Karen Armstrong’s books about different religions, including her highly acclaimed “A History of God,” have made her one of the most prominent authors on religious history. The London-based “On Faith” panelist also is the author of three television documentaries and took part in Bill Moyers’ television series “Genesis.” Since September 11, 2001, she has been a frequent contributor to conferences, panels, newspapers, periodicals and broadcast media on the subject of Islam. Comparative theology is a particular interest of the author, who entered a Roman Catholic convent in 1962 at age 17, but after seven years as a nun left her order to pursue English literature at Oxford University. Her books, which have been translated into 40 languages, also include “Through the Narrow Gate,” “Islam: A Short History,” “Buddha,” a spiritual memoir, “The Spiral Staircase,” and most recently “The Great Transformation.”
Close.
Karen Armstrong
Prominent author on religious history
Karen Armstrong’s books about different religions, including her highly acclaimed “A History of God,” have made her one of the most prominent authors on religious history. The London-based “On Faith” panelist also is the author of three television documentaries and took part in Bill Moyers’ television series “Genesis.”
more »
I am trying to find books by a Jewish Cantor (female) who is also a Buddhist Nun. The women who crossover might make an intersting study. Can you direct me at all? My searches yield thousands of results so maybe I am not refining enough.Some searches of course turn up with no matches. Not so good a researcher as I thought, Linnie
I am trying to find books by a Jewish Cantor (female) who is also a Buddhist Nun. The women who crossover might make an intersting study. Can you direct me at all? My searches yield thousands of results so maybe I am not refining enough.Some searches of course turn up with no matches. Not so good a researcher as I thought, Linnie
How can you write about faith if you do not have faith? How can one explain the wisdom of the spirit in the limited reasoning of the human mind. Religion is not meant to be a struggle of power between any group, sex, ethnicity, culture. You would like to treat men and women equally in everything. Yes, both sexes are equal in rights and dignity, but at the same time they are inequal in many different aspects. For example, the love a father gives to his children is not the same as a mothers love. In general men cannot express their feelings and emotions as intimately as women can. There is a reason why children come out of a women's womb and not out of a man's. A mother is the only person in the world who can give the proper love and comfort to her children...something the father will always lack, no matter how long he stays at home with his kids or raises them. On the other hand, and man's masculinity gives him the sense of a protector for his family. You cannot attribute everything in religion was purposely done by men to gain control and power over women...saying this is a biased and generalized labelling. Thus, from your arguments you can probably conclude that God was portrayed as a father because men created it that way... So , basically you are saying that religion is some fantasy created by a bunch of loonatic men in order to take over society...My dear, even though there is thousands and thousands of scientifically documented proof of miracles done to men and women, old and the young, christians and non-christians, you will never believe. There is also a reason for the apparations of Mother Mary and why millions of Christians around the world ask for her prayers and healing... evidence which you fail to mention in your article... Life is not a struggle of power Karen, but is a struggle between good and evil. The only reason religious people fear secularism is that it falsifies the true meaning behind religion and it also promotes equality of religions which is the biggest mistake because not all religions are equal in spirituality. Furthermore, a secularist state basically brainwashes it citizens into believing that life is all about drinking, working, having "fun", playing, etc... then we die off... and we don't find God... how can we be with God if we are away from the truth or cannot find it? If you want to learn something what do you do? you go read about that topic and learn something you did not know before. The same applies to God... the only way to know God is to learn about him, and learning about him requires interaction with the spirit.
Anonymous your religion is EVIL.
you condones the murder of apostates. Do you know that it only takes one page of atrocities to invalidate your peaceful religion? In fact muslims here alluded that the Quran is an easy and understandable book for all mankind for ALL Time and in the SAME breath you claim that its a difficult book just like any -other- religious texts? Why is it that muslims are SOOO CONTRADICTED.
I'm sorry to say this but Islam is full of contradictions. Immanuel and Divine Knucklehead already won the argument the moment Richard began using Argument fallacies and when the Muslimah started quoting teachings THAT ARE FROM THE DEAD PARTS OF THE QURAN. the only relevant passages in the Quran are the latest chapters not the ones before it. This is the fundamental way that Muslims teach the Quran because of Mohammed's doctrine of abrogation. Mohammed changed his mind A LOT. The last words of Mohammed deed say that Women are only worth half of a man and to hang a whip on a wall to remind her of her place. Why is it that reality also confirms this in Islamic countries? If muslim women really want to be treated like a muslimah they should just move to an Islamic country and STAY THERE. I also notice that Victoria also concluded that we should replace our thinking process with the Quran. She said it herself its a complete way of life. When a book tells you how to do everything from wipping your own ass to drinking camel urine to treat ailments is the time to remind those people that they are Backward-superstitious-third-worlders. If these people have there way with in our country they will definitely stall progress of any sort. Like they did to themselves with in there own Golden Age. Who needs science we got the Quran? I guess I should look for the sun in a muddy pond.
The Quran is not perfect. Therefor its not the word of God. It contains contradictions, it contains outdated and wrong information, It's teachings didn't save the countries that it governs. Can't get any more backwards than that. Please join humanity. We don't have ideas that teaches that the earth is a world of suffering (so that you people have the excuse to CAUSE more suffering) just so that they can taste paradise when they die. I wonder what Paradise would be for women in islam? 72 virgins? This brings up another point why is that Islamic paradise is so sinful? Do you think Jesus has as many houris as Mohammed? Can you see the difference between Buddah, Jesus and Mohammed? If I had to choose (I'm an atheist) I would probably pick between Buddah and Jesus :)
Hello! Help solve the problem.
Very often try to enter the forum, but says that the password is not correct.
Regrettably use of remembering. Give like to be?
Thank you!
Slighting Non Hijabis: Is this social justice?
Habeeb Alli
Ever so often the issue of Hijab pops up. Men, feminists, scholars and even politicians swim back and forth in this ocean of political correctness: Multiculturalism protects this piece of clothing; this is a Quranic injunction to cover! But the Hijab these days is also a fashionable statement. It's no longer the black unattractive piece J Lo would never think of donning, unless in Afghanistan or as a Non Saudi in the Kingdom! Well, well, doesn't this punctuate my point that in Western society where the grind of every day culture demands a more assertive personality the Hijab is fine; not the burqa? The Quran alludes to this identity factor: "…that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not be molested…" 33:59
The permissive Muslim countries have not been able to protect women from being battered and oppressed, so where has this Arab-styled-dress for females contributed to less harassment? Most girls are cursorily programmed to answer 'Hijab liberates' them. But having a number of Western converts wear the Hijab voluntarily is no different than the crowd of hippies wanting to explore eastern lifestyles and vowing to its absolute panacea for Western decadence. By the way don't you know of Hijab girls doing all the 'wrong stuff" too? What about the Eastern red light areas? The clientele there wear shalwar and kamis, my dear! It's a deeper Faith and God consciousness that really we should identify with. Something anyone could have and not just burqa-clad, self-righteous, non-talking-to-strangers, attention-drawers of ones sexuality. "…But the raiment of righteousness- that is the best…" 7:26
My contention is we have veiled the beautiful system Islam offers humans; that they are secured and respected, regardless of domicile. A woman is a Khalifa of God and not the seducer of Adam. Yet those women who are Faithfully conscious of their choice not to wear the Hijab in public space still complain of denigration. Why should someone give them stares? Why should she be debarred from the Masjid? Why can't she serve her community in a culturally sensitive way, just as her day job provides? There are far more verses in the Quran about Zakah and about outstanding women, like the wife of Pharoah, than on Hijab. This bandwagon has to stop and the issues of self- esteem, democracy, employment, marriage, family values, end to domestic violence, etc has to start rolling. Don't get me wrong. Hijab is absolutely a command of Allah and I'm not belittling it. But the perspective is what beats me. Imagine a Muslim man in Ottawa has the gall to come to this free and respectful country and then say audaciously in court that the Quran allows him to annihilate his wife, if she disobeys. Definitely the Judge is right in bringing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into play and send him packing. It's the same concept the former Attorney General had when she promoted family tribunal laws based on faith. Anyone who steps out of the spirit of Islam and interprets verses to their whims and cultural fancies will be checked, which are coincidentally sanctioned by both Sharia and the Constitution. Preservation of Life is the most precious ideal in Islam according to the Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddima.
I met Zarqa Nawaz, author of Little Mosque on the Prairie . She confidently shared with me the fact that she chose to do this film, as she didn't want the world to run away that all Imams are gender biased! You will be quick to say Astaghfurullah. But haven't we seen it and heard it? Half of the mosque still can't accommodate women and those that do, still don't treat them as equals. Many a times it's the employers of these poor lip-zipped Imams that spiral this ignorance. One very traditional mosque's Imam told me he has had a battle, despite monetary contributions, to fix the room the ladies are crammed into during funeral prayers.
Hazrat Aisha was not the spokesperson of the Prophet because He was sacred of women. Weren't them the coolness of his eyes? He, on whom be peace, interacted with women and saved them from the ills of misogynist men of the day. We know Lady Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, later taught for 48 years after his demise and participated politically and theologically. Show me the organisation that has an Aisha legacy. And yet we waste time joking of events that caters for families that sit together or Muslima leading prayers! Nip it in the bud and as Mufti Saeed Palanpuri of Deoband once said in Toronto, treat the women with fairness and justice otherwise you will not bear the repercussions.
I want to see more activeness in the social justice issues, that which Islam originally played an upper role and in so doing the institutions of women's rights were able to have a reasonable and faithful grip on society. Will the media pundits steer the cameras on these real Biblical and Quranic main recipes? Help the sick. Raise money for the domestically abused. Share your Zakah with the unfortunate. Help girls get marry who are victims of cultural hibernation. Create socially acceptable entertainment. Showcase the deeper concerns for women who are underemployed and uneducated. The Quran doesn't want women to be a stockpile of dullness within the corners of some modern harem.
It seeks to liberate them where they can now do business, inherit wealth, contract their marriage and solicit their divorce and better yet lead in positions of qualifications. Bilqis was a leader and while the Quran is disgusted with her self-worship, it admires her change of Faith without grumping about her powers. Many of the wives of the Prophet were known as Saviours of the poor- "UmmulMasakeen."
From the heart that beats with sympathy will the frock of piety appeal to societies' judges. It's not an automatic uniform for respect. You wear it or not, your respect comes from your doing and more so your character. How about the fact when I saw this girl at No Frills with a headscarf and said Salam she replied I'm not Muslim. It's a Jamaican dress style! Therefore don't make it Islam's exclusive school badge. I lament the many sisters that I have lost because people judged them for their lack of a typical khimar, although their contribution monetarily to the mosque is astounding and their qualifications to make this place a better world is not lesser than Mother Theresa's. Will you be truly multicultural and like the way the Prophet treated the pious and lesser alike, sincerely embrace all into your veils of perfect love and chadors of seamless harmony?
Allah commends Blessed Virgin Mary when she took the concept of Hijab personally: 19:17 She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
I see you Muslimahs are beyond redemption for believing in the teachings of a man who killed and murdered, enslaved innocent women and children, sold slaves in the mosque, kept dozens of slaves, committed polygamy, forced a woman to 'marry' him and have sex with him a day after he widowed by torturing and beheading her husband, and had sex with a little nine year old child.
The fact that you never even once attempted to defend your prophet on any of these charges is rather telling.
What are you going to tell your children? That Muhammad was the greatest human being that ever lived and a shining example for all humanity forever? I bet you will.
Then you wonder why the rest of us have such low opinions of Islam and Muslims.
Good luck to you all, Muslimahs. May you meet with your conscience some day.
MIA ive appreciated your patience and the interesting information youve given-
just out of curiosity i googled folk islam followed by different countries- even america-
(id say america hasnt had time to develop folk islam) but there were links for everything-
ahmed- plainly youre out of step- your mysogynist version of islam isnt making it anymore-
not only have you failed to convince us ladies that were bad muslims- youve actually reconfirmed my own impetus to unread the patriarchal propoganda that has gone unquestioned for so long-
( i thank asma beslan for that phrase)
here is a hint for your "dawa"
no one in the history of the world has ever stopped believing something ecause their beliefs were attacked-
ive requested repeatedly for you to present something anything superior- always without response-
I responded out of courtesy that you could end the discussion at any time, since you said yours would be final, final. So what do you mean when you said 'don't get personal'? I thought it's a good thing, no?
Yes Ahmed, I understand all your points about Muhammad, the teaching of Islam, etc. All related points have been discussed. I should ultimately appreciate this as the natural process, because in a sense, you are quite attached to Islam, your name is the same with the prophet..:-) lots of material-knowledge, coupled with twisted, bias and intolerant point of views. And this should keep Islam as an interesting religion to discuss. We always need a bit of fireworks to make it alive and interesting.
And I do love it when you talk about Indonesia history, so I could tell more. Deep down I hope Ms. Armstrong or her staffs would read my writings and this thread and then do research on Indonesia history...:-)) Up until now it's still fragmented, lack of whole evidence and contemporary analysis beyond 14th century..:-( I believe it could help the Indonesian to do self-critic, at the same time increase their inner self-confidence to face the global setting.
About bare-chested women.
