tourism affairs department” (not a yellow paper from the head turbine of a bearded mullah); TWO: the effect is urgent and important land re-zoning.(see Comment above – 01 Dec 2006 at 11:58 am Hajji Zaal)
So what’s the frenzy about?
Kamal
thanx for the reply’s.. bahrain is a muslim country whether one wants to believe so or not,, and drinking alcohol is a sin in islam,, therefore technically alcohol should be banned.. this is what is “normal” in our culture (directed in expat).. i personally support the new law, but currently alcohol should not be banned all over bahrain in my opinion. Mahmood. the next ‘compromise’ should be implementing the islamic law (since bahrain is muslim).. not as what it is in saudi arabia,, but the true islamic law with all traditions put aside.. The phrase islamic law sounds like “no women would drive, no equal rights for women, etc”!! but if one studies the sharia he will c that all wat goes on in saudi and iran is a bunch of pre-islamic traditions covering the real face of islam.
And what guarantees are there, Kamal, that the most austere form of Islam is not going to be implemented, much more than what Saudi or the Taliban have?
After all, isn’t that implementation is the literal sense of Islam?
It’s got to be either Black or White with no chance of gray at all in this sense, Kamal. If we are a Muslim country, and Islam and its shari’a are to be implemented, they should be implemented completely with no compromise. I fully support this implementation, and this is not a joke at all. I am deadly serious.
At least then, we will categorically know what the law is and what the responsibilities are, rather than this half-and-half world we live in at the moment.
Of course, if for any reason that version of Islamic State cannot be implemented, it is only right and proper to forget about this notion completely and turn our country into a true liberal modern state, and that means: removal of ALL references to Islam in the Constitution, banning the teaching of religion in schools and be completely secular.
I’m also completely for this second solution too.
I am fed up of living in this varying shades of gray area.
Let the country make up its mind, so that people can make their decision to continue to live under the laws of this country, or get the hell out and carry on with their lives.
So, my friend, which is it going to be?
Shall we propose a national referendum?
Soyanera
This rap (on 02 Dec 2006 at 11:36 am) is pathetic, really. Little knowledge is too dangerous.
Okay, if not all can be Islamic scholars, nor should so many be so ignorant as to want either a Taliban state or a completely ‘secular’ one – meaning Bush type of a castrated state. And this at a time when evidence is mounting that which indicates that the latter answer is even worse than the former.
You guys need neither forms of state. Nor can such ignorant lobbying for redefining your states needed.
I would tend to agree with you in normal circumstances, unfortunately the reality on the ground now states rather clearly that what we are heading toward is a totalitarian state governed on whims which lean very definitely to the ultra-religious. Completely aided and abetted by the government.
Ibn
Mr Kamal,
bahrain is a muslim country whether one wants to believe so or not,, and drinking alcohol is a sin in islam
THEN DONT DRINK IT!!
But how does gin and tonic going down MY esophagus any skin off YOUR back?!
And just what does “..is a muslim country ..” mean anyway? Homogeneity in religion doesnt mean homogeneity in taste. Put 10 random Muslims together in a room and I will bet my car they wont be able to agree on what “true” Islam is.
this is what is “normal†in our culture
More like abnormal. Just because something is prevalent doesnt make it right. Pre-Mohammad times the Pagan Arabs were burying their girls alive. A “normal part of their culture” if you asked any one of them at the time. Should that have been left alone too? I respect the Prophet Mohammad in this capacity for standing up to such absurd and murderous “normalcy” in his time, as you should respect others who are standing up to their 21st century counterparts today.
Mahmood. the next ‘compromise’ should be implementing the islamic law (since bahrain is muslim).. not as what it is in saudi arabia,, but the true islamic law with all traditions put aside..
Wa ma whowa hal Islam al haqiqi?! You keep saying that thou-must-not-drink-alcohol-because-god-commanded-it, and while I think the creator of the universe has much bigger problems to worry about than some of his creations getting intoxicated during the weekends on some obscure planet, even he says you have to use your brain, not follow blind and outdated instructions.
-Ibn
jasra jedi
Kamal,
Islamic Law SUCKS for women. Inheritance, Divorce, child custody … it sucks. I am sorry. But what worked during the time of the Prophet does NOT work in today’s society. There is no ijtihad. At all. And we pay the price. Go and look at your precious Islamic judges and see the utter randomness that they apply to rulings in the domestic sphere.
Islamic Banking has flourised. because, there was ijtihad in the definition of interest and risk, and because numerous Islamic scholars made a tidy bit of money but sitting on Islamic Sharia boards and determining what is and what is not acceptable. Has it ever crossed your mind why we havent be able to develop the same way when it comes to personal effect laws?
I’ll tell you why .. its because these so called Isalmic scholars want power and money. They dont give a damn about society.
So, what you may consider is an issue of alcohol and Islamic compliance, they will see in terms of power. Dont let them use you as fodder in their fight for power. Do you think Iran is ANY less corrupt today than it was under the Shah? No. Islamic revolutions just replaced one rule with another. No real change anywhere else. Just as brutal. Just as corrupt.
cannon plug
When are people going to figure out veryhting in this country is just eyewash to the extreme. My god avery precious individual was killed in a speeding car wreck this year, and I thought this will finally wake this this country up to the insanity on the roads here but nothing nothing has changed it is actually getting worse and will continue to do so. My Bahraini co-workers ask me all the time how is this country compared to New york or LA, I tell them nothing is different as a matter of fact it is allot easier to get a hooker here than anywhere I have ever been my god go to the Seashell hotel in adliya and the hookers come to your beckining call, you want booze drive to any of the booze shops have a free visa indian buy you anything any never get out of the car. Someone please tell me what is muslim about this country?
Prostitution is the oldest profession. Never disagreed there. Its impossible to stop it. Also no arguements there. BUT when it comes to class, Bahrain has become the cheapest place in the Gulf. I as a Bahraini have been treated lesser here in Australia by other Gulf nationals. Why? They see Bahrain as a brothel itself. That image needs to be changed. Stop the cheap shitholes and let the business go underground. It will LOOK better. Maybe my idea is wrong but i sure as hell hate having to answer back to some uneducated pee brain.
can we talk now
Bud Jones’ “The Ombibulous Mr. Mencken” cited H.L. Mencken :
Five years of Prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.
Mencken also said: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
My contribution: why is it that we cannot learn from other people’s mistakes?
Maverick
Why not build a permanenant workable disney world type park here with Islamic leanings and architechture with mini mouse and other type charaters in islamic dress, and employing only bahrainies, with payer timings allowed and no alcohol served and allowing for multiple family death leaves and then drive out the prostitutes, pimps and alcohol and then you may attract family tourism in Bahrain.
Before you kick out the cheap attactions get in something nice for the deserving public. People should have a reason to come to Bahrain besides Islamic and Offshore banking and to see relatives who slog here to earn a living.
God I need a drink…….!
Maverick
I know I may have exagerated, but I have see so much crap about family tourism, that the only type I know is to get me and my family out of here for a vacation to a select tourist destination.
I am not against alcohol, there is nothing wrong with moderate consupmtion.
Prostitution is not something I condone nor condem as it has its place in society and fulfills a need…..a very base human need…some are forced by financial circumstance or by physical force. Either way you look at it, it is exploitable by some people. I wish that it can be rid off…but there are some who cannot get it and must buy it to fulfill themselves. Some cheat on their spouses, some don’t have spouses or dont’t want the burden or family and just want sex and have to pay for it….
In an truly islamic society all women and men must marry and women have to give into their husband sexual needs whether she likes it or not. So I am told……how perfect or right is that???????
Prostitution when forced on any one is morally wrong and it is even equally morally wrong to rape your wife as to rape any other woman. I firmly belive this.
Nough.said…for da day…les’ have a cold one mate…..hic….
=D =D
jasra jedi
ok .. since we have a gloves off policy here .. lets discuss zawaj mutaa and zawaj misyar!
both of these forms of ‘marriage’ can be seen as ijtihad in a islamically compliant time limited code of behavior that governs sexual relations between a man and a woman …(that ultimately removes ALL responsability from the man in case he fathers a child) ….
like i said .. most of our turbanned ones are obsessed with getting some. and lots of it. with no strings attached.
where is the ijithad for everything else that is conisdered taboo and haram in islam? where is the law on adoption?
Maverick
Actually the Holy Quran speaks of Khamra (intoxicants) and not alcohol. This may include drugs, beauty etc. So why not ban beauty as well. Because some get intoxicated (sakraan) looking just at a woman. I have see bozos like this.
They chase other women but get their undies in a knot when some one looks at their daughers from 10 meters down the street through the shaded glass of their home windows against the afternoon glare…as narated to me by their daughters…..
Many religious authorities and lay persons of many religions use their religions to theorise, discriminate, postulate and exterminate others who stand in way of propgating their beliefs.
:grinnod: =D =|
Western Commentator
“in Afghanistan, when the Taliban first came to power, everyone was pleased because they controlled the streets and made it safe for people. Then, once they got power and controlled the streets, no alochol in residential areas, no women, wine or drugs, and then finally, no education for women and strict sharia law. they started spreading their values, which were vehemently anti women, anti freedom of speech, anti liberalism,anti everything. and of course, anti islam.”
The Taliban anti-islam? I thought they were hardline fundamentalists who took the Quran and the hadiths completely literally.
I’m afraid liberal islam is not the islam found in the holy books. There is no way to reconcile equal rights for men and women and orthodox islamic teachings. For example, in matters pertaining to inheritance or acting as a witness, women are less than equal to men. Also death penalty for apostasy seems to have a firm islamic basis. (Some time ago, the authorities were under political pressure from abroad not to execute an Afgani apostate, so they resorted to a loophole in shariah: the apostate was declared insane.)
Christianity is fortunately more malleable than islam because none of the Bible is said to be God’s direct speech and because the Bible is rife with contradictions at multiple conceptual levels.
johnster
I have no problem with alcohol being banned in Bahrain provided the ban is implemented everywhere and for everyone.
Look at Saudi (biggest importer of whisky) or US during prohibiton (the effect was a huge growth in organised crime)
It just doesn’t work
Ibn
Western Commentator,
The Taliban anti-islam? I thought they were hardline fundamentalists who took the Quran and the hadiths completely literally.
If you think that the Taliban were “real” Muslims by virtue of “taking the Qur’an literally”, then you must also see the Inquisitions and the Crusaders as “real” Christians, and literally-interpreting Jews who “kill gentiles” as “real” Jews.
The conclusion of course is that the 1.3 billion Muslims who do not take Islam literally are somehow agnostic or “not really Muslim”.
What an interesting twist. Im afraid this is yet another semantic conflabulation on your part, as when you implied that cultures who are at each others’ throats do so because they are being too multi-cultural.
I’m afraid liberal islam is not the islam found in the holy books. There is no way to reconcile equal rights for men and women and orthodox islamic teachings.
Ok, dude: You state that liberal Islam != to orthodox Islam. Dude! Really!? One would have never guessed! 😆 What liberal interpretation of any religion equals its orthodox counterpart? Thats why its called “liberal”! 🙄
Christianity is fortunately more malleable than islam because none of the Bible is said to be God’s direct speech and because the Bible is rife with contradictions at multiple conceptual levels.
