With the recent tragedy in Ft. Hood, Texas, when Muslim Arab-American Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on a rampage and in cold blood calculatingly shot and killed 13 people and wounded 30, his identity as a Muslim is likely to have a rippling effect across the United States and elsewhere on the image and perception of Islam. Having such an incident occur within a secured military facility by one of the Army’s own, an officer who was an Army Psychiatrist, certainly can influence individuals’ views and perceptions of muslims and roles Arab-Americans fulfill.
This incident occurred while the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and of course Al Qaeda remain threats. And again, those supportive of the Taliban and in most cases, supportive of Al Qaeda, are also Muslim. Or at least they claim to be muslims. I say claim to be because true Islam is a peaceful religion which does not take lives in vain and for no senseless reasons. Yet all of these actions continue to portray a global picture that Islam is equated with violence and extremism.
How then can the world muslims improve the image of Islam? And this is not with any intent of trying to convert individuals to Islam but simply clear up misperceptions and misunderstandings of the religion. The uphill battle of a Muslim image campaign will be further compounded because after the Ft. Hood incident there is not only sensationalized media reports which play up the fact that the shooter was a muslim but (non-muslim) individuals can become so emotional and threats are issued to muslim individuals and communities similar to 9/11 backlash. It should also be stated that one can be an Arab with all the classic Arab features yet not be Muslim.
I do believe that the Ft. Hood event was an isolated event and should not reflect on Muslims or Arab-Americans. Yet concurrently major public relations must now be done to minimize the damage the incident has done to Muslims, Arab-Americans and Islam.
Filed under: America, culture, islam, politics, religion, safety, Saudi Arabia, terrorism, Uncategorized Tagged: | America, blogging, culture, culture shock, customs, history, islam, KSA, places, religion, Saudi, Saudi Arabia, terrorism
Muslims are okay, its the muslims extremists that are dangerous..
good post
Thanks Susanne!
Well one reason people confuse Islamic extremists with ordinary Muslims is (for example) thousands of Muslims all over the world rioted and tens of thousands more marched, when a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Muhammad.
Yet when a terrorist act happens where are the mass marches? That would show community disavowal of violence in the name of Islam. A press release won’t cut it.
Defense is a legitimate right
Million and a half have died in Iraq, They are also human beings
This is a war on Islam, as George Bush said
The people voted for him for the second time, This means that they agree with him, Americans are the real terrorists, all those who voted for Bush by participants in the war, they are not civilians in any form ,According to the code and the law of war.
USA are based on killing hundred and fifty million red Indian.
hundreds years ago All the the low life people met and formed America over the dead Bodies of Red Indians,
even though the word democracy does not exist in the U.S. Constitution.
I recommend watching this movie
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#
People are not slaves belongs to USA
“This view is impartial “
i don’t know why my previews post was deleted
I Guess you do not believe in freedom of speech
A good way of highlighting that as muslims the vast majority are peaceful is by talking more about the faiths that freely practice within muslim countries.
In KSA if I am not mistaken, the are many thousands of christains for example who live and practice freely without opression or fear. The same can be said about Nigeria.
Other ways of highlighting this point is by remebering the sanctions within the faith that are stipulated. Some include the helping of non muslims in fighting against opression, tyrany and corruption within any country, remebering and adopting the sunna given to us in how to deal with prisoners of war for example (to free them, invite them to islam and if they choose not to follow it, allow them to live freely or escort them to a place of safety), and also understanding that the use of words such as “muslim fanatic”, “fundamentalists”, “wahhabi extremists”and many more are usually put into an article to stir trouble and are taken out of context.
People need to re- educate themselves about the meanings of some of the words used to describe muslims as a whole.
Also, why does a person who commits a crime get labled as “muslim……..”?
I do not read of people of other faiths being described in that same manner so why just muslims? A criminal is exactly that, a criminal regardless of their faith or country of origin.
Of the many millions of muslims who live in “non muslim” countries, it is a tiny percentage who do not wish to follow the law of the country they live in. Those that try to practice their faith properly, read up on what it says about abiding by the law of the country that they live in as long as they are free to practise Islam. If a person cannot practise in that country or region, then it becomes obligatory upon the muslim to move to a different place.
There needs to be a balance on all sides to start sorting out some of these misconceptions.
Of course there is terrorism and there is a need to fight it seriously and all countries should join in this fight.
But to have a negative image of Islam for this reason is wrong – ALL religions have some positive and some negative features. We shouldn’t blame or eulogise any religion for this. I feel that rather than the muslims trying to enhance the image of their religion, the onus is on the world community to understand that no religion should be stigmatised for terrorism and rather, they should handle this problem in the most pragmatic way possible on the administrative level.
And while I say the above, I would like to emphasise that I come from a country that has faced more terrorism for decades than West has ever known. Still I find it possible to say the above.
I think this incident was just another bloke losing it and going on a rampage. I think the fact that he was muslim had something to do with his flipping, but only incidentally.
I don’t think he was a terrorrist as we mean the term.
I agree that the majority of muslims may be peaceful, but they are so peacefull that they do not stand up to the evil in their Muslim communities. They are the ones who enable the terrorrists who certainly dó claim how they are the best muslims to carry out their destructive work.
They even give them the funds. Many muslims give money to charities carelessly without checking where the money ends up. As long as it is called a ”muslim” charity it’s ok.
And indeed, who are those muslims who go berserk about a couple of failry bad cartoons in a far-away country??? Where do all those thousands of frenzied crowds come from?
The Quran contains a lot to make Islam a peaceful religion. However, unfortunately, it also contains enough passages which makes it suitable as an agressive religion proagating killing people.
So it really depends on what the muslims do doesn’t it?
And they are not doing well as far as terrorism goes, both in churning out a lot of them, and very little speaking out aginst this excess.
And I’m not even beginning about women’s rights.
I still think the fact that Major Hasan was muslim doesn’t mean he’s a terrorist. I still think he just flipped.
@Mariam,
Do you seriously believe that “In KSA if I am not mistaken, the are many thousands of christains for example who live and practice freely without opression or fear. “?
In the KSA Christian and non Muslim religious material is regularly confiscated, no churches or other non Muslim houses of worship are allowed and Christian groups are not allowed to organise or have any open religious services.
In this manner the KSA is the EXACT opposite of what must be done to improve the image of Islam. As a matter of fact, it would be hard to find something like the KSA that has such a negative impact on the image of Islam and Muslims around the world. All the time one has to fight to point out to people that what goes on in Saudi is NOT a proper representation of Islam.
Back to the subject, Muslims MUST stand up vocally, and physically if needed, against the extremists in our communities. It is NOT enough to say that the extremists dont represent Islam or that they are not an accurate representation of Islam.
If the Muslim world can gather in the hundreds of thousands to protest those who defame our Prophet in pictures and cartoons, why can’t we get at least the same amount of people to protest those who defame our Prophet and our religion with their violence, their hate, their bombs that massacre women and children in OUR name.
Aafke is right, it does depend on us Muslims and I am sorry to say that we have been VERY lacking! Until we are willng to police our own community and take care of our own issues, nothing will change.
I don’t see how Muslims can improve the image of their religion in the West, at least in the current environment. Islam is being used as a political ideology right now.
Iran is one of the major backers of Hezbollah whose mission seems to be to keep Lebanon in an eternal state of crisis. Pakistan is now being bitten by the very agent it helped create to keep its neighbors off balance, the taliban.
When Muslims claim it is only a tiny minority of Muslims who are terrorists, that may be true, but today there are a sizable number of people under arms with Islam being their motivating ideology. Muhammed may have been a prophet but in modern terms he was also a military leader and that model seems quite influential to todays Muslims.
You know, a long time ago I used to work for a crisis communications firm. Our president was a crisis management guru who helped many a company out of a tight squeeze. He used to say that if you don’t want to be labeled as a poison-maker, a good place to start is not making any poison.
So it’s not really about the “image”, it’s about doing good things and calling attention to them. The best PR for Islam are masses of good, kind, neighbor-loving Muslims. Mosques can widen their outreach or do charity initiatives in collaboration with other faith-based organizations, for instance. More Muslims can aspire to public service and once elected, be a paragon of everything a public servant should be. Muslim cops. Muslim teachers. Muslim librarians. Something that is focused outward, not inward, and serves as a great example for others. So it’s not at all about PR. It’s about being good and making sure people notice. That should take care of negative image of Muslims.