Friends, I remember reading a history book of the original scripts but also with the translation, there is a painting from 17th century. A boy king of Muslim Banten (old kingdom of west java) was riding his horse in the market. Beside him a couple of food vendors, one is bare-breast woman. It's a royal occassion of the king circumsion.
We believe Wali Songo (9 sufis) didn't tell the women to wear hijab/veil. And they most probably let the women going around bare-breast.
But during the colonialism there was the trend in the royal women to wear more clothes and accessories following the trend of the European women, regarded as 'the higher class'. Naturally, many common folks followed this trend, to jump onto the leader wagon. But it was said, that a woman prince protested this feudalistic idea by performing 'tapa' in the mountain.... in nude!
Not long ago, the Balinese women were bare breast. And you still could see it all the time in their paintings. The Dutch and the missionaries forced their victorian rules.
Until today, many women in the indigenous community don't cover their breasts except when the visitors stare at them curiously.
I'm not saying that women should go back bare-chest these days...we'll catch a cold easily! But the point is please look who's talking, who's projecting what if we are talking about the past. And I won't stuck in the past by cementing todays' western values within their old victorian rules.
Dear Mia,
Please don't get personal. I would like to discuss but this discussion has run out of steam.
I should add that if you say the "feminine or matriarchal character is native to Indonesia" how exactly does it prove Islam is egalitarian? I think you have not understood the difference between exceptions and generalizations.
My point is that the Original Islam as practised and preached by Muhammad was NEVER egalitarian. So it is irrelevant whether Indonesians are matriachal or observing sexual equality. Islam is not matriachal nor does it espouse sexual equality.
You keep on bringing examples of how this 'feminine' characteristics of Indonesia have been changed by the Dutch. What has that got to do with Islam? Does bare-breasted Indonesian women (yes, I do have a couple of beautiful bare-breasted Balinese paintings bought on a holiday long ago) prove Islam is egalitarian?
To prove that Islam is egalitarian you have to prove Islam is egalitarian, not what the Indonesians do or don't do. Indonesia is not Islam. The form of Islam that Indonesians practise is not representative of Islam because they are not representative of the teachings of Muhammad.
To discuss Islam we should look at what Islam actually teaches, not what idiosyncratic Muslim practises. What makes you think the Indonesian form of Islam is representative of the real Islam?
As I have said before you are free to re-interpret Islam to your heart's content. But you have just 're-interpreted' it to your liking. It is not the Islam as preached and practised by your prophet. So how does your re-interpretation of Islam change the way Muhammad and his companions practised Islam? It doesn't. You can re-interpret Islam all you like but it will never change the way Muhammad and his companions practised and preached the real Islam.
By all means soften the harsh verses, ignore the inconvenient verses, re-invent Allah's words, twist the Arabic to your liking. Do all that and it will not change what Islam is. It will only change the particular Indonesian version of Islam. In other words, your version will just be a newer edition of Sufism.
Therefore, I reject the notion that I have a 'blind-spot'. I understand Islam perfectly well to know that it should be a thing of the past.
BTW: how do you reconcile your sense of morality with the heinous behavior of your prophet? Surely a prophet of a true god would not conduct himself with such oppobrium.
You're welcomed not to continue with the discussion at any time, Ahmed.
Ahmed: "I also didn't invent the term 'folk Islam' in reference to Indonesia. If you google 'folk Islam Indonesia' I'm sure you'd see other people using it as well. The facts of Indonesian matriachy (I'm aware of the Minangkabau matriachy or adat matriarchaat) does not mean that Islam holds women to be equal to men. It does not. According to the tenets of Islamic teachings in the Quran and the hadiths, women are unequal to men. "
Mr. Instant Google should posts a disclaimer 'not responsible for misinterpretation'. In this internet age, we should be more prudent in chewing the information we got. Buset deh Ahmed...how many times did I write that feminine or matriarchal character is native to Indonesia, before more maskulin cultures from India, China, Mid-East, and Europe came? So yes, somehow the cultures erode the original matriarchal values, even in the West Sumatra where matrilineal still hold.
By the way, Balinese would still remember who made the rules for women to cover their breasts. It's the Dutch! Certainly not the Hindus/Buddhis or Muslim Kings. It's the fact where the evidences are so profound. The old Dutch in Indonesia were so victorian and class-discriminative, and were forbidden to marry Indonesia women.
Friends, the thinking of Ahmed or Miriam and a few others are fundamentalists-literalist because it's uprooted from the realities such as cultures, peoples' nature and characters, and time. The fact that Ahmed talks about Allah and Muhammad as if they were in this mailing list, is the evidence of disassociation. The fact that they talk about Muhammad is this and that - it gives some ideas of their own character, it's far from being religious or humanist.
And specifically, it has blind spot toward Muslims. Because regardless of the facts that I have pointed of 85% of 220 million Muslim in Indonesia - who welcome all religions and cultures, we are still 'disobedient muslims'.
This blind spot denies the trust which is the rights for hundred million of Muslim, because when they are reforming themselves they are called being disobedient to their own religion. There is no spiritual place for these common folks, a recognition which they need. They are not being recognised of having faith for a prophet.
Well, who said this world is fair. My professor wouldn't agree, he was the youngest in the family, yet married the oldest wife...:-(
Somehow we could live with these differences and we got the lesson learned (hikmah) from all of this.
And at least Bush admin these days is getting smarter than the rest of us here. I read somewhere today that Ms.Rice gave awards to special women on the international women day. And one of them is DR. MUSDAH MULIA who had worked on the re-interpretation of women inheritance that I have described! Yoohoo.......
Dear Mia,
I'm of the opinion that I have proven Muhammad and Islam were never egalitarian to begin with. I don't know why you would assert that the original egalitarianism of Islam has been hijacked by men. There never was egalitarianism in Islam. One only has to read the Islamic scriptures and historical records to see this.
To prove to me and others that the Original Islam under Muhammad was egalitarian would be a good start. So far, we only have Karen Armstrong's fictional account of how Muhammad instituted veiling among the Muslimahs as evidence and unfortunately that is not sufficient weight of evidence.
As for Sufism in Indonesia- that is what I have already stated and acknowledged. I'm aware of the 9 walis. However, one also has to examine the historical records of the Islamic conquests that the Sultanates embarked on to see that although there were some peaceful spreading of Islam, this was not the entire story. So it is erroneous to use Indonesia as a refutation that Islam was spread by violence. Nobody says Islam was 100% spread by violence. Bringing an exception does not prove the general case. Even in Muhammad's day there were many voluntary conversions. However, this does not excuse his use of force or coercion as a means to convert those who did not voluntarily convert.
I also didn't invent the term 'folk Islam' in reference to Indonesia. If you google 'folk Islam Indonesia' I'm sure you'd see other people using it as well. The facts of Indonesian matriachy (I'm aware of the Minangkabau matriachy or adat matriarchaat) does not mean that Islam holds women to be equal to men. It does not. According to the tenets of Islamic teachings in the Quran and the hadiths, women are unequal to men.
If some Muslims in some far flung edge of the Islamic world choose to regard women as equal to men it does not prove the general case that Islam is egalitarian. To do so means you're using an exception to prove the general case. We should really be examining the heart of Islamic teachings (not some rare exceptions) since we're talking of the general case.
As a matter of fact Ahmed, my unproven hypothesis is that the matriarchal/feminine character of Indonesia is long hijacked by men from all these cultures India (Buddha-Hindu), China (Buddha-Islam), India-Persia-Arab (Islam), European (Christianity).
Or.. in more optimistic term, Indonesian has been adjusting itself under the light of these more masculine cultures, which is only natural.
Why do you say "....Islam means matriarchal"? What I said was the egalitarian nature of Islam was compatible with matriarchal-egalitarian character of Indonesia in the old days, that was why Hindu-Buddha was easily replaced by Islam. Islam is the only religion accepted by the indigenous community, if a member decides to lead the common life with the rest of the world.
Is there any major religion in this world friendly to women???? That is the very point from Ms. Armstrong.
Yess, a bearded mullah once told me that Indonesia is such a secular country, not a real muslim country! Shame on you, he said (he would have agreed with you..:-)
Anyone studying the history of Java would know Wali Songo (9 sages), they were sufis who spread Islam in Java. Many people believe a few of them were Chinese and Persian-Arab. Their well-known method of spreading Islam was through the cultural arts & traditions. Ahmed would call this folk-Islam or 'adulterated Islam'...:-(
At least the Wali Songo didn't ask the women to veil themselves! Thank god.
If Ahmed is familiar enough with the history of Java, he would have mentioned Gajah Mada, the prime minister of Majapahit, the Hindus Kingdom who united Nusantara. Alexander the Great van Java, so to speak, Indonesian are very proud of him, who had the vision of the unity in the archipelago. He wasn't as cruel as Alexander, but use lots of political cheating ala Javanese...:-(
Yes Ahmed, there are a number of women warriors fought the war against the Dutch, who said women won't go to war?? Cut Nya Din from Aceh for example, would rather die in guerilla war than submitting herself to the Dutch. Nyi Ageng Serang from Java fought until aged and blind and got killed in the battle with the Dutch.
Throughout the history of Indonesia with the characteristic of communal-egalitarian, from time to time there have been riots (amoks) among the massess against the status quo, when our sense of inequality is breached. In this sense, Indonesia lower class has the characteristic of social-leftist. We call it 'premanism', and I was born in that kind of neighborhood.
Salam
Mia
=========================
Ahmed Hussain:
Dear Mia,
The matriachal instinct of the Indonesian people does not mean that Islam is matriachal. It only goes to show that the Islam of Indonesia is largely what is termed 'folk Islam'. If I may say you have an adulterated form of Islam since you include many 'folk' animist/Hindu practises such as 'spirit mediums' known as dukun and quasi-religious medicine men. These would be frowned upon by the real MiddleEast Islam as witchcraft/paganism.
Also, the roots of Islam in Indonesia were Sufi, though Wahabism has become predominant in recent years.
Thirdly, the wars between Hindus in Indonesia pre-Islam are irrelevant. It's a tu quoque argument that exposes the claim that 'Islam was spread in Indonesia through peaceful means' to be untrue. The Sultanates in the Malay Archipelago were highly intolerant of other religions. Though they fought each other they also spread Islam by conquest.
Released by the delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, St. Petersburg, Florida on March 5, 2007
We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.
We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.
We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.
We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.
We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.
We call on the governments of the world to
reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostacy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;
eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women;
protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;
reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;
and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.
We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.
We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.
We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;
to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;
and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.
Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must chose for themselves.
Endorsed by:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Magdi Allam
Mithal Al-Alusi
Shaker Al-Nabulsi
Nonie Darwish
Afhin Ellian
Tawfik Hamid
Shahriar Kabir
Hasan Mahmud
Wafa Sultan
Amir Taheri
Ibn Warraq
Manda Zand Ervin
Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi
To endorse the St. Petersburg Declaration, send an email.
Watch Ibn Warraq read the English version of the Declaration.
Mail this Printer friendly
This discussion seems to have run out of steam, and this will be my last post. I urge all Muslims and Islamic-apologists to consider this fact - the behavior of Muhammad was utterly vile. Even by the standards of his day, Muhammad was barbaric. He killed people, enslaved women and children, tortured opponents, sold slaves in the mosque, plundered the belongings of people who never even threatened him and ordered his followers to kill all disbelievers who refused to convert or submit to Islam. In short Muhammad was a nasty guy on a par with Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun. If you don't believe me then read the Quran, hadiths and sira for yourselves. Western Islam-apologists like Karen Armstrong don't know what they're talking about and are just interested in white-washing Islam. Read the original Islamic sources for yourselves. Open your eyes and mind to the dangers of Islam. The fact that the Muslimahs here have singularly failed to even attempt to disprove one charge I made against Muhammad is rather telling. They cannot even begin to defend their prophet against the charges of his savagery knowing full well that I will provide the evidence from the Islamic sources to prove my case.
----
Mia wrote:
Miriam: "So if you think Westerners are only criticizing Islam, you should see what they are saying about their own religions. "
Yes, agreed. In fact my friends and I are critisising Islam and Muslims all the time. So more people are doing this and that's an inward looking.
Because faith and self-criticism should compliment each other, so we won't have so much of the blind spot in our beliefs as you said. Accepting the violent in each of us is part of self-critic.
This will start the process of re-interpretation in each of our religion, as times change. But in the previous discussion my example of re-interpretation is not accepted by either Ahmed and the Muslim literalists because Ahmed equates re-interpretation with the will of God. In this way they are both literalists and stuck in the past. But we all could live with it, because regardless our beliefs, what matter is our true behavior (taqwa), reflecting our faith.
Victoria asked Ahmed, what he is rejecting is quite clear, now perhaps he could share the solution?
Ahmed replies:
If Muslims want to re-interpret Islam to their own liking then go ahead. This is not a new phenomenon - it goes all the way back to the roots of Islam. It reminds of the origins of Sufism and Ahmadiyya. There are many sects in Islam and each was created by someone's re-interpretation of Islam.
Even before that, the main Sunni sect accounting for about 85-90% of all Muslims had already produced the 4 schools of fiqh. In each of these schools, the theologians produced their own interpretations of the grey areas and tried to resolve the conflicting verses and hadiths. However, none of these to my knowledge have lead to wholesale disobedience against the Quran. When Allah said something is black it is black without question. When he said it is white it is white. Only the grey areas were interpreted to determine which shades of grey was applicable.
