damaci, you forgot to answer the points made by Mycology when he quoted verses from the Qu'ran, affirming they were the root of the general hatred against the Jews in the Muslim community.

I've only read about 50 pages of the Qu'ran (the way it is written kinda sickened me... But I shall try to read it again), so I don't know if those quotes are accurate, care to comment? I'm interested.

I'm a big fan of this quote.

Have you read Raza Aslan's brief history of Islam, No god but God? If so, what is your opinion of it?

Just as a matter of reasoning, the only way you can consider those verses 'the root' of Islamic antipathy towards the Jews is if you accept that they are divinely inspired. Otherwise they're just verses that a human made up - one who clearly had a problem with Jews, no?

This question (or something very close to it) has been asked before in the thread, and I already answered it. I guess it would be better if you read the thread first before asking the same questions.

Just like the Old Testament and the New Testament, the Qur'an has its fair share of violent verses and passages. However, historically speaking, in mainstream Islam, these verses have not been interpreted as general verses condemning non-Muslims as a whole for all times, but rather as verses directed against specific Jews and Christians (one such group made an alliance with Muhammad and then broke the alliance etc.,). Therefore, it is these specific people rather than "Jews as a whole", or "Jews eternally", who were being condemned in the verses. In other words, one really should know a lot about the history of early Islam to read and understand what is going on in the Qur'an.

Of course, historically, there have been Muslims (and there are still some) who abused these verses to create hatred and violence against Christians and Jews among the Muslims. This is indeed horrible and should not be tolerated.

Let me tell you what educated Muslims really think about the Christians and Jews, and I will be very blunt here: The general perspective of an educated Muslim towards Christians and Jews has absolutely nothing to do with hate or vengeance. In fact, it usually ranges from something like slight incredulity ("How can they not see that Islam is just a better version of their own beliefs? LOL, Jews and Christians") to utter and complete indifference ("Who cares about these corrupted religions, anyway?").

I have not read it. Is it good? Should I read it?

I like his writing style . His book Cosmic Warriors is a run down of fundamentalist extremism or whatever want to call it strand in the three monotheistic religions. I

OK, thanks. I will have a look at it.

I found it enjoyable and highly readable, and recommend it to undergrads interested in a quick historical primer on Islam.

I am sure there is nothing in it you aren't intimately familiar with, given your area of expertise, but I was curious whether you thought Aslan's treatment was fair/comprehensive/shoddy in some areas.

I would not, and did not, blame Islam for the entirety of the troubles of the middle east, just as I would not take the other side of that debate and try to blame Israel for the entirety of the troubles of the middle east. It seems to me, however, that Islam is not conducive to a harmonious relationship between ethnic and religious groups. Christianity on the other hand seems like a great example of a religion that is conducive to harmony, due to its pillars of forgiveness / love. Of course, everyone should know that both faiths have passages in their holy books that encourage violence / bloodshed, so either faith could be taken literally to encourage violence. Still, the recurring themes of love and forgiveness seem to be paramount to the christian faith(s).

And the years of arab-muslim conquest of the middle east (it didn't used to be muslim), north africa, southern europe, india, and central asia - were those not "middle eastern imperialism and harassment" ? Or do Islamic armies somehow have a divine right to conquer the world (pillage / rape native cultures, force conversion, colonize their lands) while European armies are somehow less valid in their imperialism? To me it seems the Crusades were the pathological reply to the very real political and economic humiliation of Christian pilgrims and rights to the holy land - which Christianity (and Judaism before them) had claimed rights to long before the birth of the prophet. I do not recall any Western / Christian attempts to invade / convert Mecca and Medina or any attempts to humiliate them political or economically, do you? I do recall Islamic attempts (successes and failures) to conquer Jerusalem, efforts which continue today.

This is an excellent point, lets ponder the fate of Christians in the middle east today. Christians in Iraq: being ethnically cleansed, Pakistan the same, Lebanon (what used to be a Christian country before their civil war) Christians have been reduced from a majority of the population to a minority. Christians in Eygpt (the coptic christians) are suffering under the post-Muburak regime. Most Christian communities in Middle Eastern muslim nations are in retreat, due to the harassment, assault, vandalism, discrimination - most of which is sanctioned by the Qur'an to my knowledge.

And lets not forget the middle east used to be mostly Jewish/ Christian, including the Arabian Peninsula itself (before the slaughters of the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir tribes of Arabian, by Mohmmed (PBUH) himself).

