As soon as I am finished drumming myself into a state of transcendant Love, I'm going to go kill me some Infidels.
Ok, I stand corrected.
The other day, I asserted here that Sufism was a living, breathing example of peaceful, moderate Islam. Dag and J-Mac disagreed with me in the extensive comments section, and, while Jason Pappas agreed that Sufism is relatively peaceful, he disagreed that it was true pure Islam. Jason argued that while Sufism did have a founding theologian, Al-Ghazali, it's theology is more likely a mixture of Islam and other religions, such as Buddhism, and folk practices.
I countered that it is just such a hybrid that I believe will eventually lead to a reformation of Islam.
It seems no one is buying my argument.
To top it off, J-Mac provided this link on the history of Jihadism in the Sufi branch of Islam (article by Andrew Bostom):
Let us begin with a towering figure in Muslim intellectual history, Al-Ghazali (1058-1111), who was born at Tus in Khurasan, near modern Meshed, Iran, and became a renowned theologian, jurist, and mystic. Al-Ghazali’s early training was as a jurist, and he continued to have an interest in jurisprudence throughout his career, writing a work the Wadjiz, dated 1101, i.e., in the last decade of his life. The eminent Islamic scholar W.M. Watt stresses Al-Ghazali’s Muslim orthodoxy. Watt maintains that Al-Ghazali was [3]
…acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad, and he is by no means unworthy of that dignity…He brought orthodoxy and mysticism into closer contact…the theologians became more ready to accept the mystics as respectable, while the mystics were more careful to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy.
Al-Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim, and follower of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, wrote this about jihad war and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples, in the Wadjiz: [4]
[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…
[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle…Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue….
More of the same, huh? This article is pretty alarming.
For God's sake, I want to believe that I can turn somewhere and find a branch of Islam that is not going to turn on me. Still looking.
Next.
Read the rest.
12 comments:
For God's sake, I want to believe that I can turn somewhere and find a branch of Islam that is not going to turn on me. Still looking.
Trouble is, Islam is evil at its core. Every branch of Islam has to include the core of Islam, or else it simply cannot be Islam.
Given this, it is very likely that any branch of Islam that appears to be peaceful either is not Islam after all, or has followers who are lax in their practices.
I admire your optimism, Pastorius, but I can't say I share it.
Sadly, a lot of the arguments for Islamic reform seem to rest on the intellectually dishonest (re)definition of "Islam" as "whatever Muslims will it to be". If anyone can argue convincingly that Islam can be reformed without resorting to such nominalistic nonsense, I might be willing to reconsider my belief that Islam cannot be reformed. Until then, my conclusion is that Islam cannot be reformed, at least not into something we as infidels can accept and live with.
The only way for Islam to reform is for reformers to be OTHER.
This I believe only has a chance HERE, if at all. I have yet to see any "movement".
I have met individuals, but they are most realistic about the outcome if the open their mouths in the mosque.
And Ghazzali btw DID in fact die in jail
Thanks for laughing at me, Eyes.
That's what friends are for.
Anonymous,
I am, generally, an optimistic guy. And, you've got to give me credit for being honest here.
I admit I was wrong on this.
I have yet to see anyone deal with my argument about how the Jews changed their theology.
I've heard a lot of negative comments directed towards me, but no logical refutation.
I'm waiting for that one, guys.
Anyway, thank you to everyone who does contribute here, commenters and bloggers alike. We work through this shit together. Here, you guys helped me. I appreciate it.
I have yet to see anyone deal with my argument about how the Jews changed their theology.
OK, I have to admit I know absolutely nothing about Judaism. However, it occurs to me that Judaism most likely does not have the strong "checks and balances" that Islam has, which means that its adherents can allow their actions to deviate from the teachings of their religion without having to worry about the dire consequences a Muslim would experience when attempting something similar. A Muslim would risk allegations of apostasy, with everything that entails, whereas the Jew would not really be taking any such risk (which means that it is the Muslim who has the bigger incentive for obeying the teachings of his religion).
But I admit that I am only guessing, and there is probably a better explanation.
Yes, it would, wouldn't it?
Your point, that they weren't a sovereign nation, is a good one.
Fact remains, they had laws stipulating stoning for apostasy, homosexuality and murder. And, they evolved.
I guess Islam doesn't evolve because they are always free to do what they want?