Then there was the short period which some people called ijtihad. In this early phase between the fall of the Righteous Caliphs and the rise of al-Ghazali's orthodoxy, Islamic law could be interpreted by so-called doctors of Islam much akin to how the Rabbis interpret the Jewish scriptures. However, with al-Ghazali all that fell by the wayside and first, only the Caliph and then the Ulema (general body of scholars) had the right to ijtihad.
In a sense, everyone interprets for themselves. When Muslims read 9:29 - the infamous verse where Muhammad commanded the Muslims to kill (yes kill) all disbelievers who refused to convert or subject themselves to Muslim humiliating rule - most do not follow it. They don't go out with a knife to force a non-Muslim neighbor to convert to Islam. This is because they have 'interpreted' 9:29 to be an injunction on the ruler (or some other such re-interpretation). By doing so they are able to live more or less at peace with their non-Muslim neighbors. However, this reinterpretation does not change the essential nature of Islam as an aggressive bigotted religion that uses force rather than reason as its means to convert the disbelievers.
In Mia's case, she brings the issue of inheritance laws in Indonesia. This is not just a re-interpretation of the Quran but a total disobedience against Allah's command. This is no grey area we're dealing with. This is an out-and-out disobedience. Indonesians may feel they are allowed to disobey Allah as and when they choose. Nobody is denying them their right to do so. But their disobedience does not prove that Allah did not issue an unjust and misogynistic inheritance law. It just proves the Indonesians are ashamed of Allah's misogyny and wish to re-write Allah's words on his behalf.
When they read 4:11 where Allah tells them to give their daughters half the inheritance of sons, they translate 'nisf' to mean 'equal' rather than 'half'. In a sense, they have put themselves above Allah to 'correct' him in light of modern times.
Does this Indonesian peculiarity prove Allah is fair and just? No. It only proves the Indonesian mortals are fairer and more just than their 7th century God.
Does it mean I'm a literalist or fundamentalist for pointing out that such re-interpretation of black and white issues are in fact blatant disobedience of Allah? No. It just means I understand the difference between re-interpretation and disobedience.
So to Mia and other modern Westernized Muslims - go ahead and re-interpret Allah's words to your liking. I'm not stopping you. I applaud you in your efforts. In fact, I think you haven't gone far enough - you should re-interpret all of Allah's words to modern Westernized sensibilities (with a leftist bent). However, what you'll end up with is something that is so far from Islam that you'll be called apostates by your erstwhile Muslim brethren. That's the fate shared by the Sufis and Ahmadiyyas who are persecuted by other Muslim sects for 'perverting' the words of Allah.
If you dislike wife-beating then just ignore 4:34.
If you dislike Muslims being allowed to marry and have sex with pre-pubertal girls, then just ignore 65:4 and 33:49.
If you dislike the unfair sexist inheritance law then just ignore 4:11.
If you dislike killing non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or subject themselves to dhimmitude then just ignore 9:29.
If you dislike polygamy then ignore 4:3. Or better yet - get your husband to ignore 4:3. Good luck - he might beat you if you kick up a fuss against his new wife.
If you wish to reconcile with your ex-husband without having to marry and have sex with some other man first then ignore 2:230.
If you dislike slavery then ignore 4:3 and all the other verses that permits the Muslims to have sex with their female captives/slaves/right hand possessions.
As you can see there is much to 're-interpret' in the Quran to make it fit for the 21st century. Though implicit understanding is that Allah is unpalatable to 21st century Muslimahs.
Dear Mia,
The matriachal instinct of the Indonesian people does not mean that Islam is matriachal. It only goes to show that the Islam of Indonesia is largely what is termed 'folk Islam'. If I may say you have an adulterated form of Islam since you include many 'folk' animist/Hindu practises such as 'spirit mediums' known as dukun and quasi-religious medicine men. These would be frowned upon by the real MiddleEast Islam as witchcraft/paganism.
Also, the roots of Islam in Indonesia were Sufi, though Wahabism has become predominant in recent years.
Thirdly, the wars between Hindus in Indonesia pre-Islam are irrelevant. It's a tu quoque argument that exposes the claim that 'Islam was spread in Indonesia through peaceful means' to be untrue. The Sultanates in the Malay Archipelago were highly intolerant of other religions. Though they fought each other they also spread Islam by conquest.
Hi Miriam, tks for the reply.
The current fact is that 85% of 220 million Indonesian BERIMAN (have faith) to Muhammad as the prophet, as well as other named and unnamed prophets. Not mentioning how many Catholic/Protestan, Hindu/Buddha and other people worldwide who also have faiths. Denying this is to deny the whole reality, and won't offer solution.
Miriam: "So if you think Westerners are only criticizing Islam, you should see what they are saying about their own religions. "
Yes, agreed. In fact my friends and I are critisising Islam and Muslims all the time. So more people are doing this and that's an inward looking.
Because faith and self-criticism should compliment each other, so we won't have so much of the blind spot in our beliefs as you said. Accepting the violent in each of us is part of self-critic.
This will start the process of re-interpretation in each of our religion, as times change. But in the previous discussion my example of re-interpretation is not accepted by either Ahmed and the Muslim literalists because Ahmed equates re-interpretation with the will of God. In this way they are both literalists and stuck in the past. But we all could live with it, because regardless our beliefs, what matter is our true behavior (taqwa), reflecting our faith.
Victoria asked Ahmed, what he is rejecting is quite clear, now perhaps he could share the solution?
well ive never heard the term nteer either- it sounded like it might be one who uses the internet-
so i did a simple search it took 1 minute-
netter
n. 1. Loosely, anyone with a network address. 2. More specifically, a Usenet regular. Most often found in the plural. "If you post _that_ in a technical group, you're going to be flamed by angry netters for the rest of time!"
Jargon File
actually i wouldnt say mr plotz has brought anything to light- i read these stories all my life-
anyone who has eyes and an inclination has done so=- its not like its hidden or aything-
as a matter of fact- muslims are kind of repulsed when its suggested to them that david was spying on a woman in her bath and sent her husband off to die in a war so he could have her-
or a prophet getting drunk and having sex with his daughters- and the many other bizarre stories -
for instance miriam- i hve some very negative feelings about say- ariel sharon- (who is not a prophet at all) but i dont make ugly personal remarks about him-
why would it confuse you that we are saddened and upset when someone defames and abuses our beloved Prophet(pbuh).
just for the record then- it greatly distresses us-
so out of consideration for us as humans- now that you are aware how much it huerts us to hear someone call our Nabi(pbuh) a murderer- or other ugly appellations-
possibly just fro good manners you could also refrain from these unecessary and divisive slanders-
so in short- netters was never a negative comment-
WE ARE ALL NETTERS HERE!
peace
there really arent any similar stories like that in the Quran- i cant imagine why a person would blog something or what purpose it would serve other than to sell soem articles and maybe get a book deal-
its kind of funny i guess- but not really very enlightening-
Mia - You said:"because if I'm not mistaken, was it you who said that Ms. Armstrong should bring her case among the Muslims so they could reform themselves?" No I did not say that. I also have no idea what a netter is.
I understand that you consider the comments of Ross and Anna objectionable, but I am not sure why you put Ahmed in the same category. With Anna and Ross there are a lot of polemics, but Ahmed seems to know his Koran and Arabic etc, and therefore, he makes a worthwhile opponent for you. Of course, I am not totally objective, and I agree with what Ahmed says, but even so he appears quite fair and reasonable to me. He doesn't believe that Muhammed was a prophet, and Ahmed says that Muhammed was " a murderer, a thieving bandit, enslaver of women and children, a polygamist, a torturer, and a child-lover are all recorded by YOUR religious sources." That is the whole point. You start a priori by thinking that Muhammed was a prophet, while Ahmed(and myself) do not start with that assumption. We simply look at the facts of Muhammed's life and conclude that he was "a murderer etc", and we conclude that by going directly to accounts of Muhammed's life.
We all have blind spots in our psyches, things we just refuse to look at, and no one can force another person to look at those blind spots, people have to come to it themselves, and most people never do. In the US 35% of people still support George Bush, even though it is quite clear to the rest of the country and the world, that the invasion of Iraq was probably the biggest foreign policy blunder in US history, and as Americans we will be living with those repercussions for generations to come. So I would say that the 35% who still support Bush have a blind spot in their psyches. They cannot let go of a fixed idea of the way the world should be. Similarly in Russia there are many people who still believe that Stalin was a great leader. In Japan the current President refuses to admit, in spite of overwhelming evidence, that the Japanese used many thousands of sex slaves when they invaded China and Korea. And so it goes.
In the US we have an expression "to circle the wagons". It comes from the time when wagon trains of white settlers went across the Plains, and when they were attacked by Indians, the wagons would form into a circle, and all the settlers would get inside the circle so they could use the wagons as protection against the attack. So similarly the member of any group, religious or political, circles the wagons when they feel that their beliefs are threatened, and that is how blind spots get formed.
This is all by way of saying that even though your personal experience of Islam in Indonesia was and is gentle, there are parts of the Koran and Muhammed's life that are not at all gentle, and are quite the opposite, and that is also part of Islam.
I recently read some posts from someone who is "blogging the bible", actually he is blogging the Old Testament. Many of the stories in there are definitely not any stories I learned in Sunday school, and I am sure most observant Jews do not know these stories, because these stories very plainly show that many of the heroes of the Old Testament were pretty violent and treacherous. And yet these stories are part of the holy books of the Jews, and there have been thousands of years of learned and sagacious commentary from numerous pious scholars, yet none of those scholars has ever pointed out, how bizarre many of these stories are. It took a non-practicing, unbelieving,irreverent, secular Jew to bring these stories to light. So if you think Westerners are only criticizing Islam, you should see what they are saying about their own religions. Here is the link to blogging the Bible. I suggested in another post that someone needs to blog the Koran: http://www.slate.com/id/2141050/
Hi Miriam, sorry I didn't realise the word 'netter' has a negative conotation. I should have said it different ways, like 'some people' or 'friends'. I brought it up, because if I'm not mistaken, was it you who said that Ms. Armstrong should bring her case among the Muslims so they could reform themselves? I illustrated that to confirm that the books indeed being discussed among the urban Muslims in Indonesia, at least from my own observation.
If you didn't say that, sorry it must have been somebody else.
And I wouldn't mind your objections to the content of the books. Your way of discussion, I notice, is far more fair, polite and sensible than Ahmed, Anna, Ross and a few others.
Victoria, the coco beef is called rendang - a popular Indonesian curry dish from West Sumatra. And I like it hot, hot, spicy. Write to me aldiy@yahoo.com for a 'secret recipee'..:-) If not, I could write here, if the others don't mind a culinary adventure...
Ahmed, I don't go around telling people about matriarchal evidence of Indonesia culture. But I think it's relevant for this thread about the egalitarian order hijacked by men.
So when I said Islam came to Indonesia by trades (like other cultures also), I didn't say there was no violence at all, did I? Violence is just part of us human nature, and the question is how we manage it.
I would like to show you another example for comparison. The Dutch came to Indonesia by TRADES also. It was VOC, the Dutch company a monopolist (remember Microsoft hehehe), who influenced Indonesia culture since 16th century. There were sporadic resistance by the local Indonesia kingdoms, because the Dutch loved to monopolise the economy. On 18th century the missionaries came along. In the 19th century the Dutch government took over. Indonesia was then 'formally' under the Dutch colony. Under the new Republic of Indonesia the government announced the war of independence against the Dutch. Remember, at that time the West was fueled by the rising euphoria of state-nationalism. As far as we remember, the war against the Dutch was more profound than anything else.
There were always sporadic wars between the kings, even before Islam came (but old Indonesia prior to 1st century CE is hardly known, data is quite fragmented). So if the kings of Demak (Muslim Javanese kingdom) for example, who went to war with the rest of Hindus Majapahit, it was just another event of the fights between the royal families. But remember Ahmed, the wars in Indonesia history was not institutionalised by the state, except the war for independence. Compare this to the pre-emptive strike of Bush administration. So, it's a different 'violence management', right?
Back to the topic of the thread. My un-contested hypothesis is that in Indonesia the matriarchal order was long hijacked by men, since the day the Indian kings came in the 1st century CE. India, China, Muslim mid-east-Arab, and European cultures are more masculine-oriented than Indonesia.
The feminine traits of Indonesia culture recognises the plurality of all cultures. I don't know any other cultures which is so open to the foreign influence than Indonesia (BTW, this would include TIP countries, Thai, Indo and Phillipine). So plurality for us is the state of nature, but Indonesia has been in the transition period especially after 30 year of totaliarianism from the military, and hundred years of conflict with the colonialist. It means we lost our ability to manage plurality as the our strength point. We haven't found that ability, yet - and under the modern global context, it is certainly a big challenge for us.
Mia - You called me a "netter". I don't know what that is, but the context makes it sound as if it is not something polite.
And yes, I am sure Karen Armstrong's books are being read by all sorts of people. Nevertheless, as Ahmed has shown, she makes a lot of mistakes in what she says, and a lot of what she says does not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
Sorry Mia,
But perhaps you'll care to explain the military displacement of Hinduism with Islam with the fall of the Majapahit empire. The history of how the Hindus were defeated by the Muslims and had to flee to Bali is well-known.