To the secular eye, every religious is rife with contradictions. However I doubt that any well-grounded Christian, will tell you “Oh yes, we are more malleable than Islam because our book is full of contradictions.” haha. Seriously. How many times have you heard “God says in genesis blah blah blah..” Any person who calls himself a serious Christian holds that Bible as Gods word, guidance, and script, written of course, by man.
Me thinks you need to re-examine your stances Mr Western.
-Ibn
Western Commentator
“If you think that the Taliban were “real†Muslims by virtue of “taking the Qur’an literallyâ€Â, then you must also see the Inquisitions and the Crusaders as “real†Christians, and literally-interpreting Jews who “kill gentiles†as “real†Jews.”
The God of the Jews really ordered the Jews to wipe out their enemies at some specific occasions. I don’t know Judaism well enough to know whether the Jews are under permanent orders to purge the world of gentiles. I doubt that. But then again, I don’t know Judaism very well.
When it comes to the Crusades and their RELIGIOUS justification, it gets very messy because Jesus taught the opposite of retaliation, but the God of the Old Testament definitely did order massacres.
“The conclusion of course is that the 1.3 billion Muslims who do not take Islam literally are somehow agnostic or “not really Muslimâ€Â.”
I did not say they were “not really Muslim”.
Fortunately, most Muslims of the world ignore the suras from the later Medina period that order Muslims to impose sharia law upon the entire humanity. Most predominantly Muslim countries also do not implement sharia in its entirety. Some do, however.
“What an interesting twist.”
But I do understand that the risk of been labeled apostate is so serious that they may not afford complete staightforward intellectual honesty at all times.
“Im afraid this is yet another semantic conflabulation on your part, as when you implied that cultures who are at each others’ throats do so because they are being too multi-cultural.”
What I implied and later explained was that a multi-cultural *state* is at a greater risk of conflict than a monocultural one. I also explained that the risk exists when the different cultures have irreconciliable views on the fundamental organizing principles of society, not when the differences are superficial as in only pertaining to dress, cuisine, or other things of similar nature.
OTOH, if a *person* is multicultural, it simply implies membership of more than one culture. Such a person is much less likely to want any kind of conflict between cultures.
“Ok, dude: You state that liberal Islam != to orthodox Islam. Dude! Really!? One would have never guessed! What liberal interpretation of any religion equals its orthodox counterpart? Thats why its called “liberalâ€Â!”
Liberal Islam is diluted Islam. Women are consired less worthy as witnesses than men under sharia law. Sharia is based on Islamic sources and according to sharia the value of a woman’s testimony in court is half of a man’s. That’s it. There is no way around it. Thus any Islamic feminism or liberalism has no choice but to ignore that part of Islam to demand full legal competence for women.
“To the secular eye, every religious is rife with contradictions. However I doubt that any well-grounded Christian, will tell you “Oh yes, we are more malleable than Islam because our book is full of contradictions.†haha. Seriously. How many times have you heard “God says in genesis blah blah blah..†Any person who calls himself a serious Christian holds that Bible as Gods word, guidance, and script, written of course, by man.”
Christian theologeans throughout centuries have been very well aware of the contradictions of Christianity. Take for instance the theodicean problem. Or the notion of trinity. Or the fact that God is said to be omnipotent and yet it was necessary for Go to sacrifice his son to have the sins of humanity forgiven. That implies that not even God is above the iron law of sin and punishment, that is, not omnipotent. That some Christians think Christianity is free of contradictions, does not change the fact that the Bible has contradictions to it one iota.
On the other hand, Islamic theology is in many ways more elegant and logical. Islamic scholars have devoted considerable intellectual firepower to resolving the contradictions apparent material within the Quran and the hadiths or between them. One result has been the principle of abrogation whereby chronologically later revealed verses abrogate earlier ones in case of contradiction. I might be wrong, but I’m under the impression that that the doctrine of abrogation is part of mainstream Islamic theology today. The Quran itself gives it some justification. If I recall correctly, there is at least one verse to that explicitly mentions changing revelation rendering some verses no longer in force.
Could someone concisely inform this un-informed infidel?
1) Where is it set down in Islamic teachings that alcohol is banned and what are the reasons set out for it?
2)Who is the current supreme leader of the Islamic religion (is there one) and how did he obtain that position?
3)Does any current Islamic leader have the power to make modern interpretations or revisions of historical edicts?
Ibn
Mr Western Commentator,
When quoting someone, please make use of the “blockquote” “/blockquote” buttons available to you. It makes for a much easier read.
The God of the Jews really ordered the Jews to wipe out their enemies at some specific occasions. I don’t know Judaism well enough to know whether the Jews are under permanent orders to purge the world of gentiles. I doubt that. But then again, I don’t know Judaism very well.
Whether they were told to purge the world of gentiles, or only kill gentiles with bad haircuts, is not the point. The point is that their book contains literal commands for some really evil things. Murder, human sacrifice, etc. But today, no one does them, because I think few Jews read the Talmud literally.
Now if we stick to your lacksadaisical definition of someone being a “real” Muslim by following literal Islam like the Taliban, or someone being a “real” Jew by following literal Judaism, then that means the rest of the 1.3 billion Muslims and 15 million Jews or so are somewhat “fake”. i.e, not really Muslim/Jewish.
I did not say they were “not really Muslimâ€Â.
Then what are they according to you?
Fortunately, most Muslims of the world ignore the suras from the later Medina period that order Muslims to impose sharia law upon the entire humanity. Most predominantly Muslim countries also do not implement sharia in its entirety. Some do, however.
Fortunately most Jews and Christians ignore alot of verses and commands to commit murder, pillage, etc from their books. Great. We are stating the obvious.
What I implied and later explained was that a multi-cultural *state* is at a greater risk of conflict than a monocultural one. I also explained that the risk exists when the different cultures have irreconciliable views on the fundamental organizing principles of society, not when the differences are superficial as in only pertaining to dress, cuisine, or other things of similar nature.
Well, I think “…irreconciliable views on the fundamental organizing principles of society…” is called ideology. You damned every aspect of multiculturalism when you use/used it in this way, whereas what you really meant at the end of the day, was that some ideologies are like oil and water with each other. So why not just say that?
Liberal Islam is diluted Islam. Women are consired less worthy as witnesses than men under sharia law. Sharia is based on Islamic sources and according to sharia the value of a woman’s testimony in court is half of a man’s. That’s it. There is no way around it. Thus any Islamic feminism or liberalism has no choice but to ignore that part of Islam to demand full legal competence for women.
You are making the following errors:
1) Being ignorant of how religions evolve. 2) Not judging something in the context of its time. 3) Not giving interpretation (tafsir) the credance it deserves.
Think of religion as an input. Think of interpretation as a function, and think of the end result as the output. While no one can do anything about the input, (literal Islam), people can do alot of things about the interpretation, and hence, the output.
In Islamic history, what the Prophet Mohammad did was actually give women in his time more rights than they originally had. The Islamic Arabs had a much more fair treatment of women than their Pagan counterparts.
Now, who is to say that modern Islamic feminists wont evoke similar sentiments in their attempt for reformation? Which brings us to how religions evolve over time: You state that “there is nothing you can do about it.” Well thats wrong. Major religions have undergone a reformation, where, interpretations and re-interpretations are added on top of what previously existed. How does today’s Christinianity differ from that of the Crusaders? Alot im sure. Due to different interpretations. How does today’s Judaism differ from yester-millenia’s? Were the Jews damned to be bloodthirsty because the archaic Talmud had questionable parts? No. It got reinterpreted.
Actually, strictly speaking, no one follows literal Islam today, save a few people. The majority of your Muslim populace are nothing like the founders. So the proof of this concept is already in the pudding.
What you fail to account for, is that religion – or its interpretation by most – is modulated, warped, and re-interpreted due to cultural norms, the sands of time, political events, scholars, etc. This is how religion changes. People who sit down and try to come up with new interpretations and new truths in understanding are called “reformers”. So no, there you are very wrong in stating “there is nothing that can be done about it.” Liberal reformers of Islam are going to succeed – for its time, Islam was actually quite a liberal religion.
One result has been the principle of abrogation whereby chronologically later revealed verses abrogate earlier ones in case of contradiction.
Perhaps, but again, thats one interpretation. IMO, a good interpreter must take not only chronological data into account, but contextual also.
-Ibn
Maverick
Dear Ibn,
One result has been the principle of abrogation whereby chronologically later revealed verses abrogate earlier ones in case of contradiction.
Perhaps, but again, thats one interpretation. IMO, a good interpreter must take not only chronological data into account, but contextual also.
This interprets to mean (that since the suras that came later abrogated at time the earlier suras) that God is not perfect and was working this out slowly with his revelations to Mohamed. But since the Quran is considered by Muslims to be a perfection and finality of God’s religion, this is a serious contradiction of God’s infalliability, Is it not? Just curious. Perhaps I have misunderstood.
Or perhaps the earlier recorders of the revelations made mistakes or God found the exploitable loop holes and covered them up with later binding suras.
This is why I always prefer the book to come and fall down on my head from the heavens than to completely and blindly believe something that was written over 1000 years ago and written by someone other than the speaker or revealer. This is not a criticism, but my observation of the limitation of needing human interpretation. Irrespective of language, why could not a perfect operational manual be sent to humans, why you need a Bible, Geeta, Quran and then interpretations, vedas, sharia, hadith etc.
God help me! Ya Allah Rahmani!
Dear Observer,
Could someone concisely inform this un-informed infidel?
1) Where is it set down in Islamic teachings that alcohol is banned and what are the reasons set out for it?
Quran forbids consumption of intoxicants (alcohol is the most common one, hence the interpretation), partcularly before prayers. IF you have consumed it, your prayers are not accpeted. You have to cleanse yourself for many days…I am not sure of the prescribed number of days.
2)Who is the current supreme leader of the Islamic religion (is there one) and how did he obtain that position?
3)Does any current Islamic leader have the power to make modern interpretations or revisions of historical edicts?
I believe the Egyptian Garnd Mufti is the accepted leader for the general populace…please correct me someone. I am not sure how he is chosen.
Ibn
Maverick,
This interprets to mean (that since the suras that came later abrogated at time the earlier suras) that God is not perfect and was working this out slowly with his revelations to Mohamed. But since the Quran is considered by Muslims to be a perfection and finality of God’s religion, this is a serious contradiction of God’s infalliability, Is it not?
Or perhaps the earlier recorders of the revelations made mistakes or God found the exploitable loop holes and covered them up with later binding suras.
Mr Maverick, you can drop the sarcasm, as I am in fact, an Athiest.
-Ibn
Western Commentator
on 05 Dec 2006 at 11:55 pm Ibn Mr Western Commentator,
When quoting someone, please make use of the “blockquote†“/blockquote†buttons available to you. It makes for a much easier read.
Ok.
“The God of the Jews really ordered the Jews to wipe out their enemies at some specific occasions. I don’t know Judaism well enough to know whether the Jews are under permanent orders to purge the world of gentiles. I doubt that. But then again, I don’t know Judaism very well.”
Whether they were told to purge the world of gentiles, or only kill gentiles with bad haircuts, is not the point. The point is that their book contains literal commands for some really evil things. Murder, human sacrifice, etc.
It is very much the point from the POV of a true believer.
