I love this blog, because I think everyone here is a good writer, and some are exceptional writers. Everyone here brings their own perspective, geographical and ideological to the fight against the Jihad.
This is great, as far as I am concerned.
Now, lately, I've been getting criticized for inviting Eteraz to contribute here at IBA. I have also taken a lot of criticism, from the very beginning of this blog, and before, for the fact that I hold out hope for Islam to reform itself.
I can understand why some would criticize me. However, I want to point out a couple of things.
1) There is a living, breathing form of reformed and peaceful Islam at work on the Earth this very day. It is called Sufi Islam. Sufi's are peaceful (find me an example of a Sufi terrorist, and I'll show you a guy whose friends put some Angel Dust in his ganja), and the emphasis of their faith is on love. Look it up. You'll see what I mean.
2) The first five books of the Bible (the Torah) call for the stoning of adulterers, apostates, and homosexuals, as well as Islam. However, Jews moved beyond that. If Judaism could reform itself, why can't Islam?
3) Eteraz is against violent Jihad. Eteraz believes that women should have equal rights. Eteraz is againstt the imposition of Sharia. Eteraz believes in the separation of church and state. Eteraz wants Western Democracy to spread. And, Eteraz puts these thoughts down in pulsing pixels for the whole world to see. He is a Muslim making an attempt at reforming Islam. So, what do you find wrong with him?
Do we agree with everything Eteraz says? No, of course, most of us do not. Sometimes, Eteraz seems to work harder as an apologist for his faith, than as a reformer of his faith.
But, you know what? So do I. I know, for instance, fellow IBA Founder Jonz thinks I'm full of shit, because of some of the long emails I have sent him explaining my Christian worldview. Does he want to kick me off IBA because I seem unreasonable to him on the subject of my faith? No.
Because, I am not a violent fanatic.
So, anyway, let's keep fighting together. If you guys want us to change anything, let me, or J, or Jonz know.
Keep up the crusading.
:)
30 comments:
The Sufis are becoming increasingly marginalised as Wahhabi orthodoxy carries all before it. It is doubtful if the Sufis ever were real Muslims. Some of them seem to have been Central Asian Buddhists who 'went underground' and paid lip service to Allah following the Muslim invasions (remember Bamiyan?)
Eteraz belongs.
The end.
This isn't about killing the muslims it's about salafi and khomeinist jihadi freaks.
If a muslim stands up against that and says that's not Islam, and is ready to defend it with the Message I'm ready to stand next to such a person.
There are those who say that can't be, that it's taqiyya, and it may be...but let's be sanguine
If we are not prepared to kill them all, then we have to encourage and help those whose take is not that if we make up our own laws we can't be following god's. Otherwise we had better be ready to do murder and call it justice.
I'm all in favor of keeping ersazt, not that it's any of my business anymore.
I do wonder about the idea of Sufis being moderates. That is a misunderstanding of Sufis, and a direct lack of knowledge of Islamic history. They are not pot-smoking hippies and whirling dervishes spinning to the exstactinducing rhythms of drums. Sorry, look t the actual history, perhaps beginning with the Madhi of Sudan. Folks, they ain't laid back slackers. They are some of the most eranged fanatics since the Hashishans. Stephen Schwartz is some piece of work to have fobbed off anything good about Sufis. He's pulled the suf over your eyes if you buy any of it.
LOL
I don't think you're full of shit mate!!
But I think the point your making is I welcome your viewpoint, even though it can be through a different lens altogether.
Eteraz is 100% welcome here. Power to the progressives. Let's not be so pessimistic in the face of adversity folks.
p.s. Pastorius - I would like to have some more of your theories via email!
And since we have a thread called Alright, Let's Get This Shit Out In The Open, I would also like to say I'm not happy with certain commentors using the word Muzzie. There's a no need. I know Robert Spencer has had similar issues with his excellent Jihad Watch site.
We all know that Islam is a very emotive issue, but please don't stoop to the level of generalisation like the jihadists do. It's not proper, and you just won't be taken seriously by most people.
I for one can't stand it when I'm categorised as Kafir or Infidel.
Jonz,
Actually, I didn't think you thought I was completely full of shit. Just a bit, huh?
;-)
Dag,
I know you are a fount of knowledge. Can you give me some documentation of Sufi violence. If the wool was pulled over my eyes, then it has been since I studied Comparative Religion is college.