Granted that the initial introduction of Islam to Indonesia was peaceful but then like everywhere else, once Islam gets strong, it becomes aggressive.
The 'peaceful conversion of Indonesia to Islam' is one of the more blatant Islamist lies. It looks like even the Indonesian Muslims have been taught the 'Islamic version' of history and have not thought more deeply into the inconvenient facts.
I therefore request you check out the demise of the Majapahit Empire and the fall of Hinduism at the hands of the war-mongering Muslims.
Dear Anonymous,
If you're ashamed of your prophet's behavior then don't hold me responsible for it. If you're insulted or offended by your prophet's behavior then I suggest you apostate from Islam. You obviously have a problem with having an evil prophet of an evil religion. Perhaps you could try Buddism or one of the other truly pacifist religions where their founders are beyond reproach.
The history of your prophet is well-known from the Islamic religious sources - i.e. the Quran, ahadith and sira.
That he was a murderer, a thieving bandit, enslaver of women and children, a polygamist, a torturer, and a child-lover are all recorded by YOUR religious sources. If you think I'm wrong - then please provide the evidence.
mia- i didnt know indonesia was originally a matriarchal society, what an interesting picture you paint- the first mosque i ever attended had about 150 indonesisan memebers and every sunday they came and made the most delicious food ive ever eaten in my life- and every one of them- gentle gentle-
( i was always there all day on sunday doing other things) i was always struck by how respectful and energetic they were- (as a matter of fact- coconut beef is my favoritest thing i ever ate- hmmm- maybe il make it tomorrow- i have to find a recipe- any advice?
AHMED- sorry for attacking you-
in all honesty im not so concerned about your ability or inability to speak arabic-
why dont you ever twll us what better way you have found then?
were all pretty aware of what youve rejected-
Ahmed: "Ladies, Let's not get personal with this. I'm not here to upset you but to offer brotherly love. I share your pain.."
Mia: I'd like to get personal..:-). In any business presentation I always share something personal...for example, showing the pictures that I took myself. And I've been sharing with you guys some of my (personal) spiritual experience.
In typical Indonesia mailing list, people like Ahmed wouldn't upset most of us, we'll be amused and gently tease each other, and joke around. Here, I'm myself amused, because for the first time, I learn the parallel thinking of fundamentalists, whether they are Christian or Muslim. I have long suspected this, but now in more clarity.
And I could share to netters like Miriam, that the books of Karen Armstrong have far reached many people of Indonesia, from my teenage nephews to the investment bankers. It means the books inspire many of the urban Muslims to re-interpret our own religion. Again, this is from my personal observation.
And I could share with the other netters, an interesting psychology of a fundamentalist, as quoted from typical Ahmed's line:
"I'm not here to upset you but to offer brotherly love. I share your pain. Believe me....I'm sure Allah was just waiting for you ladies to re-interpret his words for him, as he was too stupid to write with any clarity"
A brotherly love from Ahmed which turns into hatred in the next seconds. He insults Muhammad or allah (Ahmed's personal god), even though they are not in this mailing list...:-( Please deh Ahmed, how could we put 'love' and 'insults' in the same paragraph.
And every time Ahmed mention Indonesia, I would just love to tell more..:-) I told you that Indonesia has been plural. We were so open with the different cultural settings, which means we are friendly with visitors/strangers.
The missionary came to Indonesia in 18th century, associated with colonialism. Before that Islam came along with the trading mostly from Gujrati, India. And before that or parallel with that was Buddha and Hindu. Before that 'the orinal Indonesian beliefs' which I believe it's egalitarian and matriarchal. Islam was easily accepted and replaced Hinduism largely because of the egalitarian nature.
The egalitarian and matriarchal cultures are still evidenced in some Indonesian ethnic groups and in an indigenous community. In this community, 125 km from Jakarta, the people live in total harmony with nature, that is the underlying philosophy. Women lead most important ritual functions which simbolizes Dewi Sri, a symbol of fertility. If the wife of the village head dies, automatically he's released from that position, until he is remarried. (married women are free to go around not covering their breasts!). Make no mistake, they don't exhibit artifacts, temples or stone icons, Dewi Sri is simply an abstract feminine symbol. Not even writings, theirs is totally oral tradition. They believe in the One God (Sang Hyang) which they rarely utter in daily conversation. Evil for them simply means 'bad habits or bad deeds'. Nothing supertitious, just simply natural. They have many 'taboos' or forbidden things, such as the use of plastic, soap, metals, no animals domestications including four-legged animals, no cultivation only seasonal harvest - but one important taboo is imposing taboo to someone else. So they live in 'ascetic life', but if people want to go out of the community they could stay in the outer ring (Like the Amish-Mnenonite just for a comparison, only more 'severe'). If they want to go out of the outer ring to mix with the rest of the world then they are expected to hold Islam as the religion (not Hindu, Buddha or Christianity), because of the egalitarian characteristic.
Victoria,
Yeah, still attacking Ahmed again, I see. So what if I'm become Americanized and use nouns as verbs? Does it prove anything except I'm just keeping it simple for you?
Please think about it a moment - I'm telling you sense. No matter how you 're-interpret' Islam TODAY, you can never change what Islam was in Muhammad's day.
But I don't expect you to see this simple logic: you'll only accuse me of being a fundamentalist for interpreting the Quran the way it's written. I'm sure Allah was just waiting for you ladies to re-interpret his words for him, as he was too stupid to write with any clarity.
Ladies,
Let's not get personal with this. I'm not here to upset you but to offer brotherly love. I share your pain. Believe me, I do. It is not easy to hear someone tell you your religion is (insert denigration of choice) and your prophet was a nasty man. It must be really painful.
Look at it this way: I'm here to strengthen your faith. If your faith can survive the blowtorch of logic and evidence then it will strengthen.
But let us correct the misconceptions about Islam. For a start, the discussion was about the 'original egalitarian order of Islam being hijacked by men.'
Therefore it is incumbent on us to examine whether the Original Islam (as practised by Muhammad and his companions) was ever egalitarian. So, even if we were to accept that Islam can be 're-interpreted' today and Allah's words can be 're-interpreted' today such that 1 is no longer 1 but 2, and 1/2 is no longer half but 1, it still does not get you around the extremely embarrasing difficulty that Allah (i.e. Muhammad) told the Muslims of his day to only give daughters half the inheritance of their sons.
{Note to Mia, in the time of the original Islam, there was no such thing as Indonesia and your forebears were Hindu or Buddhists.)
So it is undeniable that 4:11 proves that in the Original Islam (as practised by Muhammad and his companions) there was no such thing as egalitarianism.
Other evidence that there was no 'egalitarianism' in the Islam of Muhammad's day are:
- women's testimony only worth 1/2 of that of men.
- all Muslimahs were ordered to 'khimar' themselves, contrary to what Karen Armstrong asserted.
- men were allowed to beat their wives.
So, no matter how you re-interpret the Quran today you can never re-interpret the Quran of Muhammad's day. The Original Islam cannot be re-interpreted to your Western sensibilities. Sorry about that, but them's the breaks.
In Indonesia there is a popular converted Muslimah, she was a former Christian/Catholic, I forgot which one, and now an activist Muslimah. Some of us critisise her preaching because it ALWAYS denigrates the teaching of Christian.
The point is that there is still anger inside her which she should have been looking inwardly, instead of projecting it into the enemy of Islam.
They are both literalist/fundamentalists, but unlike Ahmed the former Muslim, she is far more polite, fair and intellectual. So we could live with this kind of literalism under pluralistic Indonesia.
Someone like Ahmed, Ross, Anna are potentially detrimental to the society under the leadership like Bush, for example, who nurtures this kind of fundamentalism.
But yet, the rational western democracy in America and Europe as a whole won't allow this kind of fundamentalism to dominate - if people continue to hold the true democracy.
And Ahmed's view point will be just like the dust in the wind. So cheer up, Victoria, Ahmed is singing the old song 'Dust in the Wind'
Victoria,
I'm only presenting the truth about Islam. It is up to you whether you agree or disagree. The readers will decide who makes sense and has presented the cogent arguments and evidence to support his position.
If you want to argue that 2+2 = 5 then go ahead, but when I read 2 + 2 I know it's 4. So to all you Westernized Muslims practising a watered-down, make-belief, re-interpreted to feel-good Islam - if you want to believe Allah allows daughter to get equal inheritance as sons - go ahead but any Arab who reads 4:11 can tell daughters only get half as much as sons - and there's no time limit for this ayat. It's forever.
Mia wrote:
this case, you are not fair only because you rephrase my sentence and put it out of context.
Ahmed replies:
I'm not aware that I'm doing anything other than paraphrasing you by freeform typing at my keyboard. I assure you I have no intention of quoting you out of context.
MIA wrote:
Of course you don't know Allah's will, but you are implying it all along - by being undemocratic of not letting other people to choose interpretations.
Ahmed replies:
How have I stopped you from choosing your own interpretations? I haven't.
All I have done is to state clearly and umbiguously that there are some very simple instructions from Allah that you can't re-interpret away without disobeying him. I think you can 're-interpret' the grey areas and not the explicit commands.
Mia wrote:
Ahmed: In short, I don't know Allah's will - that's why I don't reinterpret the Quran. To do so would be to decide in Allah's place, and it is you, not me, who are doing that."
This is in line with what the Muslim fundamentalist would say: reinterpreting text = Allah's will.
Ahmed replies:
How do you re-interpret nisf to not mean half? That is beyond me.
Mia wrote:
The discussion from Ms. Armstrong is "Original Egalitarian Order of Most Religions 'Hijacked' by Men"
Which means we, the followers have hijacked the order, not the prophets who taught the meaning of golden rules.
Ahmed replies:
This is not true as Muhammad was the biggest misogynist of all. Islam was never egalitarian because Muhammad was not egalitarian. That is what I've been saying all along. Muhammad was a bigoted sexist misogynist among other unsavory characteristics.
So Karen Armstrong's proposition is false. She assumed/mistakenly believed that the original Islam (as practised by Muhammad) was egalitarian. This is so far from the truth it's laughable. One only has to read the Quran to see the gross injustice of Islam. And that doesn't include the gross injustice in the ahadith.
In this case, you are not fair only because you rephrase my sentence and put it out of context.
Of course you don't know Allah's will, but you are implying it all along - by being undemocratic of not letting other people to choose interpretations.
Ahmed: In short, I don't know Allah's will - that's why I don't reinterpret the Quran. To do so would be to decide in Allah's place, and it is you, not me, who are doing that."
This is in line with what the Muslim fundamentalist would say: reinterpreting text = Allah's will.
The discussion from Ms. Armstrong is "Original Egalitarian Order of Most Religions 'Hijacked' by Men"
Which means we, the followers have hijacked the order, not the prophets who taught the meaning of golden rules.
Dear Mia,
I think I'm being very fair in my discussions. I'm a fair man. I just happen to disagree that some basic clear-cut verses in the Quran can be 're-interpreted' away.
I do acknowledge there are many 'flavors' of Islam but that still does not change the central core of Islam - which is the Quran.
I don't know the will of Allah and never claimed to do so. All I have done is to relate what is in the Quran itself.
Does the Quran tell Muslims to obey Allah and Muhammad? Yes.
Does the Quran tell Muslims they can disobey Allah and Muhammad by 're-interpreting' inconvenient verses? No.
There are some things that can be re-interpreted in the light of modern conditions - for example, Muslims today don't keep slaves so the verses about slavery no longer apply. This is a 'reinterpretation' of the Quran.
However, this doesn't mean that slavery was not part of Islam or that Allah had forbidden slavery or that there are no verses on slavery in the Quran. It just means that Muslims are ashamed that their prophet and god had permitted slavery and no longer wish to practise this particular aspect of Islam. But it still means that your Allah permitted/permits slavery. It's just that you have chosen to disregard Allah on this issue.
Likewise, the verse on inheritance is very clear: nisf
All Comments (335)
south african hoodia
July 15, 2008 10:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 15, 2008 22:20
I am trying to find books by a Jewish Cantor (female) who is also a Buddhist Nun. The women who crossover might make an intersting study. Can you direct me at all? My searches yield thousands of results so maybe I am not refining enough.Some searches of course turn up with no matches. Not so good a researcher as I thought, Linnie
February 16, 2008 5:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 05:47
I am trying to find books by a Jewish Cantor (female) who is also a Buddhist Nun. The women who crossover might make an intersting study. Can you direct me at all? My searches yield thousands of results so maybe I am not refining enough.Some searches of course turn up with no matches. Not so good a researcher as I thought, Linnie
February 16, 2008 5:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 05:47
how are you. my name is mulugeta, i live in ethiopia.