But today, no one does them, because I think few Jews read the Talmud literally.
In other words, practice a diluted form of Judaism, if your description of the Talmud is accurate.
“”Now if we stick to your lacksadaisical definition of someone being a “real†Muslim by following literal Islam like the Taliban, or someone being a “real†Jew by following literal Judaism, then that means the rest of the 1.3 billion Muslims and 15 million Jews or so are somewhat “fakeâ€Â. i.e, not really Muslim/Jewish.””
“I did not say they were “not really Muslimâ€Â.”
Then what are they according to you?
Partially observant Muslims. People who have a Muslim identity but who fail to put parts of the religion into practice.
“Fortunately, most Muslims of the world ignore the suras from the later Medina period that order Muslims to impose sharia law upon the entire humanity. Most predominantly Muslim countries also do not implement sharia in its entirety. Some do, however.”
Fortunately most Jews and Christians ignore alot of verses and commands to commit murder, pillage, etc from their books. Great. We are stating the obvious.
You seem to miss my point entirely.
Christians are NOT under PERMANENT ORDERS from God Almighty to wage war on infidels until they all submit to divine law. I doubt very much that the Jews are, either.
There are specific instances in the Old Testament where Yahweh orders genocides and other disgusting things but those are NOT PERMANENT ORDERS codified into an equivalent of Sharia law.
The Christian equivalent of Sharia are the Ten Commandments. None of the commandments say anything about imposing those commandments on infidels (by force if necessary). Also, Jesus commanded his followers to “make all peoples his disciples” but HE DID NOT SPECIFY THE MEANS.
All this means that even a fully intellectually honest, strict literalist fundamentalist Christian is allowed to refrain from supporting or participating in warfare aimed at imposing divine law upon the whole world, whereas his/her Muslim counterpart is obliged to do just that. If the principle of abrogation were discarded, then the Muslim equivalent of such a fundamentalist could be peaceful, too. That principle is, however, very deeply entrenched in Islamic jurisprudence.
“What I implied and later explained was that a multi-cultural *state* is at a greater risk of conflict than a monocultural one. I also explained that the risk exists when the different cultures have irreconciliable views on the fundamental organizing principles of society, not when the differences are superficial as in only pertaining to dress, cuisine, or other things of similar nature.”
Well, I think “…irreconciliable views on the fundamental organizing principles of society…†is called ideology. You damned every aspect of multiculturalism when you use/used it in this way, whereas what you really meant at the end of the day, was that some ideologies are like oil and water with each other. So why not just say that?
No, I didn’t because I explicitly introduced and defined the notion of “soft-core multiculturalism”, against which I have nothing. But you might say that, sometimes, different ideologies are embedded in different cultures.
“Liberal Islam is diluted Islam. Women are consired less worthy as witnesses than men under sharia law. Sharia is based on Islamic sources and according to sharia the value of a woman’s testimony in court is half of a man’s. That’s it. There is no way around it. Thus any Islamic feminism or liberalism has no choice but to ignore that part of Islam to demand full legal competence for women.”
You are making the following errors:
1) Being ignorant of how religions evolve. 2) Not judging something in the context of its time. 3) Not giving interpretation (tafsir) the credance it deserves.
Why don’t you tell all that to the mainstream Islamic schools of jurisprudence.
Think of religion as an input. Think of interpretation as a function, and think of the end result as the output. While no one can do anything about the input, (literal Islam), people can do alot of things about the interpretation, and hence, the output.
What you are ignoring is that the input constrains the output in a signifigant way.
The whole enterprise of Islamic jurisprudence is about an honest acknowledgment of what the sources say and interpreting them in practical situatios. Islamic jurisprudence is also about figuring out what to do with the apparent contradictions within and between the sources. Serious high-calibre minds have been working on the problems for centuries.
In Islamic history, what the Prophet Mohammad did was actually give women in his time more rights than they originally had. The Islamic Arabs had a much more fair treatment of women than their Pagan counterparts.
Now, who is to say that modern Islamic feminists wont evoke similar sentiments in their attempt for reformation?
Some already have. But it’s not working very well. I haven’t heard of any changes made to sharia law toward feminist objectives by any major school of jurisprudence.
Which brings us to how religions evolve over time: You state that “there is nothing you can do about it.†Well thats wrong. Major religions have undergone a reformation, where, interpretations and re-interpretations are added on top of what previously existed. How does today’s Christinianity differ from that of the Crusaders? Alot im sure. Due to different interpretations. How does today’s Judaism differ from yester-millenia’s? Were the Jews damned to be bloodthirsty because the archaic Talmud had questionable parts? No. It got reinterpreted.
The scriptures of Christianity are such a huge and deeply internally contradictory mess that it’s simply not posssible to follow Christianity literally without selectiveness. It never has been. There genuinely is more room for interpretation within Christianity than in Islam with far less mental gymnastics.
Actually, strictly speaking, no one follows literal Islam today, save a few people. The majority of your Muslim populace are nothing like the founders. So the proof of this concept is already in the pudding.
What you fail to account for, is that religion – or its interpretation by most – is modulated, warped, and re-interpreted due to cultural norms, the sands of time, political events, scholars, etc. This is how religion changes. People who sit down and try to come up with new interpretations and new truths in understanding are called “reformersâ€Â. So no, there you are very wrong in stating “there is nothing that can be done about it.†Liberal reformers of Islam are going to succeed – for its time, Islam was actually quite a liberal religion.
I find the very liberal use of the word “interpretation” often found associated with religious scriptures rather disturbing because I am the kind of person who desires clarity. In other contexts the world “interprete” means making sense of something with emphasis on preserving the information and meaning in the original message – as in intepreting foreign languages or in the interpretation of high-level programming language into machine code. Sometimes the interpretation adds new information into the message but the idea is that it never contradicts it.
For example, nobody has ever seriously suggested that Christianity be “re-interpreted” to consider Jesus merely a man, and not an embodiment of God in any manner whatsoever. Such an “interpretation” would clearly be out of the scope of the source texts. There is an appropriate word for that in religious discourse: heresy.
“One result has been the principle of abrogation whereby chronologically later revealed verses abrogate earlier ones in case of contradiction.”
Perhaps, but again, thats one interpretation. IMO, a good interpreter must take not only chronological data into account, but contextual also.
I have understood that the principle of abrogation is part of mainstream Islamic theology and has been for over a 1000 years. I could be wrong, and believe me, I’d like to be.
Western Commentator
I’d like to add one more thing about the evolution of religion: While it is perfectly true that the interpretation of religion gets “warped and modulated” in the course of ages, that is, evolves, it is also true that as long as the foundations remain unchanged, fundamentalist (= “back to the basics”) movements emerge from time to time to purge the accumulated distortions. In Christianity, there was Protestantism which was against the corrupt practices of the Catholic Church. In Islam, there was Wahhabism (although Wahhabism is dedidedly unislamic in that it preaches the complete annihilation of Jews and Christians, and not just imposing sharia law upon them).
Ibn
Mr Western Commentator,
Sorry for the long delay. Final exam season is upon us (yet) again.
“I did not say they were “not really Muslimâ€Â.â€Â
Then what are they according to you?
Partially observant Muslims. People who have a Muslim identity but who fail to put parts of the religion into practice.
Partially observant Muslims? First off, any way you slice it, a “partially observant” Muslim is not a “real” Muslim. So I take it you DO in fact consider them “not real”. (According to you). But according to THEM, most will tell you, that they are, by all means, “real” Muslims. They might say that they do not “observe” it properly on things like 5-times-a-day prayers, fasting, etc, but that they are “at the core, Muslim.” Essentially, your definition of a “true” Muslim, and their definition of a “true” Muslim, are different. This is the source of the problem. (More on this later).
Christians are NOT under PERMANENT ORDERS from God Almighty to wage war on infidels until they all submit to divine law. I doubt very much that the Jews are, either.
And Muslims are? See, this is where it gets interesting. Even the Qur’an itself contains contradictions regarding this, on the one hand, dhimitude, and on the other, saying that “there is no compulsion in religion”. Now if the holy book itself cant make its own mind up, what can you expect of its interpretations?
You say “but you are under permanent orders from God to invade”. Really? What interpretation are you using? Whos interpretation? No interpretation, just literal? Well then what was the context of that statement in the Qur’an? Defence? Conquering? What is it? You cannot just paste a statement from a book and say “see! see! it says conquer!”
Again, in some interpretations, someone might say he is on a mission to conquer and invade all infidels. Some other interpretations, might say live and let live, get on with you life, be a good person. You have 1.3 billion Muslims on the planet. Ill let you take a guess which interpretation most of them probably subscribe to, the former, or latter.
The Christian equivalent of Sharia are the Ten Commandments.
😆 I am no theologian, and unless you are too, that is just, simply, false. Christianity is a religion, not a shopping list. And religion it is, because its “dos and donts” are QUITE extensive, and go way beyond instructions you can put on a post-it sticky. Exibit A: World History vis a vis christiandom.
None of the commandments say anything about imposing those commandments on infidels (by force if necessary).
That would be true is the commandments were the be all and end all of being a Christian. Any aspiring preist will tell you there alot more. So, moot point. (Also see above).
Also, Jesus commanded his followers to “make all peoples his disciples†but HE DID NOT SPECIFY THE MEANS.
When someone doesnt specify the means, he leaves it pretty open-ended. In other words, just about anything goes. This seems just ripe for modulation with any particular grievancnce or world event. Wait…Im getting something…the..the…oh yeah, the Crusades. Just following Jesus’ command to make all people his diciples after all. How cute.
If the principle of abrogation were discarded, then the Muslim equivalent of such a fundamentalist could be peaceful, too. That principle is, however, very deeply entrenched in Islamic jurisprudence.
Deeply ingrained? I see. Thats why 1.3 billion Muslims are trying to forcefully spread their religion. It all makes sense now.
And if you’re going to tell me, “well, I meant your scholars, not everyday people”, then I will tell you, that this “deep and scary ingrainment” is apparently as important as what jellyfish say to each other during sex, seeing as how it doesnt seem to rally your 1.3 Muslim hordes to your doorstep.
No, I didn’t because I explicitly introduced and defined the notion of “soft-core multiculturalismâ€Â, against which I have nothing. But you might say that, sometimes, different ideologies are embedded in different cultures.
First you said “multicutural”. I raised an issue. Then you said “ok its actually the hard-core-part-of-multicultural”. I again raised an issue. Then you said “ok ok actually its the fundamental-organizing-principles-of-a-society”. Then I raised yet another issue, sadly informing you that there is already a definition for this concept: Ideology.
So why? What are you doing? Why are you making new distinctions? Why damn the whole word? Why are you re-inventing the wheel?
Look, I wouldnt dare come between you and your plans for creating a new language, but please pretty please be more accurate in your statements. If all you meant was “ideology”, then quit using “culture” as if the two are interchangable! Culture has many, many facets, some of which might contribute to some values, and of those some, a few which then might in some way contribute to elements within an ideology. So please! Use the common language between us: English! I aim for accuracy! And I trust you do too.
More in next post.
-Ibn
Ibn
Part II
I said: You are making the following errors:
1) Being ignorant of how religions evolve. 2) Not judging something in the context of its time. 3) Not giving interpretation (tafsir) the credance it deserves.