No one ever fooled my ass on the subject of Islam. I remember well the Khomeini Revolution. Clearly, those were evil people. Even as a child, I could see that. And, I also remember Arafat and the 1972 Olympics. Like I said, no one fooled me on that.
But, in all the years of my life, I have never seen ANY bad news on the Sufis.
In fact, the Arabic Islamofascist government of Sudan loves killing the Sufis.
Why?
Because they see them as OTHER.
So, please do provide me with documentation. I want to know if I am wrong.
The only sufi violence I can think of offhand are the sufi dervishes of Chechnya in the 1830-50's.
They maintined a low to very low level of resistance..until they were killed off about 1998 by guess who
There's probablymore, but I don't think and entire theoretical basis for murder was developed a la Qutb
As an avid reader of this blog the different opinions and views are what makes it facinating to read.
Love to read the writers who contribute here, their linked blogs, discussions going back and forth and because they don't generate into a immature flame war, they are a worthwhile read.
So in the spirit of getting it all out in the open, just want to say keep up the great work please, as this is one of my daily reads and the efforts are appreciated.
Thanks Leap Frog. Nice to hear the encouragement. I think the debate is interesting, and I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, but I think it might have gone beyond that for some people. I get the feeling I have actually disenchanted some people to the point where they are no longer contributing.
That is sad.
In your list #2): "The first five books of the Bible (the Torah) call for the stoning of adulterers, apostates, and homosexuals, as well as Islam..."
Islam??? There was no Islam then.
Mohammed didn't get kicked out of the Christian Church of Antioch and make up his own cult called Islam until thousands of years later.
The hilarious thing about Sufis, as I understand it, is that the Madhi of Sudan and his lot were Sufi dervishes. I'll double check, and If I'm wrong I'll come back and make it known.
Eteraz is more than welcome- but we must understand that attempts to promote reforms of Islam must be couched in Islamic terms. It's all very well saying that women are equal for example- but where are the proofs of that in the Koran and hadith which will convince Muslims? What can eb done to counter the urging to jihad? This is the problem faced by reformers. I, for one, am all in favour of a reformation.
"Sufi's are peaceful (find me an example of a Sufi terrorist, and I'll show you a guy whose friends put some Angel Dust in his ganja), and the emphasis of their faith is on love. Look it up. You'll see what I mean."
As for Sufis, it's not a subject I'm expert on but a little searching turned up the following-
"In fact, the Islamic brotherhood in Egypt, and Al Qaeda, are both Sufi based movements."
"the leaders of Sufi orders in Sudan have won acceptance by acknowledging the significance of the sharia and not claiming that Sufism replaces it."
"While Sufi Islam has broad acceptance in Iraqi society, Sufism has frequently been viewed by orthodox Sunni Muslim theologians with some degree of suspicion because of its strong mystical components. Shia Muslims tend to be hostile towards Sufism because they believe it is heretical."
Source- http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-sufi.htm
At the heart of Sufism is, of course, the Koran- and it's hard to see how we can have a peaceful, tolerant religion based on the writings of the Koran.
"Sufism has been linked integrally to the Muslim institution of jihad war since the 11th century C.E.
Consistent with this nexus between Sufism and orthodox Islam, Sufis have supported (fervently) the corollary institution of dhimmitude, replete with all its oppressive and humiliating regulations for non-Muslims."
Source- http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4495
There's a good bit of history of Sufism and jihad at the above link.
"While Sufism is often discounted as "Islam-lite" and their practices described as mystical, it appears that the Qadiri order that has long had a presence in Iraq of some importance can no longer ignore the occupation while contemplating the beauty of the universe as the oppressors spill the Muslim blood. On Saturday, The Sufi Jihadi Squadrons of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani announced their formation and the beginning of their military operations against the US occupation forces in Iraq...."
Source- http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005701.php
"Here is Al-Ghazali, evidently with no intention of departing either from Sufism or Muslim orthodoxy, writing about jihad war and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples:
[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need..."