December 24, 2007 8:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 24, 2007 08:54
How can you write about faith if you do not have faith? How can one explain the wisdom of the spirit in the limited reasoning of the human mind. Religion is not meant to be a struggle of power between any group, sex, ethnicity, culture. You would like to treat men and women equally in everything. Yes, both sexes are equal in rights and dignity, but at the same time they are inequal in many different aspects. For example, the love a father gives to his children is not the same as a mothers love. In general men cannot express their feelings and emotions as intimately as women can. There is a reason why children come out of a women's womb and not out of a man's. A mother is the only person in the world who can give the proper love and comfort to her children...something the father will always lack, no matter how long he stays at home with his kids or raises them. On the other hand, and man's masculinity gives him the sense of a protector for his family. You cannot attribute everything in religion was purposely done by men to gain control and power over women...saying this is a biased and generalized labelling. Thus, from your arguments you can probably conclude that God was portrayed as a father because men created it that way... So , basically you are saying that religion is some fantasy created by a bunch of loonatic men in order to take over society...My dear, even though there is thousands and thousands of scientifically documented proof of miracles done to men and women, old and the young, christians and non-christians, you will never believe. There is also a reason for the apparations of Mother Mary and why millions of Christians around the world ask for her prayers and healing... evidence which you fail to mention in your article... Life is not a struggle of power Karen, but is a struggle between good and evil. The only reason religious people fear secularism is that it falsifies the true meaning behind religion and it also promotes equality of religions which is the biggest mistake because not all religions are equal in spirituality. Furthermore, a secularist state basically brainwashes it citizens into believing that life is all about drinking, working, having "fun", playing, etc... then we die off... and we don't find God... how can we be with God if we are away from the truth or cannot find it? If you want to learn something what do you do? you go read about that topic and learn something you did not know before. The same applies to God... the only way to know God is to learn about him, and learning about him requires interaction with the spirit.
October 3, 2007 11:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 3, 2007 23:19
Anonymous your religion is EVIL.
you condones the murder of apostates. Do you know that it only takes one page of atrocities to invalidate your peaceful religion? In fact muslims here alluded that the Quran is an easy and understandable book for all mankind for ALL Time and in the SAME breath you claim that its a difficult book just like any -other- religious texts? Why is it that muslims are SOOO CONTRADICTED.
I'm sorry to say this but Islam is full of contradictions. Immanuel and Divine Knucklehead already won the argument the moment Richard began using Argument fallacies and when the Muslimah started quoting teachings THAT ARE FROM THE DEAD PARTS OF THE QURAN. the only relevant passages in the Quran are the latest chapters not the ones before it. This is the fundamental way that Muslims teach the Quran because of Mohammed's doctrine of abrogation. Mohammed changed his mind A LOT. The last words of Mohammed deed say that Women are only worth half of a man and to hang a whip on a wall to remind her of her place. Why is it that reality also confirms this in Islamic countries? If muslim women really want to be treated like a muslimah they should just move to an Islamic country and STAY THERE. I also notice that Victoria also concluded that we should replace our thinking process with the Quran. She said it herself its a complete way of life. When a book tells you how to do everything from wipping your own ass to drinking camel urine to treat ailments is the time to remind those people that they are Backward-superstitious-third-worlders. If these people have there way with in our country they will definitely stall progress of any sort. Like they did to themselves with in there own Golden Age. Who needs science we got the Quran? I guess I should look for the sun in a muddy pond.
The Quran is not perfect. Therefor its not the word of God. It contains contradictions, it contains outdated and wrong information, It's teachings didn't save the countries that it governs. Can't get any more backwards than that. Please join humanity. We don't have ideas that teaches that the earth is a world of suffering (so that you people have the excuse to CAUSE more suffering) just so that they can taste paradise when they die. I wonder what Paradise would be for women in islam? 72 virgins? This brings up another point why is that Islamic paradise is so sinful? Do you think Jesus has as many houris as Mohammed? Can you see the difference between Buddah, Jesus and Mohammed? If I had to choose (I'm an atheist) I would probably pick between Buddah and Jesus :)
September 6, 2007 11:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 6, 2007 23:32
Hello! Help solve the problem.
Very often try to enter the forum, but says that the password is not correct.
Regrettably use of remembering. Give like to be?
Thank you!
August 8, 2007 4:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 8, 2007 04:09
Slighting Non Hijabis: Is this social justice?
Habeeb Alli
Ever so often the issue of Hijab pops up. Men, feminists, scholars and even politicians swim back and forth in this ocean of political correctness: Multiculturalism protects this piece of clothing; this is a Quranic injunction to cover! But the Hijab these days is also a fashionable statement. It's no longer the black unattractive piece J Lo would never think of donning, unless in Afghanistan or as a Non Saudi in the Kingdom! Well, well, doesn't this punctuate my point that in Western society where the grind of every day culture demands a more assertive personality the Hijab is fine; not the burqa? The Quran alludes to this identity factor: "…that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not be molested…" 33:59
The permissive Muslim countries have not been able to protect women from being battered and oppressed, so where has this Arab-styled-dress for females contributed to less harassment? Most girls are cursorily programmed to answer 'Hijab liberates' them. But having a number of Western converts wear the Hijab voluntarily is no different than the crowd of hippies wanting to explore eastern lifestyles and vowing to its absolute panacea for Western decadence. By the way don't you know of Hijab girls doing all the 'wrong stuff" too? What about the Eastern red light areas? The clientele there wear shalwar and kamis, my dear! It's a deeper Faith and God consciousness that really we should identify with. Something anyone could have and not just burqa-clad, self-righteous, non-talking-to-strangers, attention-drawers of ones sexuality. "…But the raiment of righteousness- that is the best…" 7:26
My contention is we have veiled the beautiful system Islam offers humans; that they are secured and respected, regardless of domicile. A woman is a Khalifa of God and not the seducer of Adam. Yet those women who are Faithfully conscious of their choice not to wear the Hijab in public space still complain of denigration. Why should someone give them stares? Why should she be debarred from the Masjid? Why can't she serve her community in a culturally sensitive way, just as her day job provides? There are far more verses in the Quran about Zakah and about outstanding women, like the wife of Pharoah, than on Hijab. This bandwagon has to stop and the issues of self- esteem, democracy, employment, marriage, family values, end to domestic violence, etc has to start rolling. Don't get me wrong. Hijab is absolutely a command of Allah and I'm not belittling it. But the perspective is what beats me. Imagine a Muslim man in Ottawa has the gall to come to this free and respectful country and then say audaciously in court that the Quran allows him to annihilate his wife, if she disobeys. Definitely the Judge is right in bringing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into play and send him packing. It's the same concept the former Attorney General had when she promoted family tribunal laws based on faith. Anyone who steps out of the spirit of Islam and interprets verses to their whims and cultural fancies will be checked, which are coincidentally sanctioned by both Sharia and the Constitution. Preservation of Life is the most precious ideal in Islam according to the Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddima.
I met Zarqa Nawaz, author of Little Mosque on the Prairie . She confidently shared with me the fact that she chose to do this film, as she didn't want the world to run away that all Imams are gender biased! You will be quick to say Astaghfurullah. But haven't we seen it and heard it? Half of the mosque still can't accommodate women and those that do, still don't treat them as equals. Many a times it's the employers of these poor lip-zipped Imams that spiral this ignorance. One very traditional mosque's Imam told me he has had a battle, despite monetary contributions, to fix the room the ladies are crammed into during funeral prayers.
Hazrat Aisha was not the spokesperson of the Prophet because He was sacred of women. Weren't them the coolness of his eyes? He, on whom be peace, interacted with women and saved them from the ills of misogynist men of the day. We know Lady Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, later taught for 48 years after his demise and participated politically and theologically. Show me the organisation that has an Aisha legacy. And yet we waste time joking of events that caters for families that sit together or Muslima leading prayers! Nip it in the bud and as Mufti Saeed Palanpuri of Deoband once said in Toronto, treat the women with fairness and justice otherwise you will not bear the repercussions.
I want to see more activeness in the social justice issues, that which Islam originally played an upper role and in so doing the institutions of women's rights were able to have a reasonable and faithful grip on society. Will the media pundits steer the cameras on these real Biblical and Quranic main recipes? Help the sick. Raise money for the domestically abused. Share your Zakah with the unfortunate. Help girls get marry who are victims of cultural hibernation. Create socially acceptable entertainment. Showcase the deeper concerns for women who are underemployed and uneducated. The Quran doesn't want women to be a stockpile of dullness within the corners of some modern harem.
It seeks to liberate them where they can now do business, inherit wealth, contract their marriage and solicit their divorce and better yet lead in positions of qualifications. Bilqis was a leader and while the Quran is disgusted with her self-worship, it admires her change of Faith without grumping about her powers. Many of the wives of the Prophet were known as Saviours of the poor- "UmmulMasakeen."
From the heart that beats with sympathy will the frock of piety appeal to societies' judges. It's not an automatic uniform for respect. You wear it or not, your respect comes from your doing and more so your character. How about the fact when I saw this girl at No Frills with a headscarf and said Salam she replied I'm not Muslim. It's a Jamaican dress style! Therefore don't make it Islam's exclusive school badge. I lament the many sisters that I have lost because people judged them for their lack of a typical khimar, although their contribution monetarily to the mosque is astounding and their qualifications to make this place a better world is not lesser than Mother Theresa's. Will you be truly multicultural and like the way the Prophet treated the pious and lesser alike, sincerely embrace all into your veils of perfect love and chadors of seamless harmony?
Allah commends Blessed Virgin Mary when she took the concept of Hijab personally: 19:17 She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
June 18, 2007 3:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 18, 2007 15:00
I see you Muslimahs are beyond redemption for believing in the teachings of a man who killed and murdered, enslaved innocent women and children, sold slaves in the mosque, kept dozens of slaves, committed polygamy, forced a woman to 'marry' him and have sex with him a day after he widowed by torturing and beheading her husband, and had sex with a little nine year old child.
The fact that you never even once attempted to defend your prophet on any of these charges is rather telling.
What are you going to tell your children? That Muhammad was the greatest human being that ever lived and a shining example for all humanity forever? I bet you will.
Then you wonder why the rest of us have such low opinions of Islam and Muslims.
Good luck to you all, Muslimahs. May you meet with your conscience some day.
Salaam,
Ahmed
March 12, 2007 8:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2007 20:51
MIA ive appreciated your patience and the interesting information youve given-
just out of curiosity i googled folk islam followed by different countries- even america-
(id say america hasnt had time to develop folk islam) but there were links for everything-
ahmed- plainly youre out of step- your mysogynist version of islam isnt making it anymore-
not only have you failed to convince us ladies that were bad muslims- youve actually reconfirmed my own impetus to unread the patriarchal propoganda that has gone unquestioned for so long-
( i thank asma beslan for that phrase)
here is a hint for your "dawa"
no one in the history of the world has ever stopped believing something ecause their beliefs were attacked-
ive requested repeatedly for you to present something anything superior- always without response-
since you have no answer-
that speaks for itself-
March 11, 2007 1:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 11, 2007 13:17
I responded out of courtesy that you could end the discussion at any time, since you said yours would be final, final. So what do you mean when you said 'don't get personal'? I thought it's a good thing, no?
Yes Ahmed, I understand all your points about Muhammad, the teaching of Islam, etc. All related points have been discussed. I should ultimately appreciate this as the natural process, because in a sense, you are quite attached to Islam, your name is the same with the prophet..:-) lots of material-knowledge, coupled with twisted, bias and intolerant point of views. And this should keep Islam as an interesting religion to discuss. We always need a bit of fireworks to make it alive and interesting.
And I do love it when you talk about Indonesia history, so I could tell more. Deep down I hope Ms. Armstrong or her staffs would read my writings and this thread and then do research on Indonesia history...:-)) Up until now it's still fragmented, lack of whole evidence and contemporary analysis beyond 14th century..:-( I believe it could help the Indonesian to do self-critic, at the same time increase their inner self-confidence to face the global setting.
Salam
Mia
March 9, 2007 9:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 09:29
About bare-chested women.
Friends, I remember reading a history book of the original scripts but also with the translation, there is a painting from 17th century. A boy king of Muslim Banten (old kingdom of west java) was riding his horse in the market. Beside him a couple of food vendors, one is bare-breast woman. It's a royal occassion of the king circumsion.
We believe Wali Songo (9 sufis) didn't tell the women to wear hijab/veil. And they most probably let the women going around bare-breast.
But during the colonialism there was the trend in the royal women to wear more clothes and accessories following the trend of the European women, regarded as 'the higher class'. Naturally, many common folks followed this trend, to jump onto the leader wagon. But it was said, that a woman prince protested this feudalistic idea by performing 'tapa' in the mountain.... in nude!
Not long ago, the Balinese women were bare breast. And you still could see it all the time in their paintings. The Dutch and the missionaries forced their victorian rules.
Until today, many women in the indigenous community don't cover their breasts except when the visitors stare at them curiously.
I'm not saying that women should go back bare-chest these days...we'll catch a cold easily! But the point is please look who's talking, who's projecting what if we are talking about the past. And I won't stuck in the past by cementing todays' western values within their old victorian rules.
Salam
Mia
March 9, 2007 8:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 08:34
Dear Mia,
Please don't get personal. I would like to discuss but this discussion has run out of steam.
I should add that if you say the "feminine or matriarchal character is native to Indonesia" how exactly does it prove Islam is egalitarian? I think you have not understood the difference between exceptions and generalizations.
My point is that the Original Islam as practised and preached by Muhammad was NEVER egalitarian. So it is irrelevant whether Indonesians are matriachal or observing sexual equality. Islam is not matriachal nor does it espouse sexual equality.