You said: Why don’t you tell all that to the mainstream Islamic schools of jurisprudence.
The real question is, why you are making the same errors.
What you are ignoring is that the input constrains the output in a signifigant way.
Yes, it is constrained. For example, no one can claim that the Prophet Mohammad had webbed feet. But the pattern you see is here: Where it matters, (human affairs), people will disagree, and give rise to sects, interpretations, schools of thought, etc. (Unconstrained). Where it doesnt matter, (Mohammad’s favourite color, what god is made of, the nature of hell), you will see there wide concensus. And quite frankly, its because no one could really care less, save, maybe, some theology PhDs working on a thesis titled “Treatise on Satan’s rebellious personality and its short term effects on the eternal black fires of hell.”
So when something deals with human affiars, you can bet you will always find unconstrained outputs, even if the input itself is constrained. Just look at the American constitution – look at how neatly the first and second ammendmands were engineered, and yet they are STILL the subject of wide and far debates, interpretations and opinions on their “real” meanings by every Joe Shmoe and his brother.
Holy books are vastly more complicated than carefully engineering constitutioal ammendments, so no, you are mistaken to think that their outputs, (especially on human affairs), are going to be constrained in any way shape or form.
I said: Now, who is to say that modern Islamic feminists wont evoke similar sentiments in their attempt for reformation?
You said: Some already have. But it’s not working very well. I haven’t heard of any changes made to sharia law toward feminist objectives by any major school of jurisprudence.
LOL! Well, exxcuuuuse me! haha, but with all due respect to my fellow debater, Modern Islamic feminist movements do not have a copy of your 2006-2007 outbox calendar.
Have you honestly looked at when such movements started? Have you calculated how much time has elapsed since then? Have you compared that to historical precedents on women’s movements (example: Declaration that “all men are created equal”, to the civil rights movement)? Have you done any of these? Or are you just peeved because you are like that kid in the back seat yelling “are we there yet?!, are we there yet?!”, only to have human-history at the wheel turn around and scold you saying “patience!”? Hmm?
So thanks, but no thanks. Massive social changes on issues of rights the such, take time, probably on the scale of centuries. On some other post, I estimated about 150 years since changes are usually generational. If you are true to you alias, and “Western”, then you will also look at your own history and see that giving women their rights wasnt exactly a cake walk. The battle was against societal patriarchy, (check), religion, (check), and discrimination. (check).
Listen to the driver. :rolleyes:
The scriptures of Christianity are such a huge and deeply internally contradictory mess that it’s simply not posssible to follow Christianity literally without selectiveness. It never has been. There genuinely is more room for interpretation within Christianity than in Islam with far less mental gymnastics.
Moot. See above paragraph on when-it-comes-to-human-affairs-everyone-has-a-great-idea-and-they-will-probably-go-down-swinging-defending-it.
I find the very liberal use of the word “interpretation†often found associated with religious scriptures rather disturbing because I am the kind of person who desires clarity.
Ahh, good. Our first common ground.
as in intepreting foreign languages or in the interpretation of high-level programming language into machine code. Sometimes the interpretation adds new information into the message but the idea is that it never contradicts it.
Never contradicts what? The meaning before? Ahh, but see thats the problem – in religion, its the initial meaning that you are interpreting from the raw text to begin with! Nothing to contradict. (But you have to preserve context).
In translations however, you are simply mapping the already existing meanings of foreign words, to your new words. Mapping. Not defining.
In religious interpretation, you are DEFINING what the initial meaning is to begin with!
So there is no comparison. Moreover, with machine code, no one is going to disagree with you that “101” in binary equals 5. Or that “C” in HEX equals 12. But natural language? Phew. Good luck. Natural languages are ambigous to begin with. This is because they are based on associations. Machine languages on the other hand, are fool proof, because they are based on unambigous maths and logic.
Actually, the very fact I had to type the last three paragraphs just goes to show that you are interpreting the very word “interpret” differently than I am, because we are speaking a natural language. (Which sometimes you have a tendency to redefine apparently. 😛 ). And this is just one word. Imagine holy books.
——————————————–
One more thing: Poetry. Ever wonder what makes it tick? Thats right. Ambiguity. Unclarity. INTERPRETATION. Mine. Yours. Hers. Theirs. Thats why they mean different things for different people. No one ever agrees on the “real” meaning of a poem, because unless you get inside the writer’s head, (maybe through a biography), you can never know!
Take this verse from Shakspeare:
There’s daggers’ in men’s smiles.
How simple this metaphor is, how immaculate, how short, how simply astounding, yet it captures and speaks about something so efficiently and beutifully.
What does this mean? How do you interpret it? I take it to mean to be wary of your fellow man, because even though he might be nice to you, he might have ulteriour motives. Thats my interpretation: Be wary. Someone else might interpret this similarly, but come away literally not trusting people who smile at them all too often. Some might dismiss the entire thing. Some might interpret this to mean that even at man’s best, there is always a hidden deep darkness, maybe some sort of original sin. Still someone else might come away with the piece of advice of “for every good thing, there must be a bad thing” – they have expanded it not just from men, but to the world.
Now this is just one sentence. Imagine an entire holy book, written 1400 years ago, where half of it is mostly metaphor. Have you even picked up a Qur’an? Did you know that alot of it is literally, poetry? It has moved people to tears. It has moved people to wars. It has moved people to repentance. It has moved people away from it. It has moved people towards it.
Essentially, it moves you in whatever direction you want to move in.
———————————————-
Here is a quick Wiki search on “poetry”:
Poetry often uses particular forms and conventions to expand the literal meaning of the words, or to invoke emotional or sensual responses. Devices such as assonance, alliteration and rhythm are sometimes used to achieve musical or incantatory effects. Poetry’s use of ambiguity, symbolism, irony and other stylistic elements of poetic diction often leaves a poem open to multiple interpretations. Similarly, metaphor and simile create a resonance between otherwise disparate imagesâ€â€a layering of meanings, forming connections previously not perceived. Kindred forms of resonance may exist, between individual verses, in their patterns of rhyme or rhythm.
And this is just pure poetry. Imagine a Holy book, told to be gods word itself, written in rich interleaving poetry and metaphor, written in a place where daylight itself could kill you, where shady political assasinations were the norm, in a time of brutal Empires, child burying Pagans, and uncertain futures…
… and here you are, after all of this, telling me, purporting a simplistic, unchekced, impatient and uncorroborated opinion, even countrary to emperical evidence, that Muslims are under “permanent order to kill infidels”, because of some verse in the Qur’an ..?..
Just what age group did you check on the site poll anyway?
… Shame on you Mr WC. Shame. On. You. A thousand times over.
-Ibn
can we talk
Ibn, always love reading your posts. you must have been a philosopher in a past life… you are either a) done with finals, :happy: or b) using avoidance.:???: in case of the latter, best of luck. 😀
Ibn
CWT,
A philosopher!? Naaww… thanks CWT – but you give me too much credit. 🙂 You have a great head on your shoulders – I am just a lowly lowly student.. but thanks for your kind words! 🙂
Actually if I had to pick what I was in a previous life, I would probably pick a cat, seeing as how nocturnal I tend to be! hehe
I have to agree with CWTN .. I love reading your posts … I always learn something and I always end up smiling … you have a very uncluttered mind …
good luck …
Ibn
Heh .. geez…thanks JJ! … I enjoy reading your posts too – very fiery and funny! (and right on point if I may add) 😀
.. now the three of you CWTN/Mahmood/JJ are embarrassing me! hehe.. (lets see.. wheres that blushing emoticon… there it is..oooo…he kinda looks angry…ok, ill just put the one with his tongue sticking out instead… ) 😛
Im glad you take from me, as I take from you, JJ. Mahmood, its times like this I want to re-itterate, how happy I am that you have a blog like this. Its a credit to us fellow Arabs. I really enjoy it, as well as all the cats it brings in. Real issues, real life.
The only problem is that your addicting blog has a tendency to turn my 5-minute coffee breaks into an hour long siesta! I demand you do something about this! 😀
What can I do man, it’s the Mtv charm, and it’s only possible because of everyone’s input! Always something new and exciting to come back to :happy:
can we talk
Ibn,
by the way, if I may be presumptious.. if you get a chance to take a law course as an elective, i think you would probably love it.. even business law.. the way your brain seems to operate, you would enjoy it a lot and probably end up taking more than one..
please excuse the nosiness.. and feel free to ignore any suggestions
I am just a lowly lowly student
students are never lowly.. that’s an oxymoron
Ibn
Thanks again CWTN – but as strange as this may sound, I cant really stand the thought of me litigating in front of a court room on why some man from say, west virginia, didnt really kill his wife in a jealous rage based on new earth shattering evidence that his own sister had a crush on him. Eh. Just another day in the boonies for them. Not important enough you know? hehe. Same with business law – too dry…
Having said that however, I very much enjoyed an economics elective I had once about 3 years ago. “Public Policy” was the name. That was really good – my final paper analyzed Nasser’s Egypt actually. Since alot of Arab countries modelled after him at the time I thought it would be good to study and analyse the policies he enacted, and how they affected Egyptians. (He was heavily socialist so that really screwed the economy at the time). (An Egyptian friend of mine was once going off on how Egypt is so great “Al Masr umm al-dunya!”, and this Morrocan chick goes “wal maghrib abouha!” haha 😆 ) Bit I sidetrack…
Also, with lawyers, at the end of the day, you are argueing and trying to enact change with one entity – an individual, a company, and in rare cases a country (REALLY rare). And even then, you are after something. Money. A change of some obscure clause somewhere. Telling someone to pay rolayties for infringing on a patent. Its so limited in impact.
But with argueing politics, current events, values, national strategy, etc, your audience is much much broader – you have the chance to sculpt opinions, mould values, create drifts in political thinking en masse – which if you play your cards right, means you can create new types of societies – maybe even whole new philosphies. This is what I personally enjoy the most.
In law, you steer man. In this, you steer mankind.
.. so who wants to ride shotgun? 🙂
-Ibn
can we talk
whatever turns you on.. best of luck.. and have fun on the way
Ranger
Guys,
what on gods green earth is the matter with you. Bahrain is in fact a muslim country, but it also has a reputation for being a very liberal country. It is the only GCC country that has a jewish temple, mosque and several churches that sit close together. People plan trips to bahrain in advance and on the spot. It is a country that you can do whatever you want where ever you want and whenever you want. It has a reputation that if you do not want to drink, then do not drink. For god sake a bahraini women has a powerful position in the UN. ITS 2007 people, countries are working on curies for cancer and AIDS, and here we are blabing about alcohol. I can understand banning alcohol in the vicinity of schools and residences (even though i do not see how that matters) but banning in general will never happen. Bahrain is tooooooooooooo liberal for that. Alcohol has been available in abundance for years, and it is in fact a major, major contributor to the economy. We remove it we remove everything. No F1, no concerts, no one will have a reason to fly there anymore. I will be very disappointed if it does happen. I do not think it will. bahrain has bigger things on their minds like education, employment, and development. there is no way in hell that this law will pass. I do not think the religious parties have that much “WASTA” or pull.
Nomz
Hi Guyz, Imsure Bahrain is definatly a great place and with such liberal rules would not be banning Alcohol. Im not sure about the current sitaution but kudos to you will definately get to know. Any country for that matter which wants to develop would look at other grave issues to handle rather than just alcohol. 😎
Comments
Looks like the extremists are getting their way.