I don't know, they were under the rule of the British for while there, weren't they?
Oh, by the way, I was just kidding. It's ok for you to laugh at me, or chuckle. Especially, when I deserve it.
:)
Eyes,
I know you just got back from Europe. Never was it so clear to me what it means to be an American, than when I went to Europe back in 2002.
We are optimistic, they are pessimistic. We are vivacious, they act like they live in a mausoleum. We set goals, they calculate handouts.
We are possibility-thinkers, they think NOTHING CAN BE DONE.
A friend of mine said that when she lived in Holland, if she would ask for something different than it was normally done, the way they would express their answer was, "It can not be done."
That tells you what you need to know about Europe.
When you walk around Europe what you see is lots of beautiful old buildings, and houses, and streets. I get the sense that they feel overwhelmed by their history and dwarfed by their tradition.
In America, of course, we build buildings to tear them down. Nothing is permanent.
This has been lamented by sociologists and philosophers, but the net effect of our built-in obsolescence is that every American feels larger than the buildings which surround him.
We know that we were here before, and we will still be here after they lose their lustre and are abandoned to history.
We individuals are more important than anything, even the works of our own hands.
Why?
Because we are pragmatists, not idealists. We build things to use as tools to make our lives better. When better tools are available, we discard the old, and build something new.
No sentimentality, no adherence to tradition, no fretting over a loss of our sense of identity, or Americaness.
We are America.
40 years from now, it will be nothing but a bad word, Islam.
Not only was al-Ghaszali a Sufi he's the one, as I recall, who closed the gates of interpretation, al bab al ijtihad. The debate is famous, and he won it by logic and reason-- to defeat the use thereafter of logic and reason in the Islamic universe. There is no more interpretation. All that is known is known, and all that comes after this perfection is coruption. That's the Platonist view of reality, the fascism Left view of reality, and that is why there cannot be change or reform in either a Muslim or a Communist area. Once we start to think, we are finished with the product. Islam's smartest guy told the Muslim world to stop thinking.
Fine, says Irshad Manji, let's reopen the gates of ijtihad.
There is a reason we dismiss her as a flake. It's because we live in the real world with real people who do not live their lives being very cool TV personalities. She's not credible to any legitimate Muslim, only to those in the Western suburbs who think Muslims are just the same as anyone else who lives in suburbs no matter where in the world they are.
It's good that we keep trying to find a moderate Islam because each time we think we find it, we find we haven't found any such thing. Thjis is good. We'll eventually and honestly eliminate every possible attempt and come to the conclusion that Islam is a primitive form of fascism. Then, if by then there's anyone left alive, we'll fight it.
Why do Jews change and adapt and grow and become? Give me a few days and I'll let you know the day and the place and the reason it happened so dramatically. I'm not refering to Jewish meeting of the minds with the Greeks of Alexandria and the tradition of Jewish religious scholarship. Unfortunately, I refer to another pogrom. Names, dates, places.
There's a very simple exp-lanation for why Jews don't stone people to death- the commandment which states "thou shalt not kill". There are no exceptions or caveats to that statement (unlike the Koran).
It could just be as simple as that. There is a bit of "putting to death" in the Old Testament (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html#13)
but it seems to me that the ten commandments supercedes these passages.
Any thoughts?
I have yet to see anyone deal with my argument about how the Jews changed their theology. - Pastorius
Perhaps you might suggest to Muslims that they follow the example of Jews and hold-up Israel as an admirable example. OK, you might detect a hint of sarcasm in those words. However, I have a standing litmus test when people discuss moderate Islam: a moderate Muslim is one who sees Israel as an inspiration instead of an enemy.
There's a very simple explanation for why Jews don't stone people to death- the commandment which states "thou shalt not kill". – jay
Actually that is in the same book (Exodus) that calls for stoning. As a matter of fact, as soon as Moses came down from the mount with the 10 commandments he saw the orgy of decadence surrounding the idol-worship of the Golden Calf and issued an order to ritualistically kill 3000 men to appease a jealous God. In the movie it was the earth opening; but in Exodus it was the Levi clan that carried out the orders. Jews aren’t pacifists, thank God, but they have evolved to a more civilized practice from the days of Exodus. I suspect it was under colonial rule (Greeks, Romans, Christians, etc.) Does anyone know the full story?
Post a Comment