Now about negative image of Islam. It is absolutely true that in any major scripture, including Old and New Testament, Quran and anything else you pick up, you can find some pretty repulsive language that promises fire and brimstone to those who stand outside the membership of that particular faith. I think the difference here is that “most” Christians or Jews now do not take these verses seriously anymore. I would venture that most Muslims do not take hostile verses in their scripture seriously either. I would also say that “most bona fide” religious thinkers in Islam these days also strive to interpret their scripture in the light of modern society. The problem is that there is a minority of religious preachers and clerics in Islam that do use religion to justify and encourage horrible things. This minor faction brings you, in addition to terrorists, people who yell from sidewalks, demand implementation of shariah law in secular countries and do other generally weird and bizarre things.
To deal with this, it is encumbent upon the whole Muslim religious establihsment to declare them to be outside of the bounds of their religion. I do think it’s harder in Islam because there isn’t one central religious authority in that religion who has a power to say who is and isn’t a good Muslim. On one hand it’s good to have autonomy in religious interpretation, but on the other hand, it does present the problem of efficiency in rooting out bad seeds.
I agree completely also with Abu Sinan. The type of outrage Muslims show in reacting against Prophet cartoons should really be reserved for demonstrating against morons who use religion to kill and maim. So here a long-term goal is to raise, educate and support a cadre of new religious thinkers who would nurture in their parishes an enlightened approach to using Islamic teachings in everyday life instead of clinging to the old.
The challenge with this is that would require a lot of courage to leave the literalism behind, and Islam places a stronger emphasis than others on the literal reading of its literature because it claims the “lack of alteration” as its unique strength. So it would take an unusual amount of audacity in a religious thinker to say, yeah, I know we have verses stating this and that, and ahadith stating this and that, but instead of reading them literally, let’s look at the broader intention and think about how we could apply it to our lives here and now. It’s about using religious literature as metaphor and broad guidance instead of assembly manual.
People like Khalid Hassan should really be given a wider platform. He’s one of the few people who follows that line of thought.
Also, maryam, I was going to reply to your “religious minorities in KSA” bit but Abu Sinan raced me to it. Really, I don’t think you mean it. Any other Muslim-majority country but surely not KSA?? You do know it’s illegal to practice other religions there, don’t you? This is why I can’t really NOT giggle when people tout King Abdullah as some sort of interfaith leader who glides about global conference rooms pontificating on interfaith dialogue. I mean, really? The man runs the country where anything except ONE religion is illegal, and now he’s all of a sudden some sort of interfaith guru? Then why don’t we resurrect Tim McVeigh and make him a guest speaker on nonviolence?
From what I have read, Major Hasan’s psychotic break and his decision to go on the rampage was definitely connected to his view of himself as a Muslim. He was reported to have been very disturbed over the prospect of being sent to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the enemy soldiers would have been fellow Muslims. Thus, he is not simply a killer who “happens” to be Muslim. His religious views apparently motivated the attack.
It seems that Hasan sees the world divided into two camps: Muslims and non-Muslims. It is not surprising then that non-Muslims also begin to see the world through that lens.
To quote Abu Sinan…
“If the Muslim world can gather in the hundreds of thousands to protest those who defame our Prophet in pictures and cartoons, why can’t we get at least the same amount of people to protest those who defame our Prophet and our religion with their violence, their hate, their bombs that massacre women and children in OUR name.”
I think he said it very well. right on target.
Jerry M. it is obvious that you have a strong background for the political causes of this but I think the average person is not as well informed as you are. All they know is that they see the terrorists bombing and killing and that they do it in the name of Islam. To further confuse the issue they are killing thousands upon thousands of Muslims as well. Now they are left to wonder what Islam is all about and why does it seem to perpetrate violence.
This has been covered in several blogs as of late and a few Muslim responders said that they felt the non Muslims wouldn’t hear them or be receptive if Muslims spoke up. I would have to very much disagree with that idea. The people I talk to who are normal Americans have a sense of confusion about Islam…somewhere down deep they know that this can’t be what the religion stands for and yet they see all of this in Islam’s name and no Muslims standing up against it so they don’t know what the religion is about or what to think. I try to explain the differences but I am only one person. And more importantly I am not Muslim…how much weight does my voice carry?
The fact that I hear people confused rather than totally condemning of Muslims across the board tells me that they are OPEN to hearing something, anything from the Muslim community that would show them that even Muslims themselves are not in support of terrorism. Not only that I would venture to say if Muslims got a movement of some sort going many non Muslims would join in if they were asked to.
Also, there is the fact that non Muslims don’t want to speak up for fear of seeming racist against Muslims particularly as they are a bit confused as to what Islam says. If Muslims themselves lead the way I think that, it might take time, but non Muslims would join in to that chorus of voices against terrorism. I think the average person doesn’t WANT to believe Islam stands for what the terrorists are portraying it as, but they don’t know WHAT to believe.
And as I stated on other blogs…I am old enough to remember a time when Islam was not in the headlines daily due to terrorism…it wasn’t thought of as a violent religion. To me that is one thing that the terrorists have done successfully. They have driven a huge wedge between Muslims and non Muslims in terms of trust. And that is a shame.
Interesting topic.
This topic crosses my mind a lot. Islam is the second largest religion on the globe. I wish there was more positive public relations towards famous muslims, but I rarely ever see it.
Anytime I hear the news and the word Islam is used in front of a destructive group, I take out the word Islam as Islam should not be in same sentence as destruction and violence. I think the media has a social responsiblity here. Sometimes the media gives so much power to these subvesive groups. Frankly, next time they report something, leave out the word Islam-muslim—they should not give the satisfaction to these groups or the general populationwho seemingly cannot think for themselves. I think it is outrightly toxic. There is ought to be some pc here—that might be start.
Are There Muslim Terrorists Just Waiting?
I guess the answer most Americans would say to that is yes. Most, like me, wonder if some cadre of ideologues are just waiting for some radical Imam to give them the word to come out of hiding and strike at unsuspecting and innocent people in their homes and public places. Why would I think such a thing? I suppose it is because of the recent attacks at Fort Hood, Fort Knox Kentucky a couple years ago, the world Trade Center attacks and the various other attacks that were prevented before Muslim terrorist could pull them off. So, are there legions of despotic evil doers in America right now who think blowing themselves up in a market place is a short cut to rich rewards in Heaven?
The powerful people who try to speak for Islam don’t do Islam any favors in the West. Saudi Arabia has been sponsoring interfaith conferences but seem unware at how they appear given KSA’s own laws about other faiths within the country. Saudi Arabia also publishes one of the worst Koran translations into English (the one that is offered for free). It is an impossible read and full of absolutely preposterous notes.
I just visited a site that reported on Louis Farrakhan’s recent lecture at Mosque Maryam in Chicago where he delivered a lecture titled “The Time and What Must Be Done”. I am not Muslim and acknowledge my unfamiliarity with the Quran and latter day prophecy, but if Farrakhan is talking about a widely held belief among Muslims of all sects and persuasions, American’s very definitional have a cause to be worried. Certainly the majority of the audience in the photo they provided were black but does he also represent the views of non-black Muslims too?
The emphasis of his presentation was refusal to fight to protect America and the with drawl of support for our system of government. That is just one step away from declaring themselves America’s enemies. Is this what Islam is about?
the famous muslim leaders can show the othres that islam is peaceful, but i won’t go that far. i’d say start with the individuals. individuals need to realise the following to shed light on the religion of peace, if not to the world then atleast to their acquaintances.
1. Din it into your brain ” religion is between an individual and god( whichever one it may be)”
2. I can be your friend and a non-muslim, i have no plans to break up your faith.
3. However sweet you are and how ever much superior you are, i don’t think after 40+ years on this planet i’m going to convert, so give it up.
4. No most of us don’t think all extremists are muslim, we know they come in all shapes and sizes, so no explanation needed,
6. can we be friends without bringing religion into the picture? have the great apple pie i baked, discuss hobbies,kids,gossip,have a cup of tea and be a comfort in troubled times.