Islamist suck the life out of everything everywhere their raise their ugly face!
great idea, cutting down on the holier than now hypocritical mofos from saudi whore chasing and boozing the shite out of this place.
What is considered a ‘residential’ area?
In other words, is this a nation-wide ban?
Mahmood — can I get a California Flag icon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_California
i want a boston flag please.
or like the patriots logo.
thanks mahmood.
Author
guys this is a simple plugin that does not too a fine search of what your city is, but rather just the country and plonks a flag next to your name. Unfortunately I can’t do anything to change that.
And here I though you were referring to the lovely lady’s two nuclear tipped missiles……… =D
Seriously, does this mean that we cannot have social gatherings at our private residences?:roll: Can’t sit by the pool with a beer??:no: Or worse, lay in my hammock in my own garden with sundowner?? =(
Oh the humanity!!!!
Hey, I didn’t know they still refer to clubs as ‘discos’.
So, at last, school-aged children and the mosque-going God fearers will be spared the nuisance of some unwanted demeanours that are caused- or attracted by alcohol consumption and cheap-art trading on their door steps. That cannot be all that wrong.
Would it be all to wrong if, a five-star hotel offers space for rent in its main hallway, and, forgetting to specify in its ads the types of bids that would be entertained or rejected, declines to accept otherwise qualifying bids from fresh fish traders demanding half the space on offer while total demand is for 99% of the total space?
Why would it righful for the hotel to reject the bids from fish traders, but it would be so wrong to cleanse school and mosque areas of unfit, activity, even if it otherwise legal activity but fits another type of locale?
All the more reason for the Saudis to head to Dubai!!! 8) Holy Cow!!! I just had an idea!! Clever is the candidate who uses this for their campaign slogan this weekend
” A vote for me is a vote for no booze, discos, hookers! Which will mean less traffic, and more importantly, less Saudis!”
The guy gets my vote!!! =P
*shock*
They DO realise that a lot of money that WON’T be coming into Bahrain anymore? I mean, I can’t stand saudi’s myself, but they DO bring a lot of money into this country… Plus, lower alcohol sales, lower customs incomes… and the snowballs effect continues!
And really, whats with the vagueness everwhere? What areas are we talking about here?
On a brighter note, is you flag tag tor proof? 😉
You all totally misunderstood the news. If a hotel operates in a residential area then they won’t give it a license to sell, meaning no change to 99.9% of other places. It is actually not a bad idea, think of the children who would live nearby these hotels.
Ohh… talk about teleporting! These news events upset me sooo much, I went from Bahrain to Canada in a half hour! :grinnod:
If only life was that easy… :no:
Author
no of course not nadooi!
Actually, initially it appears a good idea. All those brothels on Exhibition Road are disgusting and a shame on Bahrain (yes, I don’t buy any of that “choice” crap).
HOWEVER, what is going to happen with the lovely restaurants in Adliya?
The thing is, we do not need a law like this. Prostitution is illegal already anyway, so why not just arrest a few of the punters at these “discos” and they will frighten them off back to their country, then the places will close down.
Of course, the new rule doesn’t affect 5 star hotels in non residential areas, does it Mahmood? Why is that? Anyone got any ideas?
This discussion and the comments are strangely familiar to me. No thobes or beards, but you might find a pair of wooden shoes in the closet. =P
Once you start, where do you stop?
in Afghanistan, when the Taliban first came to power, everyone was pleased because they controlled the streets and made it safe for people. Then, once they got power and controlled the streets, no alochol in residential areas, no women, wine or drugs, and then finally, no education for women and strict sharia law. they started spreading their values, which were vehemently anti women, anti freedom of speech, anti liberalism,anti everything. and of course, anti islam.
And we ended up with a way of life for women, and for any free minded invidual that is akin to death. Oh, I forgot to mention, that the Taleban also made quite abit of money from opium.
Look at Kuwait and Iran today. Both run by Islamists, or so called Islamists. Both with alcohol bans. And both with HUGE drug problems in their cities.
You CANNOT shut off the Gulf from the rest of the world. You cannot do it in the name of Islam or Shi’ism or Sunn’ism or Wahabbi’ism or whatever it is you want to call it.
So .. if you start shutting down hotels and seedy little places in the name of vice and virtue, it is ONLY a matter of time before the whole socity collapses.
Most of the men in beards and turbans, be they Sunni or Shia, are obsessed with women and sex. Thats why we heard more about Nancy fri**in Ajram last year than land zoning or ownership.
I would rather have the ho’s in Adliya than have to be told what I can and cannot wear, and study, and speak.
Besides … WHO do you think PAYS for the dolly girls?? Men!!!! Why dont you just ban the Saudi’s from coming altogether? (no pun intended) And then what, ban homosexuals?? Or govern how many times a day people should be havign sex? (in Islamically compliant ways, of course)
Guys .. get with the program. You cannot overturn human nature or DNA or biology. It is impossible. The church couldnt do it. The mosque certainly cant. Just look at Kuwait .. how ismalist their parlaiment is, and how they define homosexuality .. (only those who are done to are gay, not the other way round).
methinks the turbanned & long bearded ones doth protest too much. i think that if they all jsut had a bit of fun here and there, we would ALL be better of. And I would be able to guarantee that the next generation of little bahraini girls would be able to go to school freely …
ROFL Jasra!
Man…that made me laugh.. 😆
-Ibn
Bahrain follows an islamic culture, drinking is prohobited in islam, and if ppl here would vote on whether drinking shud be banned,, most would probably support this idea..
every1 is going on bout how this brings money into the country and tourism levels would drop wen drinking is banned,, but dont u know that this money is haram.. i know i sound like one of these salafists,, but im only a muslim who cares about his country…
Kamal,
*Sigh* If its prohibited, then prohibit yourself. Just who has put you in charge of prohibiting me?
But why stop with alcohol? I have a much better idea. Sharia-state! Afterall, we wouldnt want to live in a place that is haram right?
And finally, if you really cared about your country, you wouldnt try to attribute religious dogma as a source of its laws.
-Ibn
it isnt said that alcohol is haram .. it is said that one should not pray when one is under the influence .. besides, in the day of the prophet, everyone was walking around half drunk on date wine .. he had to clean the bedouins up!
It seems not everyone is understanding the new law. From what i understand it is NEW licences that will not be granted. And even if the old ones are revoked then i dont see it as a problem cos then the lower 3 star places shut down and bahrain will be a better place. its the 3 star places that have the most violence and prostitution. The lesser of those means a better country.
I do not support a total ban! That will just loose the charm and excellent night life (Compared to this God forsakin country) of bahrain. I think Bahrain should redirect the income it receives (which is already happening) towards real estate and finance and forget the cheap measly dinars that come for alchol and prostitutes.
I hate saudis and have always done so for their driving and puny brains. Maybe this change will bring more uperclass EDUCATED saudis to the country so we can meet them and understand that they are not all cheap, dirty, filthy shi*t holes that they are.
The 5 star hotels and resturants will NEVER be affected and evreyone knows why. So what is the problem here? Isnt it good to make our country a more classy better place rather than a cheap brothel that everyone seems to think it is?
Author
Ali and Kamal, your prejudices aside, should this “compromise” be implemented, what do you thing the next compromise would be? Where will they stop?
Ali M —
Are you OK with expensive brothels? Or against brothels in general?
In other words, are you against them in principle, or only against “cheap” brothels for aesthetic reasons?
Brothels have been part of human culture for thousands of years. The first historical record of women offering themselves for sex was in Sumaria, Babylonia– in religious temples, as part of their religious rituals. For them, sex was part of the seasonal regenerative process — and did not have the kind of negative implications more modern religions associate with it.
Brothels are like restaurants — some clean and tidy with excellent service and high quality product; other’s like ‘greasy-spoons’ — meaning dingy, dirty establishments with soiled dishes, rude waiters, and stale, tasteless food.
So, would a four-star brothel in a secluded location in a non-residential area get your seal of approval — with or without Saudi clientèle? Or do all brothels get thumbs down?
JJ
All I know is that we travel across from Saudi for the weekend occasionally to enjoy some ‘normality’. Last weekend we came across and enjoyed a very civilised dinner at a lovely restaurant which I guess is in a residential area with some jazz (musicians invited from overseas) and had 2 glasses of wine with our dinner. Please,please, please…..I just want to keep doing just what we did. The hope of the occasional civility is what ensures that those of us over the causeway maintain manageable stress levels. This sounds like the beginning of the slippery slope to exactly what we have over here, and let me tell you, that’s no fun.
MINSAF (winnow) & MINKHAL (sieve) ARE NEEDED
Guys, ONE: the instrument is “documents from the Information Ministry’s tourism affairs department” (not a yellow paper from the head turbine of a bearded mullah); TWO: the effect is urgent and important land re-zoning.(see Comment above – 01 Dec 2006 at 11:58 am Hajji Zaal)
So what’s the frenzy about?
thanx for the reply’s..
bahrain is a muslim country whether one wants to believe so or not,, and drinking alcohol is a sin in islam,, therefore technically alcohol should be banned.. this is what is “normal” in our culture (directed in expat)..
i personally support the new law, but currently alcohol should not be banned all over bahrain in my opinion.
Mahmood. the next ‘compromise’ should be implementing the islamic law (since bahrain is muslim).. not as what it is in saudi arabia,, but the true islamic law with all traditions put aside..
The phrase islamic law sounds like “no women would drive, no equal rights for women, etc”!! but if one studies the sharia he will c that all wat goes on in saudi and iran is a bunch of pre-islamic traditions covering the real face of islam.
Author
And what guarantees are there, Kamal, that the most austere form of Islam is not going to be implemented, much more than what Saudi or the Taliban have?
After all, isn’t that implementation is the literal sense of Islam?
It’s got to be either Black or White with no chance of gray at all in this sense, Kamal. If we are a Muslim country, and Islam and its shari’a are to be implemented, they should be implemented completely with no compromise. I fully support this implementation, and this is not a joke at all. I am deadly serious.
At least then, we will categorically know what the law is and what the responsibilities are, rather than this half-and-half world we live in at the moment.
Of course, if for any reason that version of Islamic State cannot be implemented, it is only right and proper to forget about this notion completely and turn our country into a true liberal modern state, and that means: removal of ALL references to Islam in the Constitution, banning the teaching of religion in schools and be completely secular.
I’m also completely for this second solution too.
I am fed up of living in this varying shades of gray area.
Let the country make up its mind, so that people can make their decision to continue to live under the laws of this country, or get the hell out and carry on with their lives.
So, my friend, which is it going to be?
Shall we propose a national referendum?
This rap (on 02 Dec 2006 at 11:36 am) is pathetic, really. Little knowledge is too dangerous.
Okay, if not all can be Islamic scholars, nor should so many be so ignorant as to want either a Taliban state or a completely ‘secular’ one – meaning Bush type of a castrated state. And this at a time when evidence is mounting that which indicates that the latter answer is even worse than the former.
You guys need neither forms of state. Nor can such ignorant lobbying for redefining your states needed.
Author
I would tend to agree with you in normal circumstances, unfortunately the reality on the ground now states rather clearly that what we are heading toward is a totalitarian state governed on whims which lean very definitely to the ultra-religious. Completely aided and abetted by the government.