Claiming that the Christian communities in the middle east, and their existence, is proof of some sort of egalitarian system is pretty foolish in my opinion. Populations of all religious minorities have shrunk considerably since the inception of Islam. And while dhimmi-status may afford some rights to "subjugated and subdued" Christians/ Jews, it is comparable to say blacks were thriving and happy in the segregationist post-slavery south of america. In other words, its just not true.


I do not know, were they engaging in Haram? This is essentially the question I posed to you. :-)

No offense taken, I do believe I have studied more of Islamic history than most people, though that doesn't say much. Whether or not Shari'a has dominated every facet of life in islamic societies isn't the point, the point is Shari'a itself demands that it be the center of life (political, religious, judicial, legislative, etc) in islamic societies... does it not?

I admit I did not read the thread. Please, do me a solid - if I ask a question which has been asked, direct me to the answer or at least let me know you have previously answered it. I'm about to go to Church shortly, i'll try to read the thread when I return.

I have heard this explanation before, and I wish I could believe it were more true (not that i'm saying you're lying), what I mean is - I wish more modern day Muslims could interpret their holy book more peacefully, as opposed to the death / violence that seems to be resulting from violent interpretations of it.

As you hinted at, I agree Education is the answer to our problems, however, it seems that there is a momentum in islamic countries not to educate in a secular way, but in a more religious way, as part of the rejection of western culture (and honestly, I can't blame them... Jersey Shore, 16 & Pregnant, Desperate Housewives make me wish my own civilization had a little more morality to it).



You did kind of forget to respond to some of my post. Specifically, tell me what you think of the "Khaybar Khaybar" chant, and its use in modern day rallies, including rallies in muslim countries and rallies at college campuses as part of Anti-Israel demonstrations.

It would seem to me that a chant which recalls the days of a battle where Jews were slaughtered is essentially a call to do the same today. Acceptable? Unacceptable? Me personally, as a Jew (though some would call me a "Jew for Jesus" or a "Messianic Jew") I don't exactly embrace the idea of "The Army of Mohammed returning", considering the actions they took the last time they were around.

It is hard to see what your argument is. I suspect that most probably you do not have any, but anyway, your major mistake is the classic one of confusing causes with effects. "Modern Political Islam" is not necessarily inherent to Islam as a religious and civilizational entity. In fact, believe it or not, it has little to do with Islam as a religion. It is a side-effect of uneven growth, outright western imperialism, and encroaching capitalism in the Middle Eastern Societies which have been going on for the last two centuries or so.

I do have absolutely zero sympathies for radical political Islam. But you need to see two things: First, despite the constant reports in the western media to the contrary, radical Islamic movements still represent a tiny minority in Islamic countries (there are exceptions, like Saudi Arabia, but as a whole even the 300 million Arabs are a tiny minority of around 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. The majority of Muslims live in places like Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, India and even Russia, which, to varying degrees, made successful transitions to the modern world). Secondly, there are far more important long term social and economic factors at work in the Muslim world which dwarf religion as an explanatory variable. You demonstrate a rather funny ignorance of those factors and believe that you can explain such things as hostility towards Israel by referring to some obscure battle in the early Islamic history (Khaybar etc.).

I am sorry but I cannot teach you basic social science methodology or the history of Islamic civilization on an internet forum. However, again absolutely no offence, I think you need to read and learn about the history of especially the last four hundred years of Islamic civilization rather than obsessing about the seventh and eight centuries in order to see why many of your objections are extremely naive and do not have any historical basis to them. The Ottoman Empire (1299-1922) was already a proto-secular state by as early as the sixteenth century. Islam has already made a transition from an early messianic religion to a tolerant world civilization as early as the ninth century in Baghdad. Islamic civilization was already an unbelievable hybrid of different cultures in India at the time of the Mughal Emperor Akbar etc. These developments happened not only because Muslims established real contacts with the earlier sedentary civilizations of the old world, such as the Roman, Persian and Indian civilizations, but also the earlier religious message of the Islam was tolerant and flexible enough, theologically, to accept the existence of the "other" (other civilizations, other ethnicities, other religions etc.) and find ways of peaceful coexistence with the others.

So, yeah, what I am saying is that you need to learn a lot more about Islamic history (especially modern Islamic history). I do not know where you were educated, or from which sources you got your knowledge of the history of Islamic civilization. But so far, due to your rather naive view of Islamic civilization, this back and forth between you and me (again, I am not intending to insult you or anything, please do not misunderstand me) has been intellectually a bit underwhelming for me. But anyway, thanks for the questions.