American Muslim apologists seem reluctant to engage in dialog unless the subject is Muslim rights. Those conversations revolve around what they demand and expect. But when the subject turns to special obligations of Muslims, if any, those people are ridiculed and defamed and called Islamophobes or racists. which is just a way of eluding the conversation they do not want to have.
I have to think the reason they dodge the obvious unanswered queries is that American Muslims can’t defend Islam against the legitimate fears many Americans have. There is an old adage says “actions speak louder than words” and so they do. So, if Muslims are our friends, why do we fear you? I say it is because we hear so few words of condemnation of radical Muslim terrorist acts coming from American Muslim groups and a lot of condemnation of American “atrocities”, whatever those are. The only regular condemnation of these acts come from official government sources of nations who require American blood and sacrifice for protection.
Just like to remind everyone, that maryam and Mariam(me) are two different people. Far be it from me to EVER claim that non-muslims practice freely in KSA. Heck, Muslims (shia’a) don’t even get that right accorded to them.
thanks.
Yes I was getting confused here…
I actually did take that comment for yours… I had been thinking how come Mariam is suddely living in a bubble…
As a westerner, one thing that really turns me against Islam is the brutal treatment of women.
The situation is Saudi Arabia for women is one of the worst human rights situations in the world.
The fact that a rape conviction takes four male witnesses is impossible to take seriously. The low value of female testimony in law courts is also impossible to take seriously. Justifying polygamy with religion is cultish, in my view. In the USA we are familiar with home grown sects and cults that allow polygamy and the abuse of girls is sickening. Allowing this as a matter of faith is wholly without honor, in my view.
I think the true path to respect from others is always, first and foremost, to get one’s own house in order.
In terms of the treatment of women, the Islamic house is filthy.
wow, lark you are a good writer, and i understand the metaphor, but please don’t ever visit KSA…that is possibly the most offensive thing you could say to a muslim.
Sharia is completely wrong when it demands four male witnesses. It should be so that if you want to accuse a woman of adultery you can only do so if you have four male witnesses.
It should never have been turned around to put the proof of rape on the women.
I think Sharia is an abomination of Islam.
I recently read The Land of Invisible Women, a bedu selection and an excellent book….I was quite young during 9/11, but it brought back memories. I bring this up now as the author is appalled by the attitudes of supposedly “modern” educated saudis during that time period. I do remember an undercurrent of pride in the attack as I followed what the adults were saying. A sort of ..”well, they had it coming..” – although most saudis/muslims were very careful to be quite pc when speaking with a westerner. This particular author, being pakistani and muslim, was subjected to more honest views.
The earlier comments triggered my thoughts…until muslims go out en masse to protest muslim idiocy, the world will never take us seriously.
we remain, in the eyes of the civilised world, a medieval people roped into a barbaric, 8th century religion.
Yeah, look what I found! Muslim’s protesting the terrorists!
http://tazeen-tazeen.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-finest-hour.html
As a Christian and a person who loves my husband I am always so sad for my him when something like Fort Hood happens. When the news broke he said “please don’t let it be a Muslim” and then the name was announced and he hung his head and said “Oh no!”
It must be so hard to belong to a religion that is having to deal with such an image as there is today.
If it was an army fighting another army I think it would be different but the “war” going on against Al Quada and the Taliban are against an invisible enemy. Who will be the next suicide bomber? Will it be the guy next door who you thought was so nice???
Yes, everyone can say that it is not Muslims causing the problems but it is because they carry out their dirty work in the name of Islam. My guess is that Muslims don’t march and speak out because they’re as afraid as anyone else of becoming the next target. Almost every day in the news a market is bombed in Afghanistan or a wedding party in Pakistan. It’s Muslims fighting Muslims and on it goes.
Imams should be speaking out more against what is happening but I sure don’t hear much of it.
Thank goodness Canada seems to be doing fine. I know that some mosques invite non-Muslims in to learn about the religion and have open discussions. This certainly helps and there are no major fears that I know of within the general population. I only hope that Sharia law is kept out of this country because if it comes in then I see a slippery slope downwards for good relations.
Americans are frightened. I don’t live there so I can’t really speak of it but I can assure you that my husband will not cross the border into the USA because of the profiling of people with a Muslim name.
@Mark
As foolish as Bush was he never said the US was at war with Islam.
Muslims do not support terrorism but Islam allows us to defend our lands when attacked. Resistance against occupiers is not terrorism. Terrorism is intentional targeting of civilians, westerners & Muslim apologists tend to lump both terrorism & resistance against occupiers together as terrorism.
I think this article is relevant here. I don’t know how widespread this story was but in this article you will see that it is the authorities, the police and investigators that are insisting that the case is NOT about religion but about criminal activity but the Muslims want to justify the crimes on religious grounds.
http://freep.com/article/20091119/NEWS01/91119002/1003/news01/FBI-Muslim-leader-used-religion-to-justify-criminal-activity
Interesting article Lynn.
the man is despicable…not only has he tainted the religion of Islam by using it as a shield to steal from people their hard earned money under the guise of the Quran, he is lying to people and twisting the words of the Quran for his greedy purposes.
However, he isn’t the only one. I feel that some televangelists are no better. OK they don’t say that it is OK steal and rob for the cause of Christianity but that little old lady at home that sends in her last $5 to the televangelist is getting ripped off as well.
very interesting comments by all. If you are new to the blog, I sincerely welcome you and also wish to advise that all first time commentors of those new automatically fall in to moderation.
One of the movies I enjoyed watching was “Malcolm X.”
I agree that it does seem contradictory for Saudi to reach out on an Interfaith Dialogue without have the same freedoms in place as other islamic countries but again this could be one of King Abdullah’s reaching out with baby steps for change.
I thought that I would add this to the number of videos and links here…While it is about how Muslims have been treated in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shooting and they feel victimized it also shows a very small group talking about how they are against what Hassan did. Not exactly the million man march but it is a start and I think we need to see many more of these type of clips to help people understand the difference between the larger Muslim community and the terrorists.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=16744944&ch=4226713&src=news
Do I have to answer for every Muslim wack job who kills? NO! My Aunt Michelle the Catholic doesn’t go around profusely apoligizing and condeming pedophilia by the Clergy assuring her friends her faith really doesn’t think it is ok nor do most Baptists have to tell all their friends they think Reverend Phelps (of anti-homosexual ranting fame) represents Baptists! Hasan was incompetent from years back and the army claiming they didn’t want to get rid of him due to overzealous political correctness is bull. Seriously. Anyone listening to NPR? The guy was lazy, a poor student, and failed every step of the way. I will not apologize for “the Muslims” as though this idiot is somehow representative of any facet of my faith. So many Muslim groups get out there every time something happens but you rarely hear of it then people complain ad naseum about why we don’t condem this stuff. Seriously.
Radha,
I agree with all of your points.
Radha,
Perhaps if people spoke up occasionally and declared that these ‘wack jobs’ were not really following Islam it would be helpful. You have to admit there are a huge amounts of ‘events’ happening around the world and you must understand when there are so many events many non-Muslims might just get a bit frightened of Muslims and Islam in general.
I’d like to see more mixed activities organized between muslims and non-muslims as part of a community outreach program.
@Betty’s Mom…
I don’t think that the idea is to “answer for” Maj. Hassan…your points about him are well taken. I don’t think an apology for “the Muslims” is required or expected.
But there is a disconnect in the non Muslim community about what is going on within the religion. People are not sure what it says or stands for. The ones I have spoken with believe that it must be a good faith…otherwise how could there be so many adherents? On the other hand, it seems the major “events” as Wendy put it, are happening by Muslims toward non Muslims AND Muslims. So there is a lot of confusion. why does it seem that they are so intent on hurting and maiming so many people? People who are minding their won business and have done nothing to them?
I think if it was a group of radical white supremacists or Christian fundamentalists out there bombing and killing Muslims AND Christians non Christians would be baffled and wonder what the heck it was all about.
And I feel pretty sure the Muslim community would be up in arms that they were being targeted…and rightly so.