Mr Kamal,
THEN DONT DRINK IT!!
But how does gin and tonic going down MY esophagus any skin off YOUR back?!
And just what does “..is a muslim country ..” mean anyway? Homogeneity in religion doesnt mean homogeneity in taste. Put 10 random Muslims together in a room and I will bet my car they wont be able to agree on what “true” Islam is.
More like abnormal. Just because something is prevalent doesnt make it right. Pre-Mohammad times the Pagan Arabs were burying their girls alive. A “normal part of their culture” if you asked any one of them at the time. Should that have been left alone too? I respect the Prophet Mohammad in this capacity for standing up to such absurd and murderous “normalcy” in his time, as you should respect others who are standing up to their 21st century counterparts today.
Wa ma whowa hal Islam al haqiqi?! You keep saying that thou-must-not-drink-alcohol-because-god-commanded-it, and while I think the creator of the universe has much bigger problems to worry about than some of his creations getting intoxicated during the weekends on some obscure planet, even he says you have to use your brain, not follow blind and outdated instructions.
-Ibn
Kamal,
Islamic Law SUCKS for women. Inheritance, Divorce, child custody … it sucks. I am sorry. But what worked during the time of the Prophet does NOT work in today’s society. There is no ijtihad. At all. And we pay the price. Go and look at your precious Islamic judges and see the utter randomness that they apply to rulings in the domestic sphere.
Islamic Banking has flourised. because, there was ijtihad in the definition of interest and risk, and because numerous Islamic scholars made a tidy bit of money but sitting on Islamic Sharia boards and determining what is and what is not acceptable. Has it ever crossed your mind why we havent be able to develop the same way when it comes to personal effect laws?
I’ll tell you why .. its because these so called Isalmic scholars want power and money. They dont give a damn about society.
So, what you may consider is an issue of alcohol and Islamic compliance, they will see in terms of power. Dont let them use you as fodder in their fight for power. Do you think Iran is ANY less corrupt today than it was under the Shah? No. Islamic revolutions just replaced one rule with another. No real change anywhere else. Just as brutal. Just as corrupt.
When are people going to figure out veryhting in this country is just eyewash to the extreme. My god avery precious individual was killed in a speeding car wreck this year, and I thought this will finally wake this this country up to the insanity on the roads here but nothing nothing has changed it is actually getting worse and will continue to do so. My Bahraini co-workers ask me all the time how is this country compared to New york or LA, I tell them nothing is different as a matter of fact it is allot easier to get a hooker here than anywhere I have ever been my god go to the Seashell hotel in adliya and the hookers come to your beckining call, you want booze drive to any of the booze shops have a free visa indian buy you anything any never get out of the car. Someone please tell me what is muslim about this country?
Jasra Jedi
Well said.
Prostitution is the oldest profession. Never disagreed there. Its impossible to stop it. Also no arguements there. BUT when it comes to class, Bahrain has become the cheapest place in the Gulf. I as a Bahraini have been treated lesser here in Australia by other Gulf nationals. Why? They see Bahrain as a brothel itself. That image needs to be changed. Stop the cheap shitholes and let the business go underground. It will LOOK better. Maybe my idea is wrong but i sure as hell hate having to answer back to some uneducated pee brain.
Bud Jones’ “The Ombibulous Mr. Mencken” cited H.L. Mencken :
Five years of Prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.
Mencken also said: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
My contribution:
why is it that we cannot learn from other people’s mistakes?
Why not build a permanenant workable disney world type park here with Islamic leanings and architechture with mini mouse and other type charaters in islamic dress, and employing only bahrainies, with payer timings allowed and no alcohol served and allowing for multiple family death leaves and then drive out the prostitutes, pimps and alcohol and then you may attract family tourism in Bahrain.
Before you kick out the cheap attactions get in something nice for the deserving public. People should have a reason to come to Bahrain besides Islamic and Offshore banking and to see relatives who slog here to earn a living.
God I need a drink…….!
I know I may have exagerated, but I have see so much crap about family tourism, that the only type I know is to get me and my family out of here for a vacation to a select tourist destination.
I am not against alcohol, there is nothing wrong with moderate consupmtion.
Prostitution is not something I condone nor condem as it has its place in society and fulfills a need…..a very base human need…some are forced by financial circumstance or by physical force. Either way you look at it, it is exploitable by some people. I wish that it can be rid off…but there are some who cannot get it and must buy it to fulfill themselves. Some cheat on their spouses, some don’t have spouses or dont’t want the burden or family and just want sex and have to pay for it….
In an truly islamic society all women and men must marry and women have to give into their husband sexual needs whether she likes it or not. So I am told……how perfect or right is that???????
Prostitution when forced on any one is morally wrong and it is even equally morally wrong to rape your wife as to rape any other woman. I firmly belive this.
Nough.said…for da day…les’ have a cold one mate…..hic….
=D =D
ok .. since we have a gloves off policy here .. lets discuss zawaj mutaa and zawaj misyar!
both of these forms of ‘marriage’ can be seen as ijtihad in a islamically compliant time limited code of behavior that governs sexual relations between a man and a woman …(that ultimately removes ALL responsability from the man in case he fathers a child) ….
like i said .. most of our turbanned ones are obsessed with getting some. and lots of it. with no strings attached.
where is the ijithad for everything else that is conisdered taboo and haram in islam? where is the law on adoption?
Actually the Holy Quran speaks of Khamra (intoxicants) and not alcohol. This may include drugs, beauty etc. So why not ban beauty as well. Because some get intoxicated (sakraan) looking just at a woman. I have see bozos like this.
They chase other women but get their undies in a knot when some one looks at their daughers from 10 meters down the street through the shaded glass of their home windows against the afternoon glare…as narated to me by their daughters…..
Many religious authorities and lay persons of many religions use their religions to theorise, discriminate, postulate and exterminate others who stand in way of propgating their beliefs.
:grinnod: =D =|
“in Afghanistan, when the Taliban first came to power, everyone was pleased because they controlled the streets and made it safe for people. Then, once they got power and controlled the streets, no alochol in residential areas, no women, wine or drugs, and then finally, no education for women and strict sharia law. they started spreading their values, which were vehemently anti women, anti freedom of speech, anti liberalism,anti everything. and of course, anti islam.”
The Taliban anti-islam? I thought they were hardline fundamentalists who took the Quran and the hadiths completely literally.
I’m afraid liberal islam is not the islam found in the holy books. There is no way to reconcile equal rights for men and women and orthodox islamic teachings. For example, in matters pertaining to inheritance or acting as a witness, women are less than equal to men. Also death penalty for apostasy seems to have a firm islamic basis. (Some time ago, the authorities were under political pressure from abroad not to execute an Afgani apostate, so they resorted to a loophole in shariah: the apostate was declared insane.)
Christianity is fortunately more malleable than islam because none of the Bible is said to be God’s direct speech and because the Bible is rife with contradictions at multiple conceptual levels.
I have no problem with alcohol being banned in Bahrain provided the ban is implemented everywhere and for everyone.
Look at Saudi (biggest importer of whisky) or US during prohibiton (the effect was a huge growth in organised crime)
It just doesn’t work
Western Commentator,
If you think that the Taliban were “real” Muslims by virtue of “taking the Qur’an literally”, then you must also see the Inquisitions and the Crusaders as “real” Christians, and literally-interpreting Jews who “kill gentiles” as “real” Jews.
The conclusion of course is that the 1.3 billion Muslims who do not take Islam literally are somehow agnostic or “not really Muslim”.
What an interesting twist. Im afraid this is yet another semantic conflabulation on your part, as when you implied that cultures who are at each others’ throats do so because they are being too multi-cultural.
Ok, dude: You state that liberal Islam != to orthodox Islam. Dude! Really!? One would have never guessed! 😆 What liberal interpretation of any religion equals its orthodox counterpart? Thats why its called “liberal”! 🙄
To the secular eye, every religious is rife with contradictions. However I doubt that any well-grounded Christian, will tell you “Oh yes, we are more malleable than Islam because our book is full of contradictions.” haha. Seriously. How many times have you heard “God says in genesis blah blah blah..” Any person who calls himself a serious Christian holds that Bible as Gods word, guidance, and script, written of course, by man.
Me thinks you need to re-examine your stances Mr Western.
-Ibn
“If you think that the Taliban were “real†Muslims by virtue of “taking the Qur’an literallyâ€Â, then you must also see the Inquisitions and the Crusaders as “real†Christians, and literally-interpreting Jews who “kill gentiles†as “real†Jews.”
The God of the Jews really ordered the Jews to wipe out their enemies at some specific occasions. I don’t know Judaism well enough to know whether the Jews are under permanent orders to purge the world of gentiles. I doubt that. But then again, I don’t know Judaism very well.
When it comes to the Crusades and their RELIGIOUS justification, it gets very messy because Jesus taught the opposite of retaliation, but the God of the Old Testament definitely did order massacres.
“The conclusion of course is that the 1.3 billion Muslims who do not take Islam literally are somehow agnostic or “not really Muslimâ€Â.”
I did not say they were “not really Muslim”.
Fortunately, most Muslims of the world ignore the suras from the later Medina period that order Muslims to impose sharia law upon the entire humanity. Most predominantly Muslim countries also do not implement sharia in its entirety. Some do, however.
“What an interesting twist.”
But I do understand that the risk of been labeled apostate is so serious that they may not afford complete staightforward intellectual honesty at all times.
“Im afraid this is yet another semantic conflabulation on your part, as when you implied that cultures who are at each others’ throats do so because they are being too multi-cultural.”
What I implied and later explained was that a multi-cultural *state* is at a greater risk of conflict than a monocultural one. I also explained that the risk exists when the different cultures have irreconciliable views on the fundamental organizing principles of society, not when the differences are superficial as in only pertaining to dress, cuisine, or other things of similar nature.
OTOH, if a *person* is multicultural, it simply implies membership of more than one culture. Such a person is much less likely to want any kind of conflict between cultures.
“Ok, dude: You state that liberal Islam != to orthodox Islam. Dude! Really!? One would have never guessed! What liberal interpretation of any religion equals its orthodox counterpart? Thats why its called “liberalâ€Â!”
Liberal Islam is diluted Islam. Women are consired less worthy as witnesses than men under sharia law. Sharia is based on Islamic sources and according to sharia the value of a woman’s testimony in court is half of a man’s. That’s it. There is no way around it. Thus any Islamic feminism or liberalism has no choice but to ignore that part of Islam to demand full legal competence for women.
“To the secular eye, every religious is rife with contradictions. However I doubt that any well-grounded Christian, will tell you “Oh yes, we are more malleable than Islam because our book is full of contradictions.†haha. Seriously. How many times have you heard “God says in genesis blah blah blah..†Any person who calls himself a serious Christian holds that Bible as Gods word, guidance, and script, written of course, by man.”
Christian theologeans throughout centuries have been very well aware of the contradictions of Christianity. Take for instance the theodicean problem. Or the notion of trinity. Or the fact that God is said to be omnipotent and yet it was necessary for Go to sacrifice his son to have the sins of humanity forgiven. That implies that not even God is above the iron law of sin and punishment, that is, not omnipotent. That some Christians think Christianity is free of contradictions, does not change the fact that the Bible has contradictions to it one iota.