You keep on bringing examples of how this 'feminine' characteristics of Indonesia have been changed by the Dutch. What has that got to do with Islam? Does bare-breasted Indonesian women (yes, I do have a couple of beautiful bare-breasted Balinese paintings bought on a holiday long ago) prove Islam is egalitarian?
To prove that Islam is egalitarian you have to prove Islam is egalitarian, not what the Indonesians do or don't do. Indonesia is not Islam. The form of Islam that Indonesians practise is not representative of Islam because they are not representative of the teachings of Muhammad.
To discuss Islam we should look at what Islam actually teaches, not what idiosyncratic Muslim practises. What makes you think the Indonesian form of Islam is representative of the real Islam?
As I have said before you are free to re-interpret Islam to your heart's content. But you have just 're-interpreted' it to your liking. It is not the Islam as preached and practised by your prophet. So how does your re-interpretation of Islam change the way Muhammad and his companions practised Islam? It doesn't. You can re-interpret Islam all you like but it will never change the way Muhammad and his companions practised and preached the real Islam.
By all means soften the harsh verses, ignore the inconvenient verses, re-invent Allah's words, twist the Arabic to your liking. Do all that and it will not change what Islam is. It will only change the particular Indonesian version of Islam. In other words, your version will just be a newer edition of Sufism.
Therefore, I reject the notion that I have a 'blind-spot'. I understand Islam perfectly well to know that it should be a thing of the past.
BTW: how do you reconcile your sense of morality with the heinous behavior of your prophet? Surely a prophet of a true god would not conduct himself with such oppobrium.
Salaam,
Ahmed
March 9, 2007 7:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 07:46
You're welcomed not to continue with the discussion at any time, Ahmed.
Ahmed: "I also didn't invent the term 'folk Islam' in reference to Indonesia. If you google 'folk Islam Indonesia' I'm sure you'd see other people using it as well. The facts of Indonesian matriachy (I'm aware of the Minangkabau matriachy or adat matriarchaat) does not mean that Islam holds women to be equal to men. It does not. According to the tenets of Islamic teachings in the Quran and the hadiths, women are unequal to men. "
Mr. Instant Google should posts a disclaimer 'not responsible for misinterpretation'. In this internet age, we should be more prudent in chewing the information we got. Buset deh Ahmed...how many times did I write that feminine or matriarchal character is native to Indonesia, before more maskulin cultures from India, China, Mid-East, and Europe came? So yes, somehow the cultures erode the original matriarchal values, even in the West Sumatra where matrilineal still hold.
By the way, Balinese would still remember who made the rules for women to cover their breasts. It's the Dutch! Certainly not the Hindus/Buddhis or Muslim Kings. It's the fact where the evidences are so profound. The old Dutch in Indonesia were so victorian and class-discriminative, and were forbidden to marry Indonesia women.
Friends, the thinking of Ahmed or Miriam and a few others are fundamentalists-literalist because it's uprooted from the realities such as cultures, peoples' nature and characters, and time. The fact that Ahmed talks about Allah and Muhammad as if they were in this mailing list, is the evidence of disassociation. The fact that they talk about Muhammad is this and that - it gives some ideas of their own character, it's far from being religious or humanist.
And specifically, it has blind spot toward Muslims. Because regardless of the facts that I have pointed of 85% of 220 million Muslim in Indonesia - who welcome all religions and cultures, we are still 'disobedient muslims'.
This blind spot denies the trust which is the rights for hundred million of Muslim, because when they are reforming themselves they are called being disobedient to their own religion. There is no spiritual place for these common folks, a recognition which they need. They are not being recognised of having faith for a prophet.
Well, who said this world is fair. My professor wouldn't agree, he was the youngest in the family, yet married the oldest wife...:-(
Somehow we could live with these differences and we got the lesson learned (hikmah) from all of this.
And at least Bush admin these days is getting smarter than the rest of us here. I read somewhere today that Ms.Rice gave awards to special women on the international women day. And one of them is DR. MUSDAH MULIA who had worked on the re-interpretation of women inheritance that I have described! Yoohoo.......
Salam
Mia
March 9, 2007 7:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 07:28
final final post
Dear Mia,
I'm of the opinion that I have proven Muhammad and Islam were never egalitarian to begin with. I don't know why you would assert that the original egalitarianism of Islam has been hijacked by men. There never was egalitarianism in Islam. One only has to read the Islamic scriptures and historical records to see this.
To prove to me and others that the Original Islam under Muhammad was egalitarian would be a good start. So far, we only have Karen Armstrong's fictional account of how Muhammad instituted veiling among the Muslimahs as evidence and unfortunately that is not sufficient weight of evidence.
As for Sufism in Indonesia- that is what I have already stated and acknowledged. I'm aware of the 9 walis. However, one also has to examine the historical records of the Islamic conquests that the Sultanates embarked on to see that although there were some peaceful spreading of Islam, this was not the entire story. So it is erroneous to use Indonesia as a refutation that Islam was spread by violence. Nobody says Islam was 100% spread by violence. Bringing an exception does not prove the general case. Even in Muhammad's day there were many voluntary conversions. However, this does not excuse his use of force or coercion as a means to convert those who did not voluntarily convert.
I also didn't invent the term 'folk Islam' in reference to Indonesia. If you google 'folk Islam Indonesia' I'm sure you'd see other people using it as well. The facts of Indonesian matriachy (I'm aware of the Minangkabau matriachy or adat matriarchaat) does not mean that Islam holds women to be equal to men. It does not. According to the tenets of Islamic teachings in the Quran and the hadiths, women are unequal to men.
If some Muslims in some far flung edge of the Islamic world choose to regard women as equal to men it does not prove the general case that Islam is egalitarian. To do so means you're using an exception to prove the general case. We should really be examining the heart of Islamic teachings (not some rare exceptions) since we're talking of the general case.
Salaam,
Ahmed
March 9, 2007 2:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 02:42
As a matter of fact Ahmed, my unproven hypothesis is that the matriarchal/feminine character of Indonesia is long hijacked by men from all these cultures India (Buddha-Hindu), China (Buddha-Islam), India-Persia-Arab (Islam), European (Christianity).
Or.. in more optimistic term, Indonesian has been adjusting itself under the light of these more masculine cultures, which is only natural.
Why do you say "....Islam means matriarchal"? What I said was the egalitarian nature of Islam was compatible with matriarchal-egalitarian character of Indonesia in the old days, that was why Hindu-Buddha was easily replaced by Islam. Islam is the only religion accepted by the indigenous community, if a member decides to lead the common life with the rest of the world.
Is there any major religion in this world friendly to women???? That is the very point from Ms. Armstrong.
Yess, a bearded mullah once told me that Indonesia is such a secular country, not a real muslim country! Shame on you, he said (he would have agreed with you..:-)
Anyone studying the history of Java would know Wali Songo (9 sages), they were sufis who spread Islam in Java. Many people believe a few of them were Chinese and Persian-Arab. Their well-known method of spreading Islam was through the cultural arts & traditions. Ahmed would call this folk-Islam or 'adulterated Islam'...:-(
At least the Wali Songo didn't ask the women to veil themselves! Thank god.
If Ahmed is familiar enough with the history of Java, he would have mentioned Gajah Mada, the prime minister of Majapahit, the Hindus Kingdom who united Nusantara. Alexander the Great van Java, so to speak, Indonesian are very proud of him, who had the vision of the unity in the archipelago. He wasn't as cruel as Alexander, but use lots of political cheating ala Javanese...:-(
Yes Ahmed, there are a number of women warriors fought the war against the Dutch, who said women won't go to war?? Cut Nya Din from Aceh for example, would rather die in guerilla war than submitting herself to the Dutch. Nyi Ageng Serang from Java fought until aged and blind and got killed in the battle with the Dutch.
Throughout the history of Indonesia with the characteristic of communal-egalitarian, from time to time there have been riots (amoks) among the massess against the status quo, when our sense of inequality is breached. In this sense, Indonesia lower class has the characteristic of social-leftist. We call it 'premanism', and I was born in that kind of neighborhood.
Salam
Mia
=========================
Ahmed Hussain:
Dear Mia,
The matriachal instinct of the Indonesian people does not mean that Islam is matriachal. It only goes to show that the Islam of Indonesia is largely what is termed 'folk Islam'. If I may say you have an adulterated form of Islam since you include many 'folk' animist/Hindu practises such as 'spirit mediums' known as dukun and quasi-religious medicine men. These would be frowned upon by the real MiddleEast Islam as witchcraft/paganism.
Also, the roots of Islam in Indonesia were Sufi, though Wahabism has become predominant in recent years.
Thirdly, the wars between Hindus in Indonesia pre-Islam are irrelevant. It's a tu quoque argument that exposes the claim that 'Islam was spread in Indonesia through peaceful means' to be untrue. The Sultanates in the Malay Archipelago were highly intolerant of other religions. Though they fought each other they also spread Islam by conquest.
Salaam,
Ahmed
March 9, 2007 12:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 00:32
http://secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/
21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration
Released by the delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, St. Petersburg, Florida on March 5, 2007
We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.
We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.
We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.
We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.
We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.
We call on the governments of the world to
reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostacy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;
eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women;
protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;
reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;
and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.
We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.
We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.
We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;
to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;
and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.
Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must chose for themselves.
Endorsed by:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Magdi Allam
Mithal Al-Alusi
Shaker Al-Nabulsi
Nonie Darwish
Afhin Ellian
Tawfik Hamid
Shahriar Kabir
Hasan Mahmud
Wafa Sultan
Amir Taheri
Ibn Warraq
Manda Zand Ervin
Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi
To endorse the St. Petersburg Declaration, send an email.
Watch Ibn Warraq read the English version of the Declaration.
Mail this Printer friendly
Copyright 2006 Secular Islam Summit
March 8, 2007 10:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 8, 2007 22:00
Thank you, Ahmed, for your comments. You have been an invaluable voice in this discussion.
March 8, 2007 8:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 8, 2007 20:11
This discussion seems to have run out of steam, and this will be my last post. I urge all Muslims and Islamic-apologists to consider this fact - the behavior of Muhammad was utterly vile. Even by the standards of his day, Muhammad was barbaric. He killed people, enslaved women and children, tortured opponents, sold slaves in the mosque, plundered the belongings of people who never even threatened him and ordered his followers to kill all disbelievers who refused to convert or submit to Islam. In short Muhammad was a nasty guy on a par with Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun. If you don't believe me then read the Quran, hadiths and sira for yourselves. Western Islam-apologists like Karen Armstrong don't know what they're talking about and are just interested in white-washing Islam. Read the original Islamic sources for yourselves. Open your eyes and mind to the dangers of Islam. The fact that the Muslimahs here have singularly failed to even attempt to disprove one charge I made against Muhammad is rather telling. They cannot even begin to defend their prophet against the charges of his savagery knowing full well that I will provide the evidence from the Islamic sources to prove my case.
----
Mia wrote:
Miriam: "So if you think Westerners are only criticizing Islam, you should see what they are saying about their own religions. "
Yes, agreed. In fact my friends and I are critisising Islam and Muslims all the time. So more people are doing this and that's an inward looking.
Because faith and self-criticism should compliment each other, so we won't have so much of the blind spot in our beliefs as you said. Accepting the violent in each of us is part of self-critic.
This will start the process of re-interpretation in each of our religion, as times change. But in the previous discussion my example of re-interpretation is not accepted by either Ahmed and the Muslim literalists because Ahmed equates re-interpretation with the will of God. In this way they are both literalists and stuck in the past. But we all could live with it, because regardless our beliefs, what matter is our true behavior (taqwa), reflecting our faith.
Victoria asked Ahmed, what he is rejecting is quite clear, now perhaps he could share the solution?
Ahmed replies:
If Muslims want to re-interpret Islam to their own liking then go ahead. This is not a new phenomenon - it goes all the way back to the roots of Islam. It reminds of the origins of Sufism and Ahmadiyya. There are many sects in Islam and each was created by someone's re-interpretation of Islam.
Even before that, the main Sunni sect accounting for about 85-90% of all Muslims had already produced the 4 schools of fiqh. In each of these schools, the theologians produced their own interpretations of the grey areas and tried to resolve the conflicting verses and hadiths. However, none of these to my knowledge have lead to wholesale disobedience against the Quran. When Allah said something is black it is black without question. When he said it is white it is white. Only the grey areas were interpreted to determine which shades of grey was applicable.
Then there was the short period which some people called ijtihad. In this early phase between the fall of the Righteous Caliphs and the rise of al-Ghazali's orthodoxy, Islamic law could be interpreted by so-called doctors of Islam much akin to how the Rabbis interpret the Jewish scriptures. However, with al-Ghazali all that fell by the wayside and first, only the Caliph and then the Ulema (general body of scholars) had the right to ijtihad.
In a sense, everyone interprets for themselves. When Muslims read 9:29 - the infamous verse where Muhammad commanded the Muslims to kill (yes kill) all disbelievers who refused to convert or subject themselves to Muslim humiliating rule - most do not follow it. They don't go out with a knife to force a non-Muslim neighbor to convert to Islam. This is because they have 'interpreted' 9:29 to be an injunction on the ruler (or some other such re-interpretation). By doing so they are able to live more or less at peace with their non-Muslim neighbors. However, this reinterpretation does not change the essential nature of Islam as an aggressive bigotted religion that uses force rather than reason as its means to convert the disbelievers.