Cheers

Opinions on the modernist vs Salafi movements?

Both have huge philosophical problems. However, a version of modernist Islam is already making a slow transition to liberal capitalism (for example, AKP, the ruling Justice and Development Party in Turkey). I think the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt will certainly follow the Turkish lead in the medium to long-term. Annahda in Tunisia is pretty similar. Future belongs to these guys, not the Salafists of Saudi Arabia or Sudan.

Do not ever write off Islam as a civilizational force. It still has tremendous unfulfilled historical potential. Interesting times are ahead.

My argument, essentially, is that you are intentionally (or perhaps out of ignorance?) evading questions about the exterminationist attitudes amongst islamic civilization. Yes - the question you dodged a few pages ago. You answered "What "exterminationist attitudes" are you talking about? And what in general are you smoking, cause I want some." , I provided you with one of the best examples - the fact that a chant used to recollect the genocide of Jews is one of the foremost chants used at islamic-political-religious rallies and protests.

When you try to sidestep the question or minimize the validity of my statement it makes you look... well, guilty. I can only hope there are people who researched the Khaybar chant (and its associated history) so they can see the full picture - the one you are trying to pretend is not there. As for your claim, again, of "outright western imperialism", I dont think western companies trying to snatch up oil / western governments wanting friendly arab/muslim governments in place is "outright imperialism",

What I view as "outright imperialism" is what happened to North Africa, India, Turkey (the byzantine empire), and southern Europe. What I view as outright imperialism is what happened under the Umayyad caliphate during the conquest of Andalusia 711–718. As I said before, can you tell me when "western imperialism" or colonialism tried to invade Mecca and convert its inhabitants to Christianity? Methinks there is a double standard in your analysis or what constitutes imperialism, and what kind of imperialism is worse: Capitalism, or a sword at your neck.

"First, despite the constant reports in the western media to the contrary, radical Islamic movements still represent a tiny minority in Islamic countries"

20% of Eygptian voters voted for Salafis in their recent elections. Salafis are the most anti-western "kill first, ask questions later" folks of the islamic sects / branches of thought. If 20% of Americans voted for the KKK, I would not try to say they constitute a "tiny minority".

" You demonstrate a rather funny ignorance of those factors and believe that you can explain such things as hostility towards Israel by referring to some obscure battle in the early Islamic history (Khaybar etc.)."

Khaybar is not obscure, again, it is a well known battle in Islamic history which is still recounted today in political and religious rallies across the muslim world - and within the non-muslim world at islamic political / religious rallies. I dont think Khaybar explains hostility to Israel, hostility to Israel is easy to explain, and it has very little to do with "palestinians" but with islamic (and previously pan-arabic) sensibilities to infidels reclaiming land that was once under islamic dominion - which leads me to a question I was going to ask, that I heard it was in the Qur'an that any land that is ever held by islam is considered eternally "muslim land" and cannot be relinquished (according to the quran) to the control of non-muslims.


"I am sorry but I cannot teach you basic social science methodology or the history of Islamic civilization on an internet forum."

Ah, I see. Perhaps you should not have started this thread then. I have many more questions which i'd like answers to, but I dont want to come off as ignorant or naive or insulting just because I don't have the answers and I seek them from you in a thread called "All about Islam: You ask, I answer..well I try" Try to answer me, instead of telling me I haven't done enough research to ask the right questions. :-/

Cheerio

Edit: This "obscure" chant keeps coming up in the funniest of places, like in front of Synagogues and Israeli consulates... weird

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpWpX31d7YA
(Double Edit: I didn't even notice the first time I watched this first video that some very smart individual in the crowd stops everyone from chanting what is (obviously to those "in the know") a hateful and genocidal chant, I dont know why they bothered stopping, considering most people (non-muslims especially) are entirely ignorant of the chant itself and its meaning. Whoever stopped the chant was more than aware of the chant's meaning and its implications, enough so that they stopped the crowd from continuing.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFqJB...ature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lBjz...ature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXr9C...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrRE7_leQXg

There a few more, the curious reader who wants to know if I, or you, is right/wrong on this topic might stop to look it up himself, and in doing so, realize this is not some "obscure" piece of ancient history.

Whatever dude, come back when you have a coherent argument. If you could pull yourself out of your ridiculous ego-trip, you would see that I have answered your questions already.