On the other hand, Islamic theology is in many ways more elegant and logical. Islamic scholars have devoted considerable intellectual firepower to resolving the contradictions apparent material within the Quran and the hadiths or between them. One result has been the principle of abrogation whereby chronologically later revealed verses abrogate earlier ones in case of contradiction. I might be wrong, but I’m under the impression that that the doctrine of abrogation is part of mainstream Islamic theology today. The Quran itself gives it some justification. If I recall correctly, there is at least one verse to that explicitly mentions changing revelation rendering some verses no longer in force.
Quick Teaching for the Uninitated Please
Could someone concisely inform this un-informed infidel?
1) Where is it set down in Islamic teachings that alcohol is banned and what are the reasons set out for it?
2)Who is the current supreme leader of the Islamic religion (is there one) and how did he obtain that position?
3)Does any current Islamic leader have the power to make modern interpretations or revisions of historical edicts?
Mr Western Commentator,
When quoting someone, please make use of the “blockquote” “/blockquote” buttons available to you. It makes for a much easier read.
Whether they were told to purge the world of gentiles, or only kill gentiles with bad haircuts, is not the point. The point is that their book contains literal commands for some really evil things. Murder, human sacrifice, etc. But today, no one does them, because I think few Jews read the Talmud literally.
Now if we stick to your lacksadaisical definition of someone being a “real” Muslim by following literal Islam like the Taliban, or someone being a “real” Jew by following literal Judaism, then that means the rest of the 1.3 billion Muslims and 15 million Jews or so are somewhat “fake”. i.e, not really Muslim/Jewish.
Then what are they according to you?
Fortunately most Jews and Christians ignore alot of verses and commands to commit murder, pillage, etc from their books. Great. We are stating the obvious.
Well, I think “…irreconciliable views on the fundamental organizing principles of society…” is called ideology. You damned every aspect of multiculturalism when you use/used it in this way, whereas what you really meant at the end of the day, was that some ideologies are like oil and water with each other. So why not just say that?
You are making the following errors:
1) Being ignorant of how religions evolve.
2) Not judging something in the context of its time.
3) Not giving interpretation (tafsir) the credance it deserves.
Think of religion as an input. Think of interpretation as a function, and think of the end result as the output. While no one can do anything about the input, (literal Islam), people can do alot of things about the interpretation, and hence, the output.
In Islamic history, what the Prophet Mohammad did was actually give women in his time more rights than they originally had. The Islamic Arabs had a much more fair treatment of women than their Pagan counterparts.
Now, who is to say that modern Islamic feminists wont evoke similar sentiments in their attempt for reformation? Which brings us to how religions evolve over time: You state that “there is nothing you can do about it.” Well thats wrong. Major religions have undergone a reformation, where, interpretations and re-interpretations are added on top of what previously existed. How does today’s Christinianity differ from that of the Crusaders? Alot im sure. Due to different interpretations. How does today’s Judaism differ from yester-millenia’s? Were the Jews damned to be bloodthirsty because the archaic Talmud had questionable parts? No. It got reinterpreted.
Actually, strictly speaking, no one follows literal Islam today, save a few people. The majority of your Muslim populace are nothing like the founders. So the proof of this concept is already in the pudding.
What you fail to account for, is that religion – or its interpretation by most – is modulated, warped, and re-interpreted due to cultural norms, the sands of time, political events, scholars, etc. This is how religion changes. People who sit down and try to come up with new interpretations and new truths in understanding are called “reformers”. So no, there you are very wrong in stating “there is nothing that can be done about it.” Liberal reformers of Islam are going to succeed – for its time, Islam was actually quite a liberal religion.
Perhaps, but again, thats one interpretation. IMO, a good interpreter must take not only chronological data into account, but contextual also.
-Ibn
Dear Ibn,
This interprets to mean (that since the suras that came later abrogated at time the earlier suras) that God is not perfect and was working this out slowly with his revelations to Mohamed. But since the Quran is considered by Muslims to be a perfection and finality of God’s religion, this is a serious contradiction of God’s infalliability, Is it not? Just curious. Perhaps I have misunderstood.
Or perhaps the earlier recorders of the revelations made mistakes or God found the exploitable loop holes and covered them up with later binding suras.
This is why I always prefer the book to come and fall down on my head from the heavens than to completely and blindly believe something that was written over 1000 years ago and written by someone other than the speaker or revealer. This is not a criticism, but my observation of the limitation of needing human interpretation. Irrespective of language, why could not a perfect operational manual be sent to humans, why you need a Bible, Geeta, Quran and then interpretations, vedas, sharia, hadith etc.
God help me! Ya Allah Rahmani!
Dear Observer,
Quran forbids consumption of intoxicants (alcohol is the most common one, hence the interpretation), partcularly before prayers. IF you have consumed it, your prayers are not accpeted. You have to cleanse yourself for many days…I am not sure of the prescribed number of days.
I believe the Egyptian Garnd Mufti is the accepted leader for the general populace…please correct me someone. I am not sure how he is chosen.
Maverick,
Mr Maverick, you can drop the sarcasm, as I am in fact, an Athiest.
-Ibn
on 05 Dec 2006 at 11:55 pm Ibn
Mr Western Commentator,
Ok.
It is very much the point from the POV of a true believer.
In other words, practice a diluted form of Judaism, if your description of the Talmud is accurate.
Partially observant Muslims. People who have a Muslim identity but who fail to put parts of the religion into practice.
You seem to miss my point entirely.
Christians are NOT under PERMANENT ORDERS from God Almighty to wage war on infidels until they all submit to divine law. I doubt very much that the Jews are, either.
There are specific instances in the Old Testament where Yahweh orders genocides and other disgusting things but those are NOT PERMANENT ORDERS codified into an equivalent of Sharia law.
The Christian equivalent of Sharia are the Ten Commandments. None of the commandments say anything about imposing those commandments on infidels (by force if necessary). Also, Jesus commanded his followers to “make all peoples his disciples” but HE DID NOT SPECIFY THE MEANS.
All this means that even a fully intellectually honest, strict literalist fundamentalist Christian is allowed to refrain from supporting or participating in warfare aimed at imposing divine law upon the whole world, whereas his/her Muslim counterpart is obliged to do just that. If the principle of abrogation were discarded, then the Muslim equivalent of such a fundamentalist could be peaceful, too. That principle is, however, very deeply entrenched in Islamic jurisprudence.
No, I didn’t because I explicitly introduced and defined the notion of “soft-core multiculturalism”, against which I have nothing. But you might say that, sometimes, different ideologies are embedded in different cultures.
Why don’t you tell all that to the mainstream Islamic schools of jurisprudence.
What you are ignoring is that the input constrains the output in a signifigant way.
The whole enterprise of Islamic jurisprudence is about an honest acknowledgment of what the sources say and interpreting them in practical situatios. Islamic jurisprudence is also about figuring out what to do with the apparent contradictions within and between the sources. Serious high-calibre minds have been working on the problems for centuries.
Some already have. But it’s not working very well. I haven’t heard of any changes made to sharia law toward feminist objectives by any major school of jurisprudence.
The scriptures of Christianity are such a huge and deeply internally contradictory mess that it’s simply not posssible to follow Christianity literally without selectiveness. It never has been. There genuinely is more room for interpretation within Christianity than in Islam with far less mental gymnastics.
I find the very liberal use of the word “interpretation” often found associated with religious scriptures rather disturbing because I am the kind of person who desires clarity. In other contexts the world “interprete” means making sense of something with emphasis on preserving the information and meaning in the original message – as in intepreting foreign languages or in the interpretation of high-level programming language into machine code. Sometimes the interpretation adds new information into the message but the idea is that it never contradicts it.
For example, nobody has ever seriously suggested that Christianity be “re-interpreted” to consider Jesus merely a man, and not an embodiment of God in any manner whatsoever. Such an “interpretation” would clearly be out of the scope of the source texts. There is an appropriate word for that in religious discourse: heresy.
I have understood that the principle of abrogation is part of mainstream Islamic theology and has been for over a 1000 years. I could be wrong, and believe me, I’d like to be.
I’d like to add one more thing about the evolution of religion: While it is perfectly true that the interpretation of religion gets “warped and modulated” in the course of ages, that is, evolves, it is also true that as long as the foundations remain unchanged, fundamentalist (= “back to the basics”) movements emerge from time to time to purge the accumulated distortions. In Christianity, there was Protestantism which was against the corrupt practices of the Catholic Church. In Islam, there was Wahhabism (although Wahhabism is dedidedly unislamic in that it preaches the complete annihilation of Jews and Christians, and not just imposing sharia law upon them).
Mr Western Commentator,
Sorry for the long delay. Final exam season is upon us (yet) again.
Partially observant Muslims? First off, any way you slice it, a “partially observant” Muslim is not a “real” Muslim. So I take it you DO in fact consider them “not real”. (According to you). But according to THEM, most will tell you, that they are, by all means, “real” Muslims. They might say that they do not “observe” it properly on things like 5-times-a-day prayers, fasting, etc, but that they are “at the core, Muslim.” Essentially, your definition of a “true” Muslim, and their definition of a “true” Muslim, are different. This is the source of the problem. (More on this later).
And Muslims are? See, this is where it gets interesting. Even the Qur’an itself contains contradictions regarding this, on the one hand, dhimitude, and on the other, saying that “there is no compulsion in religion”. Now if the holy book itself cant make its own mind up, what can you expect of its interpretations?
You say “but you are under permanent orders from God to invade”. Really? What interpretation are you using? Whos interpretation? No interpretation, just literal? Well then what was the context of that statement in the Qur’an? Defence? Conquering? What is it? You cannot just paste a statement from a book and say “see! see! it says conquer!”
Again, in some interpretations, someone might say he is on a mission to conquer and invade all infidels. Some other interpretations, might say live and let live, get on with you life, be a good person. You have 1.3 billion Muslims on the planet. Ill let you take a guess which interpretation most of them probably subscribe to, the former, or latter.
😆 I am no theologian, and unless you are too, that is just, simply, false. Christianity is a religion, not a shopping list. And religion it is, because its “dos and donts” are QUITE extensive, and go way beyond instructions you can put on a post-it sticky. Exibit A: World History vis a vis christiandom.
That would be true is the commandments were the be all and end all of being a Christian. Any aspiring preist will tell you there alot more. So, moot point. (Also see above).
When someone doesnt specify the means, he leaves it pretty open-ended. In other words, just about anything goes. This seems just ripe for modulation with any particular grievancnce or world event. Wait…Im getting something…the..the…oh yeah, the Crusades.
Just following Jesus’ command to make all people his diciples after all. How cute.
Deeply ingrained? I see. Thats why 1.3 billion Muslims are trying to forcefully spread their religion. It all makes sense now.
And if you’re going to tell me, “well, I meant your scholars, not everyday people”, then I will tell you, that this “deep and scary ingrainment” is apparently as important as what jellyfish say to each other during sex, seeing as how it doesnt seem to rally your 1.3 Muslim hordes to your doorstep.
First you said “multicutural”. I raised an issue. Then you said “ok its actually the hard-core-part-of-multicultural”. I again raised an issue. Then you said “ok ok actually its the fundamental-organizing-principles-of-a-society”. Then I raised yet another issue, sadly informing you that there is already a definition for this concept: Ideology.