In Mia's case, she brings the issue of inheritance laws in Indonesia. This is not just a re-interpretation of the Quran but a total disobedience against Allah's command. This is no grey area we're dealing with. This is an out-and-out disobedience. Indonesians may feel they are allowed to disobey Allah as and when they choose. Nobody is denying them their right to do so. But their disobedience does not prove that Allah did not issue an unjust and misogynistic inheritance law. It just proves the Indonesians are ashamed of Allah's misogyny and wish to re-write Allah's words on his behalf.
When they read 4:11 where Allah tells them to give their daughters half the inheritance of sons, they translate 'nisf' to mean 'equal' rather than 'half'. In a sense, they have put themselves above Allah to 'correct' him in light of modern times.
Does this Indonesian peculiarity prove Allah is fair and just? No. It only proves the Indonesian mortals are fairer and more just than their 7th century God.
Does it mean I'm a literalist or fundamentalist for pointing out that such re-interpretation of black and white issues are in fact blatant disobedience of Allah? No. It just means I understand the difference between re-interpretation and disobedience.
So to Mia and other modern Westernized Muslims - go ahead and re-interpret Allah's words to your liking. I'm not stopping you. I applaud you in your efforts. In fact, I think you haven't gone far enough - you should re-interpret all of Allah's words to modern Westernized sensibilities (with a leftist bent). However, what you'll end up with is something that is so far from Islam that you'll be called apostates by your erstwhile Muslim brethren. That's the fate shared by the Sufis and Ahmadiyyas who are persecuted by other Muslim sects for 'perverting' the words of Allah.
If you dislike wife-beating then just ignore 4:34.
If you dislike Muslims being allowed to marry and have sex with pre-pubertal girls, then just ignore 65:4 and 33:49.
If you dislike the unfair sexist inheritance law then just ignore 4:11.
If you dislike killing non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or subject themselves to dhimmitude then just ignore 9:29.
If you dislike polygamy then ignore 4:3. Or better yet - get your husband to ignore 4:3. Good luck - he might beat you if you kick up a fuss against his new wife.
If you wish to reconcile with your ex-husband without having to marry and have sex with some other man first then ignore 2:230.
If you dislike slavery then ignore 4:3 and all the other verses that permits the Muslims to have sex with their female captives/slaves/right hand possessions.
As you can see there is much to 're-interpret' in the Quran to make it fit for the 21st century. Though implicit understanding is that Allah is unpalatable to 21st century Muslimahs.
Salaam,
Ahmed Hussain
March 7, 2007 10:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 7, 2007 22:42
Dear Mia,
The matriachal instinct of the Indonesian people does not mean that Islam is matriachal. It only goes to show that the Islam of Indonesia is largely what is termed 'folk Islam'. If I may say you have an adulterated form of Islam since you include many 'folk' animist/Hindu practises such as 'spirit mediums' known as dukun and quasi-religious medicine men. These would be frowned upon by the real MiddleEast Islam as witchcraft/paganism.
Also, the roots of Islam in Indonesia were Sufi, though Wahabism has become predominant in recent years.
Thirdly, the wars between Hindus in Indonesia pre-Islam are irrelevant. It's a tu quoque argument that exposes the claim that 'Islam was spread in Indonesia through peaceful means' to be untrue. The Sultanates in the Malay Archipelago were highly intolerant of other religions. Though they fought each other they also spread Islam by conquest.
Salaam,
Ahmed
March 6, 2007 6:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 18:46
Hi Miriam, tks for the reply.
The current fact is that 85% of 220 million Indonesian BERIMAN (have faith) to Muhammad as the prophet, as well as other named and unnamed prophets. Not mentioning how many Catholic/Protestan, Hindu/Buddha and other people worldwide who also have faiths. Denying this is to deny the whole reality, and won't offer solution.
Miriam: "So if you think Westerners are only criticizing Islam, you should see what they are saying about their own religions. "
Yes, agreed. In fact my friends and I are critisising Islam and Muslims all the time. So more people are doing this and that's an inward looking.
Because faith and self-criticism should compliment each other, so we won't have so much of the blind spot in our beliefs as you said. Accepting the violent in each of us is part of self-critic.
This will start the process of re-interpretation in each of our religion, as times change. But in the previous discussion my example of re-interpretation is not accepted by either Ahmed and the Muslim literalists because Ahmed equates re-interpretation with the will of God. In this way they are both literalists and stuck in the past. But we all could live with it, because regardless our beliefs, what matter is our true behavior (taqwa), reflecting our faith.
Victoria asked Ahmed, what he is rejecting is quite clear, now perhaps he could share the solution?
Salam
Mia
March 6, 2007 5:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 05:15
well ive never heard the term nteer either- it sounded like it might be one who uses the internet-
so i did a simple search it took 1 minute-
netter
n. 1. Loosely, anyone with a network address. 2. More specifically, a Usenet regular. Most often found in the plural. "If you post _that_ in a technical group, you're going to be flamed by angry netters for the rest of time!"
Jargon File
actually i wouldnt say mr plotz has brought anything to light- i read these stories all my life-
anyone who has eyes and an inclination has done so=- its not like its hidden or aything-
as a matter of fact- muslims are kind of repulsed when its suggested to them that david was spying on a woman in her bath and sent her husband off to die in a war so he could have her-
or a prophet getting drunk and having sex with his daughters- and the many other bizarre stories -
for instance miriam- i hve some very negative feelings about say- ariel sharon- (who is not a prophet at all) but i dont make ugly personal remarks about him-
why would it confuse you that we are saddened and upset when someone defames and abuses our beloved Prophet(pbuh).
just for the record then- it greatly distresses us-
so out of consideration for us as humans- now that you are aware how much it huerts us to hear someone call our Nabi(pbuh) a murderer- or other ugly appellations-
possibly just fro good manners you could also refrain from these unecessary and divisive slanders-
so in short- netters was never a negative comment-
WE ARE ALL NETTERS HERE!
peace
there really arent any similar stories like that in the Quran- i cant imagine why a person would blog something or what purpose it would serve other than to sell soem articles and maybe get a book deal-
its kind of funny i guess- but not really very enlightening-
March 6, 2007 3:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 03:04
Mia - You said:"because if I'm not mistaken, was it you who said that Ms. Armstrong should bring her case among the Muslims so they could reform themselves?" No I did not say that. I also have no idea what a netter is.
I understand that you consider the comments of Ross and Anna objectionable, but I am not sure why you put Ahmed in the same category. With Anna and Ross there are a lot of polemics, but Ahmed seems to know his Koran and Arabic etc, and therefore, he makes a worthwhile opponent for you. Of course, I am not totally objective, and I agree with what Ahmed says, but even so he appears quite fair and reasonable to me. He doesn't believe that Muhammed was a prophet, and Ahmed says that Muhammed was " a murderer, a thieving bandit, enslaver of women and children, a polygamist, a torturer, and a child-lover are all recorded by YOUR religious sources." That is the whole point. You start a priori by thinking that Muhammed was a prophet, while Ahmed(and myself) do not start with that assumption. We simply look at the facts of Muhammed's life and conclude that he was "a murderer etc", and we conclude that by going directly to accounts of Muhammed's life.
We all have blind spots in our psyches, things we just refuse to look at, and no one can force another person to look at those blind spots, people have to come to it themselves, and most people never do. In the US 35% of people still support George Bush, even though it is quite clear to the rest of the country and the world, that the invasion of Iraq was probably the biggest foreign policy blunder in US history, and as Americans we will be living with those repercussions for generations to come. So I would say that the 35% who still support Bush have a blind spot in their psyches. They cannot let go of a fixed idea of the way the world should be. Similarly in Russia there are many people who still believe that Stalin was a great leader. In Japan the current President refuses to admit, in spite of overwhelming evidence, that the Japanese used many thousands of sex slaves when they invaded China and Korea. And so it goes.
In the US we have an expression "to circle the wagons". It comes from the time when wagon trains of white settlers went across the Plains, and when they were attacked by Indians, the wagons would form into a circle, and all the settlers would get inside the circle so they could use the wagons as protection against the attack. So similarly the member of any group, religious or political, circles the wagons when they feel that their beliefs are threatened, and that is how blind spots get formed.
This is all by way of saying that even though your personal experience of Islam in Indonesia was and is gentle, there are parts of the Koran and Muhammed's life that are not at all gentle, and are quite the opposite, and that is also part of Islam.
I recently read some posts from someone who is "blogging the bible", actually he is blogging the Old Testament. Many of the stories in there are definitely not any stories I learned in Sunday school, and I am sure most observant Jews do not know these stories, because these stories very plainly show that many of the heroes of the Old Testament were pretty violent and treacherous. And yet these stories are part of the holy books of the Jews, and there have been thousands of years of learned and sagacious commentary from numerous pious scholars, yet none of those scholars has ever pointed out, how bizarre many of these stories are. It took a non-practicing, unbelieving,irreverent, secular Jew to bring these stories to light. So if you think Westerners are only criticizing Islam, you should see what they are saying about their own religions. Here is the link to blogging the Bible. I suggested in another post that someone needs to blog the Koran:
http://www.slate.com/id/2141050/
March 5, 2007 11:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 11:54
Hi Miriam, sorry I didn't realise the word 'netter' has a negative conotation. I should have said it different ways, like 'some people' or 'friends'. I brought it up, because if I'm not mistaken, was it you who said that Ms. Armstrong should bring her case among the Muslims so they could reform themselves? I illustrated that to confirm that the books indeed being discussed among the urban Muslims in Indonesia, at least from my own observation.
If you didn't say that, sorry it must have been somebody else.
And I wouldn't mind your objections to the content of the books. Your way of discussion, I notice, is far more fair, polite and sensible than Ahmed, Anna, Ross and a few others.
Victoria, the coco beef is called rendang - a popular Indonesian curry dish from West Sumatra. And I like it hot, hot, spicy. Write to me aldiy@yahoo.com for a 'secret recipee'..:-) If not, I could write here, if the others don't mind a culinary adventure...
Ahmed, I don't go around telling people about matriarchal evidence of Indonesia culture. But I think it's relevant for this thread about the egalitarian order hijacked by men.
So when I said Islam came to Indonesia by trades (like other cultures also), I didn't say there was no violence at all, did I? Violence is just part of us human nature, and the question is how we manage it.
I would like to show you another example for comparison. The Dutch came to Indonesia by TRADES also. It was VOC, the Dutch company a monopolist (remember Microsoft hehehe), who influenced Indonesia culture since 16th century. There were sporadic resistance by the local Indonesia kingdoms, because the Dutch loved to monopolise the economy. On 18th century the missionaries came along. In the 19th century the Dutch government took over. Indonesia was then 'formally' under the Dutch colony. Under the new Republic of Indonesia the government announced the war of independence against the Dutch. Remember, at that time the West was fueled by the rising euphoria of state-nationalism. As far as we remember, the war against the Dutch was more profound than anything else.
There were always sporadic wars between the kings, even before Islam came (but old Indonesia prior to 1st century CE is hardly known, data is quite fragmented). So if the kings of Demak (Muslim Javanese kingdom) for example, who went to war with the rest of Hindus Majapahit, it was just another event of the fights between the royal families. But remember Ahmed, the wars in Indonesia history was not institutionalised by the state, except the war for independence. Compare this to the pre-emptive strike of Bush administration. So, it's a different 'violence management', right?
Back to the topic of the thread. My un-contested hypothesis is that in Indonesia the matriarchal order was long hijacked by men, since the day the Indian kings came in the 1st century CE. India, China, Muslim mid-east-Arab, and European cultures are more masculine-oriented than Indonesia.
The feminine traits of Indonesia culture recognises the plurality of all cultures. I don't know any other cultures which is so open to the foreign influence than Indonesia (BTW, this would include TIP countries, Thai, Indo and Phillipine). So plurality for us is the state of nature, but Indonesia has been in the transition period especially after 30 year of totaliarianism from the military, and hundred years of conflict with the colonialist. It means we lost our ability to manage plurality as the our strength point. We haven't found that ability, yet - and under the modern global context, it is certainly a big challenge for us.
Salam
Mia
March 5, 2007 6:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 06:15
Mia - You called me a "netter". I don't know what that is, but the context makes it sound as if it is not something polite.
And yes, I am sure Karen Armstrong's books are being read by all sorts of people. Nevertheless, as Ahmed has shown, she makes a lot of mistakes in what she says, and a lot of what she says does not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
March 4, 2007 11:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 23:31
Sorry Mia,
But perhaps you'll care to explain the military displacement of Hinduism with Islam with the fall of the Majapahit empire. The history of how the Hindus were defeated by the Muslims and had to flee to Bali is well-known.
Granted that the initial introduction of Islam to Indonesia was peaceful but then like everywhere else, once Islam gets strong, it becomes aggressive.
The 'peaceful conversion of Indonesia to Islam' is one of the more blatant Islamist lies. It looks like even the Indonesian Muslims have been taught the 'Islamic version' of history and have not thought more deeply into the inconvenient facts.