I personally think the answer or at least part of it is for Muslims and non alike to have some sort of community interaction to get to know each other better. It is harder to be suspicious of a friend or at least someone who is not a complete stranger. I am not sure what that would be…and it might not be easy at first….if some Muslims and Non muslims start interacting and it goes well others I think will eventually join in. The thing is it isn’t Muslims against Non Muslims…it is some crazy people who have taken Islam and used it as a weapon of fear and intimidation that are the enemy. It is the rest of us against them who misuse Islam in this way…but I think people need to KNOW that the mainstream Muslims are NOT in support of what is happening and that will give them the courage to stand with the Muslims side by side to get rid of this scourge.
Yes, perhaps lack of knowledge about the Other (here Muslims) because there is no interfaith interaction in most countries is the reason behind this “fear of Muslims.” People like Radha and me, who are used to living with people of all religions around us on a daily basis, don’t have this fear of Muslims and find it possible to understand that all Muslims are not terrorists, so we don’t expect explanations from them. That’s why we commented the way we did on this post.
I also find it surprising that especially North America is almost as multi-cultural as India is, but there seem to be much less friendly exchanges between different communities there. I don’t know what could be the reason and how they could be made to interact with each other more in the north America, so that people could know about each oher’s religions, customs and practices. Only those who are living there can think of a way.
If you look at the Indian situation, we interact with each other on a daily basis, accept each other’s practices as “normal”, nobody’s religion being superior to anybody else’s, celebrate each other’s festivals together and in fact, in daily conversation, we are not really engrossed with religious discussions that much – we just talk to each other normally, on mundane topics. It’s understood that each one of us – even within every religion – has different practices to follow which we learn about by way of interacting with them.
And yes, in school education, it is inculcated very strongly that all religions are equal and we should respect all religions. Seeing the amount of diversity in india, this is the only way India can survive as a Nation. Perhaps these are some ways to not have a fear of the Other.
I’m not sure if it’s just me that finds lately, the Muslims i meet ( friends and aquaintances, newly introduced people) are more stringent and less tolerant of others not like them. Earlier religion never was a barrier to mingling . A lot of them now feel the need to prove to everyone that they are pious. Great that you are praying 5 times , but if you don’t pray daily at home / work why do it in a gathering.
Also earlier they were very accepting of mixed marriages, actually no one bothered, and got along and had fun, lately the newer generation /muslims seem to be very critical ,I’ve noticed mostly in women,
I wonder what they think is wrong with mixing with others. and i’m not talking about bff. I’ve noticed a few who show up in an event and complain about mixing wih men, sit separate and cause logistic issues. I had to unfortunately walk up to one such group and tell them to come out and eat or stay in their room and starve. we were not carrying food back and forth. again You want to segregate fantastic, then don’t show up to mixed gatherings. these may seem like small issues and rants, but it does not provide a good view of the muslim world to the non-muslims, not everyone is closly associated with a muslim to know that it’s beautiful. and let me not go to the language, the arabic phrases — very annoying and i’m talking about people who have never set foot outside US. If you so love arabic, learn it and learn it well, always good to learn more languages, not half baked phrases thrown in to prove you are muslim.
these are just some things i’ve lately notiecd and as i get older i have less tolerance to these outward shows, i simply refrain from interacting with them and stick to parties where religion doesn’t seem an issue . sadly this cuts my kids off from interacting with them too .
I think both Daisy and Radha make good points…I can only speak for myself but I would imagine that I am not so special that my situations and experiences are very different from many other Americans.
In the USA like many non Muslim countries we have Muslims, yes, but they tend to be congregated in areas with lots of other Muslims and so the result is pockets of them usually in large cities throughout the country. Most people will most likely not have the opportunity to meet many Muslims simply due to the geographical situation so even if they wanted to have an interfaith dialogue/mixture it would not be possible.
I do think Radha is correct when you say that they are not tolerant of others not like them. I am not sure if this is due to the fact that they think they are more pious than non Muslims and therefore don’t want to mix, or maybe it is a language issue (I believe something like 70% of Muslims in the USA are immigrants and therefore language could very well be a barrier). I have been fortunate enough to meet some and one of them at my local gas station is absolutely the nicest lady in the world. She is from Morrocco and I love to go in there and chat with her. I try to make eye contact and smile with other Muslims…especially if they have children which makes a very easy way to say hello while you smile or admire their child…unfortunately, most of my efforts have fallen flat. Again, I am not sure it is due to the fact that they don’t want to interact or they can’t, but anybody can smile. Most of the time they don’t even make eye contact…maybe it is cultural. Maybe they are suspicious of me and feel nervous, or wonder why I might even try to interact. I don’t really know. In India I would imagine the Muslim population is indigenous…in other words born and raised in the culture. Here, as I said, most of them are from a different country very different than ours and that might be a huge issue.
It is important to know that most Americans(at least ones I know) do not think that all Muslims are terrorists…but as I said, they are wondering in a big way why most terrorists nowadays seem to be coming from the Muslim faith. (and yes they also understand that terrorists can come in all shapes and sizes and religions and it is not exclusive to Islam.)
Radha…I too have noticed a bit of a change. Not up close and personal like you have because I have never been invited into a Muslim home or party so I can’t say. But it seems that if you listen and watch the clothing etc. it is becoming more stringent and they are less intermingling. As a kid I grew up in a pretty diverse neighborhood right outside NYC.(Manhattan) There was more friendly hellos and you are right, I did know of a couple of interfaith marriages. Religion i didn’t seem to be quite the barrier it is today…
Which brings me to another question I ask myself…have the terrorists been successful in making people more suspicious of each other? If so then that seems so wrong to me.
If today’s Muslim diaspora in the US is consciously trying to avoid intermingling and becoming more conservative, it’s rather a scary situation – it shows the extent to which the orthodox Islamism has spread outside the Shariah-ruled countries.
Oby, you may be closer to the reality than you realise.
It’s much worse than terrorism – because it shows they view the non-Muslims as “not friends” or is it a defence reaction against the criticism they get? This is much worse than terrorists coming from outside and attacking some place. Perhaps the US hasn’t understood its long-term implications. There definitely needs to be done something to make different communities intermingle.
radha! Oh!My!Gods! Ditto to EVERYthing you said! But do not be sad that this cuts off your kids interactions with them! It does not bode well for the family when a child considers the mother an ‘infidel’ which is what happens when they interact too much.
Oby, these are not just foreign born people that radha speaks of. They are born and bred right here in the good ol USA and that is why listening to their Arab or Pakistani accents are even harder to stomach!
And no, we do not want Muslims to ‘answer for’ any terrorist acts. We want them to loudly denounce the terrorist acts without any BUTS so that there can be NO question whether or not the act was one that could be justified. We want to hear that if and when they heard someone in their circles speaking approvingly of a terrorist act that they would shut them down at least as fast as they would correct them if they had a piece of hair sticking out of their hijab.
@lynn, no worries about my children considering me infidel, i’ll just stop paying my son’s semester fees and yank the car and cool outfits from my daughter and they’ll fall right back in line
( jusy joking)
we have tried to raise them fairly with both religions , however due to logistic/proximity etc., they follow the hindu faith ( or so they say) . My parents and grandparents in india played a very active role in raising them , hence the hindu influence. Also F rarely took my daughter to the islamic center since he didn’t want to leave her alone in the womens stinky basement and that too he rarely went on a weekend and you can’t make my son go when his sister didn’t have to
. But they went to the temple for bhajans ,to dandiya and diwali etc., they were stuck with me 
But the point is they know about islam, their culture and heritage and are comfortable around muslims who for some reason accept my son but not my daughter ( must be the bindi on her forehead). The rest of the non-muslims don’t have this close interaction to know the beauty of islam, to know muslims are also people like us and mean no harm.
It’s upto the muslim community not to isolate itself and reach out to friendly hands.
I always thought of the 2 of them my son would follow his father but he requested that i get him a ganesh idol and a lamp when he returned back to school after break , so i guess he’s decided.My daughter of course learns indian dance/music and is a teen who thinks it’s the end of the world if she misses one night of dandiya .