Source- http://jihadwatch.org/archives/004940.php
"Dictionary of Islam also observes: “Sufi writers say that there are two Jihads: al-Jihadu ‘l Akbar, or the ‘greater warfare,’ which is against one’s own lusts; and al-Jihadu ‘l Asghar, or the ‘lesser Jihad’ against infidels.” It is important to note this is a later Sufi innovation that has no scriptural sanction; in fact it is a heresy that is rejected by the orthodox. Historically, the Sufis have actively supported and participated in the violent version of the Jihad, the only one that has any scriptural sanction. The nonviolent version is the one that is invoked by apologists, though it has played hardly any role in history since no one follows it."
Source- http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006664.php
Hope that helps clear it up for you.
Seems like I was wrong. There doesn't seem to be much of a Buddhist component in Sufism.
I can't really imagine the Dalai Lama telling his followers to go out and rape and pillage and burn people alive at least once a year.
I think I must have swallowed some taqiyya sometime in the past.
I don't believe there can be a moderate form of Islam but there are moderate Muslims. Thus, I don't believe Islam can be reformed. I believe Muslims have to abandon Islam whether they admit to doing so or not.
Eteraz is honest in his attempt because he never whitewashes the problems. He’s hopeful but I believe he will see it is intractable. The guy’s got to try it out for himself. And we’ll learn from his efforts. Still, my money is on secularization.
Jason,
How do you explain Sufism?
Oh, thanks. You couldn't think of an easier question? That's the one topic I've never written on so I can't give links as I did above in my previous post. But here goes:
Sufism is an umbrella term for an eclectic mixture of Islam and other religious practices in some ineffable mystical manner. It is not clear when Sufism arose despite Sufis claiming it goes back to Mohammad’s day and some claiming it existed even before. The variants of Sufism reflect the other local religions where Sufism arose. One wonders if Sufism was just a quite way for people to continue to practice their old religions while escaping the costs of Dhimmitude. We can never know because of the non-literal unspoken nature of mystical esoteric religion hides the history.
It wasn’t until the 11th century, 400 years after Mohammad, that Sufism had an ardent defender in Al Ghazali. But Ghazali was logically both a defender of mysticism and critic of Hellenic philosophy. Indeed, he put the final nail of philosophy’s coffin in the Islamic world, which led to the downfall of reason, science and philosophy in Islamic lands. Thus, it is a doubled edged sword.
I don’t think of Sufism as Islam proper. Still, a case can be made that Ghazali established the theology for this variant in the Islamic tradition. The orthodox Muslims I spoke to either condemn it or shrug it off as silly folk customs. After all, Islam was a religion of conquest and the first priority is to have the conquered swear allegiance to the state religion. Only later does the conquered find out about the massive body of proscriptions and prescriptions. All religions like to get you into the fold first then demand that you obey.
Thus, as long as Sufism respects Islamic rule and is no threat to the practice of Orthodox Islam (it never goes head to head against the Salafi practice) it is tolerated. It has never challenged the Salafi practice. Indeed, from the Sufi book stores here in New York City, it seems to focus on the Meccan passages and ignore the rest of the Koran. But that leaves Orthodox Islam untouched as a literal Salafi practice. That’s not a reform but just slacking off and selectively practicing the parts one likes.
I argue in the above links that reform takes much more. Sufism comes closest because it has a major theologian and has separated themselves to some extent from the mainstream Sunni establishment. But it does so by avoiding any opposition to the warrior aspects of the religion. It’s not like Quakers whose pacifism isn’t only private but an open rejection of the non-pacifism of other denominations. Quakers aren’t just Catholics who shirk off their responsibility to listen to the Pope. They are truly a separate denomination and oppose Catholic doctrine.
Here's some information about Sufis, from Avenging Apostate:
...Anyway, once he was in our living room, he went into one of those special moments called the fortuneteller trance. He started murmuring that there will come a time, very soon, when all Americans and Europeans will convert to Islam and will then annihilate Israel and kill all the Jews in the world. And when they’re done with that, all the Moslems of Arabia and elsewhere will kill the Americans and Europeans, and then there will be peace. Nice vision, eh? He also said that the time for this was coming soon—he ‘knew’ this because Mohammed said, he told us, that when people with the facial features of Mongolians will overrun Arabia--that’ll be the sign of the end-times.
Furthermore, he told my parents that I will be a king. That felt good at first, really—but then when I thought about it later, it was all bullshit, because the ‘fortuneteller’ obviously had no idea about my big secret … or he would have told my parents right away that I wasn’t a Moslem. ‘Knower of the unknown’, yeah right!