I therefore request you check out the demise of the Majapahit Empire and the fall of Hinduism at the hands of the war-mongering Muslims.
Salaam,
Ahmed
March 4, 2007 7:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 19:22
Dear Anonymous,
If you're ashamed of your prophet's behavior then don't hold me responsible for it. If you're insulted or offended by your prophet's behavior then I suggest you apostate from Islam. You obviously have a problem with having an evil prophet of an evil religion. Perhaps you could try Buddism or one of the other truly pacifist religions where their founders are beyond reproach.
The history of your prophet is well-known from the Islamic religious sources - i.e. the Quran, ahadith and sira.
That he was a murderer, a thieving bandit, enslaver of women and children, a polygamist, a torturer, and a child-lover are all recorded by YOUR religious sources. If you think I'm wrong - then please provide the evidence.
Salaam,
Ahmed
March 4, 2007 7:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 19:12
mia- i didnt know indonesia was originally a matriarchal society, what an interesting picture you paint- the first mosque i ever attended had about 150 indonesisan memebers and every sunday they came and made the most delicious food ive ever eaten in my life- and every one of them- gentle gentle-
( i was always there all day on sunday doing other things) i was always struck by how respectful and energetic they were- (as a matter of fact- coconut beef is my favoritest thing i ever ate- hmmm- maybe il make it tomorrow- i have to find a recipe- any advice?
AHMED- sorry for attacking you-
in all honesty im not so concerned about your ability or inability to speak arabic-
why dont you ever twll us what better way you have found then?
were all pretty aware of what youve rejected-
ok peace all
March 3, 2007 2:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 14:07
Ahmed: "Ladies, Let's not get personal with this. I'm not here to upset you but to offer brotherly love. I share your pain.."
Mia: I'd like to get personal..:-). In any business presentation I always share something personal...for example, showing the pictures that I took myself. And I've been sharing with you guys some of my (personal) spiritual experience.
In typical Indonesia mailing list, people like Ahmed wouldn't upset most of us, we'll be amused and gently tease each other, and joke around. Here, I'm myself amused, because for the first time, I learn the parallel thinking of fundamentalists, whether they are Christian or Muslim. I have long suspected this, but now in more clarity.
And I could share to netters like Miriam, that the books of Karen Armstrong have far reached many people of Indonesia, from my teenage nephews to the investment bankers. It means the books inspire many of the urban Muslims to re-interpret our own religion. Again, this is from my personal observation.
And I could share with the other netters, an interesting psychology of a fundamentalist, as quoted from typical Ahmed's line:
"I'm not here to upset you but to offer brotherly love. I share your pain. Believe me....I'm sure Allah was just waiting for you ladies to re-interpret his words for him, as he was too stupid to write with any clarity"
A brotherly love from Ahmed which turns into hatred in the next seconds. He insults Muhammad or allah (Ahmed's personal god), even though they are not in this mailing list...:-( Please deh Ahmed, how could we put 'love' and 'insults' in the same paragraph.
And every time Ahmed mention Indonesia, I would just love to tell more..:-) I told you that Indonesia has been plural. We were so open with the different cultural settings, which means we are friendly with visitors/strangers.
The missionary came to Indonesia in 18th century, associated with colonialism. Before that Islam came along with the trading mostly from Gujrati, India. And before that or parallel with that was Buddha and Hindu. Before that 'the orinal Indonesian beliefs' which I believe it's egalitarian and matriarchal. Islam was easily accepted and replaced Hinduism largely because of the egalitarian nature.
The egalitarian and matriarchal cultures are still evidenced in some Indonesian ethnic groups and in an indigenous community. In this community, 125 km from Jakarta, the people live in total harmony with nature, that is the underlying philosophy. Women lead most important ritual functions which simbolizes Dewi Sri, a symbol of fertility. If the wife of the village head dies, automatically he's released from that position, until he is remarried. (married women are free to go around not covering their breasts!). Make no mistake, they don't exhibit artifacts, temples or stone icons, Dewi Sri is simply an abstract feminine symbol. Not even writings, theirs is totally oral tradition. They believe in the One God (Sang Hyang) which they rarely utter in daily conversation. Evil for them simply means 'bad habits or bad deeds'. Nothing supertitious, just simply natural. They have many 'taboos' or forbidden things, such as the use of plastic, soap, metals, no animals domestications including four-legged animals, no cultivation only seasonal harvest - but one important taboo is imposing taboo to someone else. So they live in 'ascetic life', but if people want to go out of the community they could stay in the outer ring (Like the Amish-Mnenonite just for a comparison, only more 'severe'). If they want to go out of the outer ring to mix with the rest of the world then they are expected to hold Islam as the religion (not Hindu, Buddha or Christianity), because of the egalitarian characteristic.
Salam
Mia
March 2, 2007 8:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 08:47
Victoria,
Yeah, still attacking Ahmed again, I see. So what if I'm become Americanized and use nouns as verbs? Does it prove anything except I'm just keeping it simple for you?
Please think about it a moment - I'm telling you sense. No matter how you 're-interpret' Islam TODAY, you can never change what Islam was in Muhammad's day.
But I don't expect you to see this simple logic: you'll only accuse me of being a fundamentalist for interpreting the Quran the way it's written. I'm sure Allah was just waiting for you ladies to re-interpret his words for him, as he was too stupid to write with any clarity.
Salaam,
Ahmed
February 28, 2007 7:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 19:04
MIA you are totally bodacious-
your analysis and succinct wrapping up of the posters and their motives are right on-
ahdmed- ive long suspected youre john smith sitting in his mothers basement in texas-
the fact that you even take the arabic khimar (a noun) and then use it as a verb- is very telling about your alleged unproven knowledge of arabic-
i truly suspect at this point that i have a greater knowledge of arabic than you do-
what possible bearing does indonesia not being muslim in the time when islam was revealed have to do with anything anywhere?
all of your reasoning (when you use it) is the exact same simple kind that i encounter in christian fundamentalists-
since ive already made long counters to your opinions (which you state as true although have no logical or substantial quran to do so)
i wont bother again-
your obvious extreme hatred of islam is based on your own lack of knowledge about it-
turn off fox news as a source of information
February 28, 2007 3:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 15:43
Ladies,
Let's not get personal with this. I'm not here to upset you but to offer brotherly love. I share your pain. Believe me, I do. It is not easy to hear someone tell you your religion is (insert denigration of choice) and your prophet was a nasty man. It must be really painful.
Look at it this way: I'm here to strengthen your faith. If your faith can survive the blowtorch of logic and evidence then it will strengthen.
But let us correct the misconceptions about Islam. For a start, the discussion was about the 'original egalitarian order of Islam being hijacked by men.'
Therefore it is incumbent on us to examine whether the Original Islam (as practised by Muhammad and his companions) was ever egalitarian. So, even if we were to accept that Islam can be 're-interpreted' today and Allah's words can be 're-interpreted' today such that 1 is no longer 1 but 2, and 1/2 is no longer half but 1, it still does not get you around the extremely embarrasing difficulty that Allah (i.e. Muhammad) told the Muslims of his day to only give daughters half the inheritance of their sons.
{Note to Mia, in the time of the original Islam, there was no such thing as Indonesia and your forebears were Hindu or Buddhists.)
So it is undeniable that 4:11 proves that in the Original Islam (as practised by Muhammad and his companions) there was no such thing as egalitarianism.
Other evidence that there was no 'egalitarianism' in the Islam of Muhammad's day are:
- women's testimony only worth 1/2 of that of men.
- all Muslimahs were ordered to 'khimar' themselves, contrary to what Karen Armstrong asserted.
- men were allowed to beat their wives.
So, no matter how you re-interpret the Quran today you can never re-interpret the Quran of Muhammad's day. The Original Islam cannot be re-interpreted to your Western sensibilities. Sorry about that, but them's the breaks.
Salaam,
Ahmed
February 28, 2007 7:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 07:10
In Indonesia there is a popular converted Muslimah, she was a former Christian/Catholic, I forgot which one, and now an activist Muslimah. Some of us critisise her preaching because it ALWAYS denigrates the teaching of Christian.
The point is that there is still anger inside her which she should have been looking inwardly, instead of projecting it into the enemy of Islam.
They are both literalist/fundamentalists, but unlike Ahmed the former Muslim, she is far more polite, fair and intellectual. So we could live with this kind of literalism under pluralistic Indonesia.
Someone like Ahmed, Ross, Anna are potentially detrimental to the society under the leadership like Bush, for example, who nurtures this kind of fundamentalism.
But yet, the rational western democracy in America and Europe as a whole won't allow this kind of fundamentalism to dominate - if people continue to hold the true democracy.
And Ahmed's view point will be just like the dust in the wind. So cheer up, Victoria, Ahmed is singing the old song 'Dust in the Wind'
Salam
Mia
February 27, 2007 10:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 27, 2007 22:19
Victoria,
I'm only presenting the truth about Islam. It is up to you whether you agree or disagree. The readers will decide who makes sense and has presented the cogent arguments and evidence to support his position.
If you want to argue that 2+2 = 5 then go ahead, but when I read 2 + 2 I know it's 4. So to all you Westernized Muslims practising a watered-down, make-belief, re-interpreted to feel-good Islam - if you want to believe Allah allows daughter to get equal inheritance as sons - go ahead but any Arab who reads 4:11 can tell daughters only get half as much as sons - and there's no time limit for this ayat. It's forever.
Salaam,
Ahmed
February 26, 2007 7:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 26, 2007 19:05
ahmed once again all youve proven is your unadulterated hatred of islam-
February 26, 2007 12:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 26, 2007 12:33
Mia wrote:
this case, you are not fair only because you rephrase my sentence and put it out of context.
Ahmed replies:
I'm not aware that I'm doing anything other than paraphrasing you by freeform typing at my keyboard. I assure you I have no intention of quoting you out of context.
MIA wrote:
Of course you don't know Allah's will, but you are implying it all along - by being undemocratic of not letting other people to choose interpretations.
Ahmed replies:
How have I stopped you from choosing your own interpretations? I haven't.
All I have done is to state clearly and umbiguously that there are some very simple instructions from Allah that you can't re-interpret away without disobeying him. I think you can 're-interpret' the grey areas and not the explicit commands.
Mia wrote:
Ahmed: In short, I don't know Allah's will - that's why I don't reinterpret the Quran. To do so would be to decide in Allah's place, and it is you, not me, who are doing that."
This is in line with what the Muslim fundamentalist would say: reinterpreting text = Allah's will.
Ahmed replies:
How do you re-interpret nisf to not mean half? That is beyond me.
Mia wrote:
The discussion from Ms. Armstrong is "Original Egalitarian Order of Most Religions 'Hijacked' by Men"
Which means we, the followers have hijacked the order, not the prophets who taught the meaning of golden rules.
Ahmed replies:
This is not true as Muhammad was the biggest misogynist of all. Islam was never egalitarian because Muhammad was not egalitarian. That is what I've been saying all along. Muhammad was a bigoted sexist misogynist among other unsavory characteristics.
So Karen Armstrong's proposition is false. She assumed/mistakenly believed that the original Islam (as practised by Muhammad) was egalitarian. This is so far from the truth it's laughable. One only has to read the Quran to see the gross injustice of Islam. And that doesn't include the gross injustice in the ahadith.
Salaam,
Ahmed
February 26, 2007 7:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 26, 2007 07:53
In this case, you are not fair only because you rephrase my sentence and put it out of context.
Of course you don't know Allah's will, but you are implying it all along - by being undemocratic of not letting other people to choose interpretations.
Ahmed: In short, I don't know Allah's will - that's why I don't reinterpret the Quran. To do so would be to decide in Allah's place, and it is you, not me, who are doing that."
This is in line with what the Muslim fundamentalist would say: reinterpreting text = Allah's will.
The discussion from Ms. Armstrong is "Original Egalitarian Order of Most Religions 'Hijacked' by Men"
Which means we, the followers have hijacked the order, not the prophets who taught the meaning of golden rules.
Salam
Mia
February 26, 2007 3:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 26, 2007 03:59
Dear Mia,
I think I'm being very fair in my discussions. I'm a fair man. I just happen to disagree that some basic clear-cut verses in the Quran can be 're-interpreted' away.
I do acknowledge there are many 'flavors' of Islam but that still does not change the central core of Islam - which is the Quran.
I don't know the will of Allah and never claimed to do so. All I have done is to relate what is in the Quran itself.
Does the Quran tell Muslims to obey Allah and Muhammad? Yes.
Does the Quran tell Muslims they can disobey Allah and Muhammad by 're-interpreting' inconvenient verses? No.
There are some things that can be re-interpreted in the light of modern conditions - for example, Muslims today don't keep slaves so the verses about slavery no longer apply. This is a 'reinterpretation' of the Quran.
However, this doesn't mean that slavery was not part of Islam or that Allah had forbidden slavery or that there are no verses on slavery in the Quran. It just means that Muslims are ashamed that their prophet and god had permitted slavery and no longer wish to practise this particular aspect of Islam. But it still means that your Allah permitted/permits slavery. It's just that you have chosen to disregard Allah on this issue.
Likewise, the verse on inheritance is very clear: nisf