Radha…
Obviously you have personal experience due to your marriage. You said that the women are accepting of your son but not your daughter. Do you think it is due to the innate “higher value” of males within Islam? I know the religion say that they are equal but it seems it isn’t always practiced that way. If they are not accepting of your daughter what sort of impression does she have of Muslims and do they accept you better? It sounds as if they do…I am assuming that you are still Hindu.
@Lynn…
Wow! It seems as if you have waaaay more experience with Muslims than me. Is it your experience that American Muslims are becoming much harder line and identifying with Arab/Pakistani cultures than their own native born American one. Are you saying they speak Arabic with an Arabic or Pakistani intonation? Or are they changing their natural american English accent to this?
@oby
I don’t think it has anything to do with males/females etc., atleats not in our context. Could be my son blends in more, whereas my daughter loves indian clothes /bindi / jewellary etc., also he usually keeps quite to prodding an my daughter is not the silent type
My daughter is old enough now to understand stuff around her, she’s ok with muslims , has a few good friends there but she says she’s firmly hindu . She’s open to them, she’s daddy’s girl .
My son just started school and plans to move to ind housing next yr with 3 other kids , his childhood friend ( indian american hindu) , and 2 american boys from california. At that age i doubt religious affiliation is primary in their minds . He does seem to believe having a statue of ganesh and praying is going to keep his grades up.
Well Radha…he may be right about Ganesh. He was on the front of our Indian wedding invitations and still all is well. So maybe Ganesh’s presence will be auspicious and helpful to his schooling!
I think it can be a challenge to raise kids in a dual religion marriage, but it can be done. We, too, keep in touch with my husband’s family in India…Just celebrated Diwali and participated in the Puja and singing prayers via Skype. with that and the fireworks and seeing all the lights on the house, it almost felt like we were there. Doesn’t seem like it is on the other side of the world!
I am noticing distinct culture changes in the area I’m presently in within North Carolina. If there are muslim communitities, I don’t think they are near where I am. However I am in a friendly, albeit conservative, charming rural area of North Carolina.
Carol…
“I am noticing distinct culture changes in the area I’m presently in within North Carolina.”
what do you mean? I spent a lot of my life in the south…Ga., La., Fla. primarily although I am originally from outside NYC. The South seemed fairly conservative compared to NYC. Do you think it is getting more so or less? How do you see it changing as per your statement above? I live in the Midwest now but there are some things I REALLY miss about the south and probably always will. It will always have a special place in my heart.
Recently I was talking to a group of undergraduate girls from various US universities who were in India. They remarked that they were quite impressed by the way they saw non-Hindus (including Muslims) celebrating Diwali and non-Muslims (including Hindus) celebrating Eid – all the communities together. They said it doesn’t happen that way in the US – people keep the festival celebrations to their own communities.
In the group was a Pakistani-American girl (her mother was American), who couldn’t be distinguished from the other American girls in any way – looks, English accent, body language, clothes, mannerisms, everything was the same. She remarked that in the US she had never had non-Muslims coming to her house and greeting her on Eid, not even her mother’s family and no non-Christians except her mother’s family invited them to celebrate Christmas together. It was then that I understood that this interfaith festival celebration we have in India may not be as common as I had presumed it to be.
I do hope that this Pakistani-American student doesn’t take a conservative turn because of the lack of interfaith interaction in th US and remains the way she is – exactly like any other American woman of her age!
I’ve spent so much time outside of the United States I feel more like a visitor at times than a native. And Saudi did become home relatively quickly. So while I am outside of Saudi I cannot help but notice various types of comparisons.
I’m in a lovely area of North Carolina not too far away from Charlotte on Lake Norman. It is an easgoing friendly area yet a little bit conservative. It is polite Southern culture which I do like and enjoy. Although when I say conservative, I just happy to have a little button on my purse which reads “Cancer Sucks!.” In most places that button may act as an ice breaker and start conservations but here it seems many do not know what to do or say if they say it and make eye contact. Many will just ignore and look away while some may look embarrassed. I had also forgotten how being in a Southern culture it is common too to have someone knock on your door from a local church regardless of faith one follows.
I have noticed when being out and about that I have seen few individuals who’d I say are of Arab or Southeast Asian descent. Thus far I have been interacting with American born Americans. Nothing wrong with that…but something I’ve not done for a long long time!
And of course I am observing all the decorations for the various holidays that have kind of become blurred together. But it is fun to be part of the hustle and bustle. I miss my own home. I miss my dear dear friends. But I am also going to enjoy and heal while I am here in North Carolina. Best thing I see each morning and night is my precious Grandson!
Daisy…
Thanks for that story. It is true and I wish it was more interactive. As I said I have never been invited to a Muslim home, but i don’t know very many…I have met some on a casual basis…”hi how are you” type of thing, but it never seems to go anywhere unfortunately. I am not sure I would feel comfortable inviting a Muslim family for Christmas unless I knew them fairly well. (or a Jewish family for that matter) NOT because they wouldn’t be welcome…they certainly would be… but because i would be afraid of offending them and appearing to be pushing my religion. And that is a problem…America is so hung up on political correctness or offending someone that they don’t interact like they used to.
Example: as a kid I told you we lived in a pretty diverse area. It would be nothing to shout out “Merry Christmas” to your neighbor even if they were not Christian…if they were Jewish or Muslim it was fine….it was a greeting of good will and peace and kindness. The Jews nor the Muslims took it to mean that we want to convert them…they took it exactly as we meant it and they would say it back even though they weren’t Christians. The same thing if someone wished us Happy Hanukkah or Happy Eid. We thought it only normal to say it back to them.
But political correctness has a strangle hold on America (and maybe Europe too) and people are oh so worried about offending someone it is almost too hard to talk. It is nuts really…and all of us are talking LESS than we used to. It is TOTALLY stupid and can only lead to bigger problems.
Maybe others won’t agree with me, but in my opinion PCness has gone too far and made us scared of each other.
But I feel I have somewhat redeemed myself PC wise…for Thanksgiving I am having a Jewish family(my daughter’s friend from school) and a Mormon family (also another friend from school) over to share dinner with us. If I were friendly with a Muslim family they would have been invited too! I want my home to be multicultural place for friends to gather!
Oby,
That’s a great approach inviting all these people for a Thanksgiving Dinner!
In fact, what you say about political correctness in the US is a learning experiece for me. In India, political correctness means exactly the opposite – it’s politically correct to share one’s customs with others and also to join in other’s customs! And it’s considered rather a rigid orthodox attitude if one doesn’t include the people from other communties in one’s own celebrations and doesn’t join in other people’s celebrations!
It is perceived as a sign that one is creating barriers between communities. On the other hand, if people from different communities join in each others’ celebrations, they send the message that they consider all religions as equal and respect all religions. The person who doesn’t join in interfaith celebration is perceived as the one who is more likely to believe in conversions and the superiority of one religion over the others!
It is interesting how different societies define political correctness in terms of religious boundaries.
Oby, I certainly can’t speak about all American Muslims just the ones that are around me and unfortunately the ones that I am around are as radha described with the insistance on the barriers between the sexes. They love to pepper their language with Arabic and/or Urdu words and they speak their native English with a bit of an accent. Also, you can invite them to your holiday gathering but don’t expect them to come and if they do, don’t expect them to share your turkey dinner with you and don’t expect them to sit at the table with you if you enjoy wine with your meal. But, of course, don’t let that stop you from extending the invitation.
Now, 30 years ago my best friend in the world was a Muslim and shared every single holiday with us and enjoyed it fully and ate everything we ate except for pork. I’m sure that there has to be Muslims like that out there but I just don’t know them them and I have been told recently that well, clearly that one wasn’t a ‘real’ Muslim. LOL
radha, I agree wholeheartedly with what your response would be unfortunately, those ‘material’ things do not sway the truly convinced.
When I was in London, there was a Pakistani man with us, hailing from Peshawar and a firm practitioner of Islam, though not a bigot. And there was a Bangladeshi, who was more lenient in his Islamic practices. Once we went to a restaurant and while the Pakistani man went out for a while, we ordered pork sausage. The Bangladeshi and I ate from it. When the Pakistani man came back, he wanted to taste, but I cautioned him it was pork. So he didn’t eat from it and then looked at the Bangladeshi and asked, “Did you eat it? It’s Haram in our religion.” The Bangladeshi didn’t know how to handle the situation, so I interjected and told the Pakistani man “No, he didn’t eat it, only I ate it.” Of course that was a lie, but I thought it was better to lie to make both of them feel comfortable!