Fortunetellers have a special place in Islamic culture, and they have a very special place in Pakistani culture. These people are usually held in the highest regard, even more than the cleric of the local mosque. They often know the Koran by heart. Sick people trust them more than they do the doctors, and if they are healed, they give these fortunetellers a lot of money and countless gifts.
Islamic fortunetellers are Sufis, but as they follow the Koran to the letter, they are actually following a mix of Sufism and Wahabism. There are, however, some fortunetellers who are just Sufis, but you don’t see this sort very often....
Pastorius,
I get the feeling I have actually disenchanted some people to the point where they are no longer contributing.
Really? Do you think so?
About Eteraz...I admit that when I first saw him posting here, I said, "What the hell?" But I think there is value in seeing what he has to say. I don't have time for lengthy discussions with him (or with anyone else, for that matter--busy time of the school year for me).
Personally, I don't think that Islam can be reformed. You and I have discussed this topic before. But I don't think that you're full of shit for having hope. I would, however, encourage you to be objective about the matter of reforming Islam. Historically speaking, the Old Testament law which allowed for stonings and other egregious practices took centuries of captivity to "reform." I fear that we don't have centuries remaining were Islam even capable of reform.
It took me quite a while to become a hardass about Islam, and I still waffle from time to time. Call that the humanity in me perhaps.
AOW,
I see that there will be a problem with snatching victory from the jaws of defeat at this late date.
I understand.
Jason,
If I am not mistaken, the Salafists have been killing the Sufis in the Sudan. However, I don't think it is because the Sufis challenged them. I think it's because the Salafists need to kill someone, or they feel like they aren't doing their duty.
You make a good point that it is possible that Sufism is really just a hybrid of Islam and folk practices.
Well then, let us talk about Buddhism. You live in NYC (I think), you must know some Buddhists from China. And, I'm sure you know a bit about the life of Buddha, and of the ideas of Buddhism.
Do you recognize any correlation between the way Buddhism is practiced by the people of China, and the real Buddhism of Buddha?
I don't.
The Buddhism of the people is a mixture of folk practices and the teachings of Buddhism, and a little bit of chanting.
The real Buddhism as taught by Buddha is an austere view of the world which arises out of a need to transcend pain. It is something different altogether.
for instance, you will always hear common Buddhists referring to luck. The Buddha himself would have said that notion of luck is Maya, brought on by an inflated sense of self.
Anyway, my point is, it doesn't really matter if a religion is not strictly adherent to its original principles, as long as the religion can get along in the modern world.
I guess you could say, though, that a problem arises in that Wahabbist Islam has a very developed set of law and practices, which Sufism is powerless to defeat. I think that is a good argument. However, I suspect that the Islam of the people of the ME is probably a bit more like Sufism than it is like Wahabbism. That is to say, I suspect the Islam of the common people is a mixture of traditional Islam, and folk practices.
What do you say?
I still argue that there is a difference between slacking-off and reforming a religion. I know individual Catholics that never go to church on Sunday but that doesn’t mean they invented a new Catholicism. Of course, if you compile a list of complaints against the religious establishment, put forth a different vision, and demand reform, then you are on your way to creating a new religion. Luther did this and solidified the new religion with a distinctive theology as he broke away from the Pope. Jesus did this as he tried to reform Judaism; but while he didn’t intend to break away, Christianity was soon born as a separate religion. These are major transformations. They have major theologians and theological texts.
Islam and Christianity are textual based, center around a major figure, are monotheistic, and have been in a position of power for 1400 years. I find it hard to compare other religions to these two. Judaism has been a minority religion for 2000 years and not in power. Non-monotheistic religions and those without a text have a very different structure and evolution. I wonder what Zoroastrianism would be like if it had remained in power until today.
Still, I see evidence on both sides of the scale with regard to Sufism. Al Ghazali was a major theologian. That weighs on the side that says there is an influential figure to ground this change. Some might argue that he still defended violent jihad and persecution of non-Muslims. However, if his change is great enough he can be seen as starting down a new road with a new emphasis. However, I still don’t think there is enough on that side of the scale to say that Islam has been reformed or a new separate sect was created.