So why? What are you doing? Why are you making new distinctions? Why damn the whole word? Why are you re-inventing the wheel?
Look, I wouldnt dare come between you and your plans for creating a new language, but please pretty please be more accurate in your statements. If all you meant was “ideology”, then quit using “culture” as if the two are interchangable! Culture has many, many facets, some of which might contribute to some values, and of those some, a few which then might in some way contribute to elements within an ideology. So please! Use the common language between us: English! I aim for accuracy! And I trust you do too.
More in next post.
-Ibn
Part II
The real question is, why you are making the same errors.
Yes, it is constrained. For example, no one can claim that the Prophet Mohammad had webbed feet. But the pattern you see is here: Where it matters, (human affairs), people will disagree, and give rise to sects, interpretations, schools of thought, etc. (Unconstrained). Where it doesnt matter, (Mohammad’s favourite color, what god is made of, the nature of hell), you will see there wide concensus. And quite frankly, its because no one could really care less, save, maybe, some theology PhDs working on a thesis titled “Treatise on Satan’s rebellious personality and its short term effects on the eternal black fires of hell.”
So when something deals with human affiars, you can bet you will always find unconstrained outputs, even if the input itself is constrained. Just look at the American constitution – look at how neatly the first and second ammendmands were engineered, and yet they are STILL the subject of wide and far debates, interpretations and opinions on their “real” meanings by every Joe Shmoe and his brother.
Holy books are vastly more complicated than carefully engineering constitutioal ammendments, so no, you are mistaken to think that their outputs, (especially on human affairs), are going to be constrained in any way shape or form.
LOL! Well, exxcuuuuse me! haha, but with all due respect to my fellow debater, Modern Islamic feminist movements do not have a copy of your 2006-2007 outbox calendar.
Have you honestly looked at when such movements started? Have you calculated how much time has elapsed since then? Have you compared that to historical precedents on women’s movements (example: Declaration that “all men are created equal”, to the civil rights movement)? Have you done any of these? Or are you just peeved because you are like that kid in the back seat yelling “are we there yet?!, are we there yet?!”, only to have human-history at the wheel turn around and scold you saying “patience!”? Hmm?
So thanks, but no thanks. Massive social changes on issues of rights the such, take time, probably on the scale of centuries. On some other post, I estimated about 150 years since changes are usually generational. If you are true to you alias, and “Western”, then you will also look at your own history and see that giving women their rights wasnt exactly a cake walk. The battle was against societal patriarchy, (check), religion, (check), and discrimination. (check).
Listen to the driver. :rolleyes:
Moot. See above paragraph on when-it-comes-to-human-affairs-everyone-has-a-great-idea-and-they-will-probably-go-down-swinging-defending-it.
Ahh, good. Our first common ground.
Never contradicts what? The meaning before? Ahh, but see thats the problem – in religion, its the initial meaning that you are interpreting from the raw text to begin with! Nothing to contradict. (But you have to preserve context).
In translations however, you are simply mapping the already existing meanings of foreign words, to your new words. Mapping. Not defining.
In religious interpretation, you are DEFINING what the initial meaning is to begin with!
So there is no comparison. Moreover, with machine code, no one is going to disagree with you that “101” in binary equals 5. Or that “C” in HEX equals 12. But natural language? Phew. Good luck. Natural languages are ambigous to begin with. This is because they are based on associations. Machine languages on the other hand, are fool proof, because they are based on unambigous maths and logic.
Actually, the very fact I had to type the last three paragraphs just goes to show that you are interpreting the very word “interpret” differently than I am, because we are speaking a natural language. (Which sometimes you have a tendency to redefine apparently. 😛 ). And this is just one word. Imagine holy books.
——————————————–
One more thing: Poetry. Ever wonder what makes it tick? Thats right. Ambiguity. Unclarity. INTERPRETATION. Mine. Yours. Hers. Theirs. Thats why they mean different things for different people. No one ever agrees on the “real” meaning of a poem, because unless you get inside the writer’s head, (maybe through a biography), you can never know!
Take this verse from Shakspeare:
There’s daggers’ in men’s smiles.
How simple this metaphor is, how immaculate, how short, how simply astounding, yet it captures and speaks about something so efficiently and beutifully.
What does this mean? How do you interpret it? I take it to mean to be wary of your fellow man, because even though he might be nice to you, he might have ulteriour motives. Thats my interpretation: Be wary. Someone else might interpret this similarly, but come away literally not trusting people who smile at them all too often. Some might dismiss the entire thing. Some might interpret this to mean that even at man’s best, there is always a hidden deep darkness, maybe some sort of original sin. Still someone else might come away with the piece of advice of “for every good thing, there must be a bad thing” – they have expanded it not just from men, but to the world.
Now this is just one sentence. Imagine an entire holy book, written 1400 years ago, where half of it is mostly metaphor. Have you even picked up a Qur’an? Did you know that alot of it is literally, poetry? It has moved people to tears. It has moved people to wars. It has moved people to repentance. It has moved people away from it. It has moved people towards it.
Essentially, it moves you in whatever direction you want to move in.
———————————————-
Here is a quick Wiki search on “poetry”:
Poetry often uses particular forms and conventions to expand the literal meaning of the words, or to invoke emotional or sensual responses. Devices such as assonance, alliteration and rhythm are sometimes used to achieve musical or incantatory effects. Poetry’s use of ambiguity, symbolism, irony and other stylistic elements of poetic diction often leaves a poem open to multiple interpretations. Similarly, metaphor and simile create a resonance between otherwise disparate imagesâ€â€a layering of meanings, forming connections previously not perceived. Kindred forms of resonance may exist, between individual verses, in their patterns of rhyme or rhythm.
Listen to that. Emotional responses… Ambiguity… ..Symbolism… Irony…. Hidden resonances. …. Metaphor…. Analogy…. Layered meanings…
And this is just pure poetry. Imagine a Holy book, told to be gods word itself, written in rich interleaving poetry and metaphor, written in a place where daylight itself could kill you, where shady political assasinations were the norm, in a time of brutal Empires, child burying Pagans, and uncertain futures…
… and here you are, after all of this, telling me, purporting a simplistic, unchekced, impatient and uncorroborated opinion, even countrary to emperical evidence, that Muslims are under “permanent order to kill infidels”, because of some verse in the Qur’an ..?..
Just what age group did you check on the site poll anyway?
… Shame on you Mr WC. Shame. On. You. A thousand times over.
-Ibn
Ibn,
always love reading your posts. you must have been a philosopher in a past life…
you are either a) done with finals, :happy: or b) using avoidance.:???:
in case of the latter, best of luck. 😀
CWT,
A philosopher!? Naaww… thanks CWT – but you give me too much credit. 🙂 You have a great head on your shoulders – I am just a lowly lowly student.. but thanks for your kind words! 🙂
Actually if I had to pick what I was in a previous life, I would probably pick a cat, seeing as how nocturnal I tend to be! hehe
One final down. One more to go. 🙁
-Ibn
Author
Good luck! I’m sure you’ll do great.
Ibn,
I have to agree with CWTN .. I love reading your posts … I always learn something and I always end up smiling … you have a very uncluttered mind …
good luck …
Heh .. geez…thanks JJ! … I enjoy reading your posts too – very fiery and funny! (and right on point if I may add) 😀
.. now the three of you CWTN/Mahmood/JJ are embarrassing me! hehe.. (lets see.. wheres that blushing emoticon… there it is..oooo…he kinda looks angry…ok, ill just put the one with his tongue sticking out instead… ) 😛
Im glad you take from me, as I take from you, JJ. Mahmood, its times like this I want to re-itterate, how happy I am that you have a blog like this. Its a credit to us fellow Arabs. I really enjoy it, as well as all the cats it brings in. Real issues, real life.
The only problem is that your addicting blog has a tendency to turn my 5-minute coffee breaks into an hour long siesta! I demand you do something about this! 😀
-Ibn
Author
What can I do man, it’s the Mtv charm, and it’s only possible because of everyone’s input! Always something new and exciting to come back to :happy:
Ibn,
by the way, if I may be presumptious.. if you get a chance to take a law course as an elective, i think you would probably love it.. even business law.. the way your brain seems to operate, you would enjoy it a lot and probably end up taking more than one..
please excuse the nosiness.. and feel free to ignore any suggestions
students are never lowly.. that’s an oxymoron
Thanks again CWTN – but as strange as this may sound, I cant really stand the thought of me litigating in front of a court room on why some man from say, west virginia, didnt really kill his wife in a jealous rage based on new earth shattering evidence that his own sister had a crush on him. Eh. Just another day in the boonies for them. Not important enough you know? hehe. Same with business law – too dry…
Having said that however, I very much enjoyed an economics elective I had once about 3 years ago. “Public Policy” was the name. That was really good – my final paper analyzed Nasser’s Egypt actually. Since alot of Arab countries modelled after him at the time I thought it would be good to study and analyse the policies he enacted, and how they affected Egyptians. (He was heavily socialist so that really screwed the economy at the time). (An Egyptian friend of mine was once going off on how Egypt is so great “Al Masr umm al-dunya!”, and this Morrocan chick goes “wal maghrib abouha!” haha 😆 ) Bit I sidetrack…
Also, with lawyers, at the end of the day, you are argueing and trying to enact change with one entity – an individual, a company, and in rare cases a country (REALLY rare). And even then, you are after something. Money. A change of some obscure clause somewhere. Telling someone to pay rolayties for infringing on a patent. Its so limited in impact.
But with argueing politics, current events, values, national strategy, etc, your audience is much much broader – you have the chance to sculpt opinions, mould values, create drifts in political thinking en masse – which if you play your cards right, means you can create new types of societies – maybe even whole new philosphies. This is what I personally enjoy the most.
In law, you steer man.
In this, you steer mankind.
.. so who wants to ride shotgun? 🙂
-Ibn
whatever turns you on.. best of luck.. and have fun on the way
Guys,
what on gods green earth is the matter with you. Bahrain is in fact a muslim country, but it also has a reputation for being a very liberal country. It is the only GCC country that has a jewish temple, mosque and several churches that sit close together. People plan trips to bahrain in advance and on the spot. It is a country that you can do whatever you want where ever you want and whenever you want. It has a reputation that if you do not want to drink, then do not drink. For god sake a bahraini women has a powerful position in the UN. ITS 2007 people, countries are working on curies for cancer and AIDS, and here we are blabing about alcohol. I can understand banning alcohol in the vicinity of schools and residences (even though i do not see how that matters) but banning in general will never happen. Bahrain is tooooooooooooo liberal for that. Alcohol has been available in abundance for years, and it is in fact a major, major contributor to the economy. We remove it we remove everything. No F1, no concerts, no one will have a reason to fly there anymore. I will be very disappointed if it does happen. I do not think it will. bahrain has bigger things on their minds like education, employment, and development. there is no way in hell that this law will pass. I do not think the religious parties have that much “WASTA” or pull.
Hi Guyz,
Imsure Bahrain is definatly a great place and with such liberal rules would not be banning Alcohol. Im not sure about the current sitaution but kudos to you will definately get to know. Any country for that matter which wants to develop would look at other grave issues to handle rather than just alcohol.
😎