The Pakistani man didn’t have any objection to sitting with us on the same table, even if wine was ordered and pork was served. But I am sure there are different kinds of Muslims around the world, just as there different kinds of Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs and others.
It is the Pakistani man who has kep in touch with me till this day, even though we can’t visit each other’s countries.
These latest comments remind me of last Christmas in Riyadh. I was taking care of my husband who was at the King Faisal East Building at the time being treated for cancer. Most of the nursing staff taking care of him were non-Muslims and the remaining were. I went out the day before Christmas and bought little items for all the staff which I then placed in small gift bags. For the Christian staffers I wished them Merry Christmas and to those who did not celebrate Christmas I gave them the small bag in appreciation for taking such good care of my husband. My husband even helped me decided which little items went to whom and it was nice making him an active part of the beautiful exchange. The patient in the room next to him also had a cake ordered for the nursing staff. I was pretty much staying full time at the hospital then and was so touched to get invited to their staff holiday party. We were from all over and the team brought their best dishes of their respective countries. It was a discrete and absolutely lovely gathering sensitive to everyone’s faith and wishes.
discrete and sensitive to everyone’s faith and wishes? Was discretion and religious sensitivity a necessity at their Christmas party?
Thanks Carol, for sharing this experience.
In a country like India, discretion is not necessary on such occasions and a Merry Christmas card can be given to anyone here without fearing one might offend the person – even non-Christians greet Merry Christmas to each other here and join in the celebrations! In fact people feel happy that they are being included in a celebration of another community. We often organise Christmas dinners where majority of the participants are not Christians.
But in a Saudi environment, Carol was perhaps following the right approach by being discrete – a Saudi Muslim or a Jew from elsewhere may have misinterpreted the meaning of a Merry Christmas card. Personally, I have always loved the Christmas cards right since my school days, when we used to get them from school and as children we loved to collect them.
Lynn…
I agree with you in a way. I think being sensitive to a degree is fine. Don’t insult people’s God’s, religions, holidays etc. Stuff like that I do understand as I don’t think it serves a purpose for anyone and puts up barriers to togetherness. But it does bug me that sensitivity has been taken way too far. To the point that people are afraid to even speak up for their beliefs…for example the Christmas party…if it was a Christmas party and there were Muslims in attendance then to sanitize it (if that was what was done…I am not sure I got that from Bedu’s post) is wrong. I think that the Muslims should roll with it and clelebrate knowing that they are sharing fellowship with their coworkers but certainly it doesn’t mean the same thing to them it would to the Christians in attendance. Just as if it was an Eid party they shouldn’t sanitize it or be “sensitive” to the non Muslims. People need to learn to “roll” with each other more. If we going around trying to supersensitive to everything and everyone then it makes it too hard to live with each other. there needs to be a certain amount of goodwill built into the relations that allow for stuff like this.
@Daisy…
I was telling my husband about your experience in India and he agreed totally with you about everyone sharing together. He wanted me to tell you this story:
when he lived there their neighbors were Christians from the south. Somehow my husbands family had become “keeper of the Christmas tree” even though they were Hindus they put one up each year. So the Christian family came each year and borrowed it and when the season was over they returned it to my husband’s family for next year…talk about rolling with each other! Maybe we could learn a thing or two from India’s example.
The gift was a nice touch AB, i love it when my patients gift me stuff, not money or anything material, but they will bring small things they made/put together which say that they appreciate the care you provide an dthat’s the best part of this job. of course we have one fab holiday potluck , no drinking of course but the array of food from diff parts of the world is stunning.
Here we’ve become PC in the sense we wish the christian staffers happy christmas and the rest happy holidays. ( although quite a few work christmas and new yr), the other thing i love about here is that the non-christian staff will willingly take over duty on christmas and thanksgiving which is a nice gesture.
of course we all get 1 shift new yr eve and next day – in fact we get drafted to work other teams too.. considering the amount of drunks killing people and getting killed.
we never considered it hard to raise kids with 2 religions. atleast not with mine, it could be because both of us are not very set in our ways and we think a lot like indians and accpt the differences, Kids know about both religions and it’s their choice in the end. whatever gives them peace and solace they are free to follow.
when you enter into a marriage with 2 cultures/2 religions involved it doesn’t work if you are rigid in your beliefs, you get married because you value your love for each other over everything, insisting one parner change to the others belief /views/culture usually doesn’t work. we’re all individuals and need the space to follow what we want. any one planning to get involved with someone of diff culture would do best to understand this.
Oby,
I enjoyed reading your husband’s experience about Christmas tree! Yes, I can see your viewpoint about sanitisation. I would really feel left out and disappointed if my Muslim and Christian friends didn’t wish me Eid Mubarak and Merry Christmas and I’m quite sure they would be unhappy if we didn’t throw colours at each other on Holi or didn’t blow crackers together on Diwali. Thanks for suggesting that Indian example should be followed elsewhere – people don’t have to convert to other religions, but to join in everyone’s festivities together does build an environment of fellowship and trust, without sacrificing one’s own identity.
In regards to the Christmas party because it was held at a Saudi hospital it was necessary to be discreet and have it take place in a private (large) conference room. I didn’t mind and it was a special time for all.
@Daisy…
I agree 100%!!
@Carol…
I understand as it is Saudi Arabia and it was lovely that you were able to do that…My apologies if I seemed critical. I didn’t mean to take anything away from your lovely celebration….I wasn’t thinking KSA in particular, rather more in general. We don’t need to be quite so stringent in other countries that aren’t KSA. We can share each others celebrations without feeling that we are giving up our own identities or values and at the same time learn about each other.
nicely written Bedu
i want to write something precise and dirct to the point ” the problem is not in Isalm, it is in the wrong application of islam, it is in the worng represntation of it by some people who are not knwoledgeable enough to decide and take actions.”
Welcome Nawal and thank you for your comment.
Jerry M mentioned that Saudi Arabia translates one of the worst English Korans available. I would like to ask what anyone thinks is a good or best English translation of the Koran and where I might be able to get one here in America, perhaps online? If no one knows, do you at least know anyone else I could ask? By “best” I mean one that is truest to the original Arabic text and meaning, and hopefully the most unbiased (as far as being too liberal, etc.) Thanks in advance.
Rachel,
In fact, there are NO English translations of Quran available that closely follow the Arabic text. There has been a lot of cultural politics in the English translations of Quran since the 19th century – and this is not something specific to Quran, but to most ancient texts from different parts of Asia.
A lot of the 19th sensibilities of the Victorian British moulded the way these translations were carried out and the later translations simply retained the “doctored” 19th century versions, with just updating the language to the different decades of 20th or 21st century English. As a result, you really don’t have an English translation of Quran that closely follows the Arabic text.
Unfortunately, this has also led to a lot of misinterpretations of the verses, since most people do not understand the original Arabic text in its proper context and simply read the English translation, or worse, go to online resources. I have seen examples of this on this blog itself.
The only way you can get close to the Arabic text is that take a Quran that has the Arabic text with the English translation, read the verses that you would like to understand, go to a good Arabic language expert, who also understands Islam from a rational perspective and ask him the exact meaning of the terms in a verse that you would like to know about. The exact literal meaning may often shock you – be prepared for it.
When you know the exact meanings of these terms (not the entire verse, but the specific terms), see how this term fits into the verse. Also read some good books on early history of Islam and pre-Islamic Arabia to understand the context of these terms. Again, make sure your Arabic expert is not an orthodox person – unfortunately most of the Arabic experts are.
This sounds like a lot of research, but the only other option is that you gain an expertise in Arabic language. I go through this process everytime I have to explain any term on this blog. It takes me days, but I’m fortunate to know an Arabic expert who has also had Islamic religious education and is a progressive Muslim. That helps a lot.
Daisy: ‘The exact literal meaning may often shock you – be prepared for it.’
Can you give an example please?
Lynn,
Please read my recent 2 comments about Mahr on “Should dowry be returned.” There is a lot of difference between the English translations of the verses and the literal connotations in Arabic. It requires a lot of understanding of another culture and another era to accept it as normal for those societies.