I argue that secularization is more likely and has been achieved to a good degree before the Islamic Revival. In the process of attacking Islam and advocating secularization (with religious toleration, of course) some will try a compromise with a moderate variation of Islam. But that’s an escape route for those that want to keep some of the rituals and traditions in a private matter and can’t go the whole route to secularization. You don’t have to advocate this compromise explicitly; some will just become lax or selective in their practice as they become embarrassed or humiliated by those that reject the decency of the civilized world.
That's why I think a radical change should be on the front burner. But Eteraz has to try. And good people will differ on the prospects. I have great respect for Daniel Pipes, who agrees that a moderate Islam can take root. I don't buy it but it isn't a simple question with a quick answer that settles the question.
Historically speaking, the Old Testament law which allowed for stonings and other egregious practices took centuries of captivity to "reform." I fear that we don't have centuries remaining were Islam even capable of reform. - AOW
An interesting aside on this matter: I was reading Sam Harris’ article in Free Inquiry (the one that you can’t buy in Borders) and noticed he made a mistake about the NT that was glaring. He thought that Mark 7 and Mathew 15 showed Jesus endorsing stoning for adultery. If you read it, it shows the opposite. The Jewish leaders complain that Jesus doesn’t follow the dietary and cleanliness laws. Jesus points out that they don’t stone adulterers. But is he suggesting that they both follow the laws literally as Harris and others imply? No, next he says it is less important what you put into your mouth than comes out of your heart.
I have great respect for Harris and his book, The End Of Faith, but he got the details wrong on that. As people know, I’m not religious but I try to get it right in the main without getting sucked into the details. The problem with Islam, as I argue in my link, is that its peaceful tolerant passages are superseded by the harsh Medinan passages. With Christianity it is reverse as the NT supersedes the OT in spirit. It’s major features of organization, emphasis, and example that tip the scales, for me, as to whether moderation is feasible on a large scale, on a sustained basis, and superseding for all time Salafism.
Frankly my dear.... I think that will all be on the wrong track.
If there is to be a reform, it will end up as neither sufi, nor salafi.
Those who reform Islam (if it is possible) will have to throw away the
rules, to get away from the prison of old ways of interpretation.
They will be apostates.
They will be scoffed at.
The folks I know here who are here to 'escape the madness' simply stay away from mosque. But they do so not because they don't believe, and not because they are secularized, but because the imams WERE saying drivel like '4000 jews stayed home on 9/11'.
Imagine if we went to church or temple and heard a pastor, priest or rabbi utter such absolute shit, or calls to ignorance. Would you go back? That doesn't mean you wouldn't if the message wasn't some tribal call to 700 AD
and BTW AL Ghazzali died in jail, no?
Jason,
"You said: I still don’t think there is enough on that side of the scale to say that Islam has been reformed or a new separate sect was created."
Well, fair enough, and I don't know enough of the history to argue with you.
All I can say is Sufism is a recognized sect of Islam, and the Salafists and Wabbists, clearly, recognize it as something, because they choose to kill the Sufis.
Reforming Islam is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. The pig will still be ugly.
Islam is fatally flawed because it was invented by a psychopath, because it is the only major religion whose holy scriptures mandate the murder and torture of non-believers. It sanctions rape and slavery. It has no legitimate underlying source such as a basis in more ancient scriptures like the Torah or Old Testament. It's sacred book is an unreadable collection of ungrammatical rants.
Trying to reform Islam is like trying to reform Marxism or Nazism, or training a snake to be a cuddly lap pet. It's not worth the time or trouble.
Islam cannot be reformed, it must be replaced.
Islamic paranoia update.
Further to a post and link I left yesterday in an earlier thread concerning the mullahs'nightmare of mass defection from Islam, I came across Samir Khalil Samir's review of an online opinion poll on Muslim views on apostasy:
From
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=5915
"Glancing through the comments, one can see that around 50% uphold Rahman’s execution because this is what the Sharia says. For at least one out of four of these, the essential reason for the death penalty for apostates is: if conversion to another religion is allowed, this would be fitnah (sedition), it would prompt others to follow this path, and thus all would become Christians. To halt this trend, which is not considered 'normal', it is better to kill. The concept of 'fitnah' is Koranic (mentioned more than 30 times in the Koran) and it often justifies violence"
The mullahs know that The Death Cult could never compete with other religions on a level playing field.
Allah isn't quite so Akhbar after all.
Looks like I needn't do anything further on this topic after all.
Heh.
Post a Comment