Here is your problem: You seem to have created a fantasy hate-land in your mind which you want to call Islam. First, I am telling you that most of your arguments are indeed just fantasies and that your conceptions do not have anything at all with Islam as a real living civilizational entity. At best, you are repeating the worst mistakes of the nineteenth century orientalists with your half-baked arguments (You need to understand that not everything which happens in the middle east can be explained by Islam. You simply do not seem to understand that religions in general are very poor explanatory variables for complex social phenomena, such as the political and social problems of complex modern societies, including the middle east). I am also telling you that your claims suffer badly from a lack of real historical knowledge of Islam and that you are overemphasizing and exaggerating certain historical incidents, thinking that they do reflect some "general truth" regarding Islam (they don't).

So, calm down and read my earlier comments again please. You will see that I am not evading any questions at all. As far your snide remarks regarding my "possible ignorance" regarding Islam and the Middle East, I can only thank you for a good laugh. No civilization which has existed for more than fourteen hundred years and contributed enormously to global culture, science, and art, whether it is Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Jewish in religion, can be said, with a straight face, to have an "exterminationist attitude" toward other civilizations. Several fringe groups or individuals within these civilizations may be said to have such attitudes, but when one generalizes such incidents to an entire civilization, one makes an unforgivable, grave and enormous mistake.

If you think you have good arguments and good questions (which so far, I am afraid, you don't), come back and I will try to help. Otherwise, get a good education on the history of Islam, you need it.

Correct me if I'm wrong damaci.

But I feel the reason why agressive posts keep coming into this thread is because people do not seem to be able to separate Islam, as a religion, with "islamic movements" and middle east countries that are known to mix religion and laws. Maybe that's not clear enough. My point is, damaci seems to be thinking about Islam in theory, at least when it comes to the religion per se. To me it seems he is speaking about the religion itself, its ancient history and everything related to that?

Israel/Palestine however, and the many massacres that have happened in the middle east, justified by religion are a complete different thing from what damaci is mostly talking about. I think you need to be able to tell the difference between religion and the uses of religion by mankind.

Religion in itself is harmless if you ask me. Talking about the Qu'ran, the history of Islam and pretty much any religion here. Those are merely concepts, principles and all. It is however a well-known fact that mankind tends to use religion as an excuse to perform horrible acts.

In theory, religion is harmless. It is merely the use of religion by men that can be (and sadly very often is) dangerous.

Again, sorry if I'm totally off here.

You are not totally off. But the problem may be even deeper, I suspect. Horrible misinformation about Islam displayed in the media in the last decade might be a culprit, to say the least, but it seems to me that the more important problem is the lack of knowledge regarding social scientific and historiographical methodology reflected in the posts by some of the posters here.

Deeper problem, I think, is educational. Some people seem to believe that they can understand a complex civilization by reading scripture (Qur'an in this case), or that they can analyze complex modern problems by referring to some historical event in the seventh century or by referring to assumed primordial hatreds etc, which is simply ridiculous. The whole thread (with the exception of the important contributions of a number of posters) is just a reflection of the sorry state of education here in the U.S.

Here is the historical irony: The Middle East is currently experiencing the same type of revolutionary upheaval and political awakening which was experienced in Europe and the U.S. in the late eighteenth century. It is obviously clear to me that such ancient centers of Islamic civilization as Turkey, Iran, Malaysia and Indonesia will be important power brokers in the twenty-first century. In an ideal world, the west in general and the U.S. in particular would be smart enough to have this vast and influential civilization as an ally against the coming strategic challenge of the twenty-first century: This challenge will ultimately come from China, not the Middle East. One other long-term consideration our strategy misses is our blatant disregard for the security of Israel. A Middle East which is well-integrated to global capitalist system would be an ideal place for a flourishing Israel and the Israeli know-how and technology could be a real boost to the political and economic well-being of the Middle East as a region (but of course our genius geo-strategists still prefer to have Israel as a nineteenth-century vanguard colony of the west, as if this could be a viable long-term strategy. Of course, the shortsightedness of the Israeli far right does not help the situation either, I have long lost hope of seeing a man of vision such as Itzhak Rabin coming out of the Israeli political imbroglio.).

Instead of seeing that, we are busy demonizing the Muslims, and shooting ourselves in the foot. Iran is now already an ally of China thanks to our heavy-handed and short-sighted strategy vis-a-vis the Middle East. China, in the meantime, is fast grabbing lucrative business and economic contracts in Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East where it is increasingly seen as a benign presence and not as an imperialist power. In short, we are just being monumentally silly regarding Muslims and the Middle East. To me as a historian and academic observer of the Middle East, our entire strategy seems like a slow-motion train-wreck.