Daisy, thank you very much for your thoughtful answer. I guess I should have figured my efforts to understand the Koran would be rather easily frustrated by my geographic location and the language barrier…I know one Arab gentleman and he is an English speaker, and not Muslim. Go figure!
I also looked at your other comments that you referred Lynn to, and it really got me thinking. I wonder how many non-Arabic-speaking Muslims actually go to that effort to truly understand their Koran? It would seem to me to be of the highest significance. I can only imagine the situation is similar in the other languages to which it is translated. You’ve really got me thinking now. Thanks again 
@Rachel,
The same thing could be said of Christians, how many go to the effort to learn biblical Greek and Aramaic? How many Jews really learn to understand Hebrew and Aramaic?
Yes, that is true about Aramaic…unless one is an expert in those languages I guess trust has to be a part of it.(the translation you are reading)
@Rachel…
I am probably going to open myself up for a lot of criticism here so those of you that feel the need…fine, just please be constructive.
I started trying to learn about Islam/Quran since the beginning of September. Prior to that I had only the most faint understanding…In that time I have read books on Islam, KSA, Mosques, and tried to understand several interpretations of the Quran. I haven’t even started Hadith yet. I find the language lovely, the way it is written but what I also found for myself,anyway, is that it was very contradictory so I was left asking what is it REALLY saying and what does this particular sura mean. I didn’t want to assume and get it wrong either one way or the other. I needed it in plain English. Feeling frustrated and not willing to leave it confused for me I started to think about what could I do to get an understanding of what the Quran said without all the fancy flourishes.
I am almost embarrassed to say because I can hear the howls of laughter now, but I thought “maybe there is a “Quran for Dummies” book available. Unbelievably my library had one and it’s companion book “Islam for Dummies”. I was shocked that there was such a book. “The Koran for Dummies” is written by an Arab person. I have only had it a week and due to the holiday, have not had a lot of reading in it but I was able to get in a couple of chapters. It isn’t a Koran but explains what the Koran says in plain,easy to understand English. I explains suras, what the Koran says about each thing in the Koran and how it works in tandem with other things said. Pleease remember I have not read it fully so I cannot tell you comprehensively what it says. but I was even able to go into the index and look up a few things I wanted to clarify and sure enough they were there.
This is not a Koran, per se, but an explanation of what the Koran says. I have NO IDEA if it would be considered progressive or literal or whatever. I am not able to judge that. I also don’t know if it has been changed in any way to appeal to a broader audience. I was just happy to find something that was able to put it into perspective for me.
Is anyone familiar with this book and does anyone know if it is accurate in it’s explanations? Maybe they have on for Hadith too. Didn’t even look.
Thanks.
Rachel,
Thanks for your response. The trouble is that even Arabic-speaking Muslims may not always understand the finer nuances of Quran as they are conditioned since childhood to interpret the verses in a particluar manner. I have found that often, even they are not aware of what the verses are actually saying and how the meanings of the terms have evolved.
But we have to be fair to them and admit that this is true for all religions as Abu Sinan says. Most Hindus don’t know Sanskrit and read only the translations or not even that, just the popular religious literature, most Christians read only the Bible in their own language, which is not really close to the Aramaic or Hebrew Bible and so on and so forth.
Ultimately, religion is just a matter of faith and in fact, most people – from all religions – don’t really follow the written word, but what they believe to be the “true religion.” So ultimately it’s the religious practices that matter after all.
If you are really, really interested, you can ask the non-Muslim Arab to give you the literal translation of the relevant verses and then will have to find a rational Islamic scholar and the relevant books on pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabia to go through the entire process. But unless you are doing a PhD in Islamic studies or involved in a large-funded project on Islam, it’s really too much of trouble to take.
Oby,
While the simple guide book on Islam you are talking about gives the simplest idea of Islam, if someone wants to know what the Quran is actually saying in Arabic, you’ll find there are large discrepancies between these guidebooks and the Arabic verses – and again, this is true for all religions.
Rachel,
You may also read my interpretation of the description of Houris in Islamic Paradise who are supposed to be meant for the enjoyment of faithful men. English translations describe them as “companions pure”, thus leading many to think that these were from both sexes, meant for men as well women, but a close reading of the Arabic verses in Quran clearly shows that these are females meant only for men. See “Saudi Arabia – How many heavens are there?”
@Daisy…
Is there a book translated faithfully from the Arabic to the English that might be an easy read?…for example there are bibles written in Old English that, due to the way the sentences are phrased, are distracting and difficult to read. You recommended a book a few posts back…would that one qualify?…I admit I haven’t searched it out yet but I will.
But speaking about the subtleties in translating the Koran or the Bible etc…it would seem with how the terrorists interpret it in such a very narrow vein it would be a very important point to make sure it is interpreted correctly and have the Muslim world agree on that. Is there such a thing?
Also, you know an amazing amount of information about so many religions…if it isn’t too personal are you a religious scholar?…I am consistently amazed by your knowledge especially about Heaven at least the Christian one.(I can’t speak about the others).
Thanks again.
Oby,
Thanks for appreciating. The readings I suggested to you are amongst the best reference books on Islam you can consult. About Arabic to English translation, I’ll explore and will let you know, but the ones I suggested have taken their data directly from Arabic for their interpretations. So they are the next best things to reading the original Arabic text.
I talked about Victorian sensibilities of the 19th century British moulding the Quran translations. Yes, in later times, it does seem those 19th century translations further suited the orthodox Islamic populations so they retained them, only updating the English – no orthodox Islamic cleric would like to tell you Quran uses such an explicit language. I read somewhere the French translations of Quran are not so “prudent.” But I don’t know French so can’t say for sure.
I’m not a religious scholar, but am in academics and am trained in research method related to religious history of India. And all the major religions are represented in India, so one has to keep on studying all of them, since people from all these religions also keep on exchanging their ideas, customs and practices with each other. I was educated in what are called convent schools in India – they are run by the Catholic missionaries. Hence, my entire school years were spent in praying in Church, reading the Bible and listening to sermons! So I know a little about Christianity. We are taught in school about ancient India’s contact with Persia ie, aspects of Zoroastrianism. I already knew about the Indian religions since I am born in that tradition and decided to get some knowledge about Islam and Judaism, so that really completes the picture. But I must admit I am still learning and there is so much more to know.
oby,
You might find this interesting. It speaks on defining Islam.
http://www.yellowbuzz.org/2009/05/qtv-interview-mike-knight-and-omar.html
It was good to see this:
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Suicide-attacks-a-curse-for-Muslims-Saudi-Grand-Mufti/547075/
Thanks for the links, Lynn.
wouldn’t it be a joyful thing for the whole world if terrorism was obliterated?
Maybe it is just me and the way I think, but it seems to me that people would be far more attracted to Islam if there wasn’t terrorism. I would certainly think if people found it a lot more approachable they might be willing to learn more about it. Kind of like you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar sort of thing.
On Crossroads Arabia someone commenting on King Abdullah denouncing deviant ideology recommended this article. It is definitely worth reading as it goes straight to the heart of some of the terrorism issues outside of KSA, namely in England. I found the story gripping…and hopeful.
Sorry but you might have to cut and paste…
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/renouncing-islamism-to-the-brink-and-back-again-1821215.html
@Lynn…
Thank you so much for your link…I definitely found it helpful.
OK, You asked…
1.Stop the discrimination against non-Muslims in all Islamic societies. End the apostasy laws. Give infidels the same rights as Muslims (or the same lack of rights; after all, we ARE talking about Muslim countries)
2.Start a serious discussion about the passages in the Quran and hadith that promote hate and violence against non-Muslims. Consider what these mean and how they promote hate and violence (or do you think radicals make up verses?)
3.Stop blaming others for all the problems in Islamic societies. Believe me, the Jews, Israel, Christians, the Pope, the Crusaders, Bush, the USA, the war on terror, Colonialism, Hollywood, the media, poverty, lack of education, culture, etc… are not the cause of most of the troubles that Muslims must face… the problem is much closer to home.