I don't think it's an unique feature of the U.S. Talking about education here.

Possibly off example, but when most French people learn about WW1 and WW2 (the story goes quite deep and is studied over and over in the french courses), a huge chunk of them end up antagonizing Germans as a whole, for the sake of what happened during WW2. Surely most of them do so during their youth, and it goes away later in their life. But still, a good percentage hangs on to it quite strongly. It's merely about one's global ignorance and unwillingness to look into details further to fully comprehend a story.

Or, more simply put, people generalize things. Stereotypes, pre-made judgements, prejudices. It all comes down to that if you ask me.

PS : Fun fact, in the french education, we intensively learn about WW2, and about the horrors that were committed back then, and we pretty much only slightly go over the war of Algeria, during which the French army basically performed the same kind of acts as the SS did. Countries tend to be quite hypocritical about their history when it comes to national education.

Well, the Torah, the Bible and the Quran are all horribly aggressive books. It becomes ignorant to call them "harmless" since all these works contains portions which glorify murdering and killing people who oppose your belief or violates the law.

They are harmless in the same sense that a fascist doctrine is harmless... that is, they are harmless in the hands of people who chose to disregard the aggressive parts and/or not carry them out.

But it is not those people we generally measure the peacefulness of a doctrine by. If we did, any doctrine would be peaceful.

The important thing is to not stereotype. We should not blame moderate Christians, Jews or Muslims for the actions of extremists. It is completely fine, however, to blame the religion.

Some content of all three Books are violent, and extremely so. However, some of them are also genuinely good. True and complete forgiveness of oneself is a part of Christianity, as a large basic example.

I'm not saying it balances itself out, I'm not religious and I very much don't believe in any kind of God. However I find it interesting to read about and study.

I just think it would be a mistake to choose to focus on the bad stuff so much, and ignore the good stuff. Religion is always about one's interpretation of it anyway, so most common people don't focus on the violent parts all that much.

Sure, I don't disagree with this. Most Christians and Muslims I have met have been both nice and charitable people.

But violent sections combined with reasoning that is at times both irrational and arbitrary ("meat from animals with cloven hoofs is sinful because god says so") is a dangerous combination, regardless if most people are going to chose other paths.

Now, I know there is a popular saying that you will find this in all types beliefs - but a) similar does not imply equal and b) that isn't really an excuse.

I'm not sure about this but isn't the whole reason why Muslims don't eat pork because a pig was left in the sun and his flesh got all rotten out or something, thus proving it was unpure?

This is like a vague memory I got, could be completely wrong.

I have read the Bible (long ago, should read it again) and I have tried to read the Qu'ran, but like I said I really disliked the way it was written. All written in verses pretty much starting with "Allah made this because that", made me feel like if they replaced Allah with Staline you had the USSR propaganda.

No offence there damaci.

To my mind Muslims philosophically stand on the clever side of the Euthyphro dilemma (look it up): The good is defined as "what God wills to be the good": Hence the real reason why Muslims do not eat pork is simply that God wills that to be the case (no health reasons etc. are ultimately relevant here).

What offence? Although my metaphysical and cosmological views are quite complex, you can say that I am an atheist.

The Euthyphro dilemma still applies it just has to be reworded, but that's neither here nor there.

How would you compare and contrast al-Ghazali's doubt with Decartes' doubt?

Who are the prominent current Islamic philosophers?

The basic difference between al-Ghazali's and Descartes' positions is that al-Ghazali at heart was a mystic and Descartes was not. In fact, al-Ghazali's epistemological views more or less parallel that of Hume's. However, after putting epistemological limits to humans' understanding, a la Hume, al-Ghazali always had his personal experience of the divine to fall back on.

To my mind the most significant Islamic philosopher of the twentieth century was Muhammed Ikbal (d. 1938), who was also a great poet. His "Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam" is a modern classic. Out of the more contemporary thinkers, I think the most prominent ones are Mohammed Arkoun (d. 2010) and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Here is Seyyed Hossein Nasr, talking about "Being" in Islamic philosophy, enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXi2wXWhDk

Agreed. Even now the Dubai phenomenon has me hoping for a modern future that takes the best of what Córdoba was to the Middle Ages.

Nice thread. Residing at an university with a very diverse demographic where various Muslim faiths are well represented, it really is nice to see that individuals like yourself are gainsaying a foothold in America.

Gives me hope for the future.