4.Apply the same standards to Muslim societies as you do to Western Countries – after all, if profiling and discrimination is wrong in the US and Europe, it should be wrong in Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Morroco, Pakistan, etc.. If fact, non-Muslims in Islamic societies would love to have the same rights as Muslims have in the West.
5. Stop teaching and preaching hate against non-Muslims in mosques and madrassas. Get rid of Imams, newspapers and TV shows that demonize non-Muslims.
6. Stop calling non-Muslims “Ignorant about Islam”. Stop saying that Islam is “misunderstood.” Obviously, it is not infidels that don’t understand Islam. It is Muslims that don’t seem to know their own writings. If the Quran says that Muslims are put on earth to kill and be killed (9:111), then don’t blame non-Muslims for thinking that Muslims are a bunch of terrorist.
That is it. Just do these simple things and it will clear up those so-called misperceptions and misunderstandings about Islam. Of course, then Islam wouldn’t be Islam, either. Of course, that means that Muslims would have to take responsibility for their actions and be honest about Islam. Fat chance.
Kactuz
J. Kactuz,
While you are right that most of these features exist in predominantly Islamic countries, hatred for other religions exists in the orthodox sections of all religions. The entire history of the persecution of the Jews, Christians and the Zoroastrians is based on this. Even today if you go to an orthodox gathering of any religion, you’ll hear such sentiments – it’s not specific to Islam. But yes, a country’s laws shouldn’t be based on this.
India was the only fortunate country in history in having the Mughal rulers who patronised the customs, literature, philosophy and art forms of Hinduism – the Mughals came from the Islamic traditions but were the most eclectic of all. India also never went under the Sharia rule despite having a 900 yrs of various Muslim ruling dynasties. Perhaps the Islamic countries of today should learn from the Mughals.
@Daisy,
Hinduism is not without it’s fanatics. A quick look at the BJP and it’s leaders and followers, some of which fomented murderous religious violence, will put paid to that idea.
@J Kactuz,
You need to realise that it would be very hard to find a religious script more violent than The Bible. In it entire cities are ordered to be wiped out, gays are to be murdered, ect. Maybe you dont know your own religious texts? The Bible commands that all cities that stand before the choosen people must submit, if they do so they will only slightly destroy the city, if they refuse to submit then EVERYTHING in the city must be destroyed, men, women, children, even animals. The text states that every breathing animal and human will be put to death.
I guess using your criteria then the world cannot blame followers of The Bible for being called terrorists? Do not make such statements unless you want the rules applied to yourself and your society, unless of course hypocrisy is not an issue for you.
Here in the USA we have Christian extremists pushing their own agenda, sometimes violent, sometimes not. Here Christian extremists who murder and bomb abortion doctors are made into heors by these communities, they push their agendas in schools where they seek to push their religious indoctrination in schools and public life.
To this day some Christians and Jews use these texts to justify their violence and hatred.
What needs to happen is to come to a proper context within which to view these issues within the Muslim community. We do need to address these issues, I agree. The West could start helping by not supporting the dictators and religious extremists in the Muslim world. The West supported Saddam Hussein, they still support the religious extremists that are part and parcel of the Saudi government, they support dictators in Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar ect.
So what happens is these dictators, monarchies and religious extremists have a vested interest in pointing people’d frustrations over their failed societies in a different direction, so they channel that anger and frustration to the West, Jews, Christians, you name it.
If the West values freedom start by removing all support for those forces in the Muslim world that deny the citizens their freedom. Once these governments come crashing down the Muslim communties will be forced to take a role in the governments that lead them.
Hear! Hear! J Kactuz: Stop calling non-Muslims “Ignorant about Islam”. Stop saying that Islam is “misunderstood.” Obviously, it is not infidels that don’t understand Islam. It is Muslims that don’t seem to know their own writings.
Abu Sinan,
As I understand it, true Christians follow the END of the Bible and use the beginning more as historical reference where I think that the only one doing the violence was God (of course I could be wrong but if I am perhaps you can quote the passages where God instructs believers to do it for him). I don’t believe that there is anything in ‘turn the other cheek’ that ends up getting twisted to mean ‘kill the infidel’. Did Jesus ever do anything more violent than turning over the money changer’s tables? His apostles were jailed for being apostates/blasphemers and still there was nothing in their letters (which make up the New Testament) calling for violence to release them. Again, perhaps I am wrong and you can correct me.
Abu Sinan: If the West values freedom start by removing all support for those forces in the Muslim world that deny the citizens their freedom. Once these governments come crashing down the Muslim communties will be forced to take a role in the governments that lead them.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Abu Sinan,
Yes, I agree with you, the fanatic section of Hinduism has tried to create havoc and I am against them – that’s why I said hatred about other religions exists in ALL religions – I wasn’t defending Hinduism here. There are fanatics in all religions – that’s what I said, so I don’t know why you are making this remark.
Abu Sinan,
The Mughals were born in the ISLAMIC tradition, yet they patronised the indigenous traditions of India without imposing Sharia here – that’s why their contribution is great and India is really grateful to them today. I was talking about the sensitive attitude of this Muslim dynasty, not a Hindu one.
@Lynn,
Being from a Christian family and raised in such an environment I can tell you that evangelical Christians most certainly DO look to the Old Testament for guidance, nevermind the fact that Zionist Christians and some extremist Jews use the Biblical portions about genocide and mass murder to advocate these policies TODAY.
Anyway, all I have to do is point you to the fact that at one point the Jewish leadership was trying to trump up charges against Jesus. They said that he no longer believed in “the old laws”. Jesus replied to them that not one “jot or tittle” of the old law shall change until heaven and earth come to pass.
So unless heaven and earth have come to pass, the “old laws” are still binding on Christians, and suprisingly enough, many devout Christians think just this way.
So the religious text of Judaism and Christianity is genocidal and advicates mass murder. The real issue is how people view these guidlines in a modern framework in a different context.
Abu Sinan,
Perhaps Jesus was saying that what they thought were God’s Laws were NOT really God’s after all? I mean didn’t Jesus say that whatever goes into the mouth cannot make one unclean but what comes out can? How does that hold up against him saying that he wasn’t changing the law when the laws of ‘kosher’ were clear that what you eat can make you unclean?
Jesus summed up the law and prophets by saying we should love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls and minds and love our neighbors as we love ourselves. As He taught us from the story of the Good Samaritan, our neighbors include even our traditional enemies as the Jews and Samaritans despised each other. In today’s terms it would be like asking the Arabs and Zionists to take care of one another.
Jesus said any heathen will love those who love them. But He called us to love our enemies and bless those who curse us. We are further told if our enemies are hungry to feed them. Sadly, American Christians have too often gotten into a defensive, we-have-to-protect-our-land-and/or-our-Jewish-friends mode to the expense of living out these things Jesus told us to do. Instead of loving our enemies and feeding them, we are bombing them in the name of defense. While I realize part of loving your family is protecting them, I would love to see how “overcoming evil with good” could be done in this world. We know evil cannot be overcome with bombs. It only breeds MORE resentment and conflict. Why not try Jesus’ approach in life and see if He knew what He was talking about?
I’m ready to try.
Oh Susanne430…if only I could have said it so well. Beautiful!
@Lynn,
I have heard Christians attempt to justify, explain and “spiritualise” away Jesus since I was a kid. One of my first memories as a child was the raging debate at our church because some people wanted a women to give the sermon, others quoted the New Testament itself, which says VERY clearly, women are to remain SILENT in the church.
The modern Christian cherry picks what they want from The Bible. If it is something they dont agree with, they work their best to minimise it, ignore it, or act like they dont know it is in their text. Women remaining silent in the church, women’s hair being uncovered being a disgrace ect.
The Old Testament is even more troublesome for most Christians because they want to tell others to follow somethings, but it gets pretty confusing and convuluted trying to explain why Christians should follow some parts of the Old Testament and ignore others. You get Jesus who validates the laws in the Old Testament, and you get disciples who have dreams and contradict the words of Jesus, who most modern Christians believe is the son of God, yet they choose the words of the disciples over the words of what they believe is their God.
Even the words of “the son of God” seem to cause issues because he is asked questions and says “only God knows” when he himself is supposed to be God. If so…………why doesnt he know?
Jesus supposedly teaches nothing but love and peace……….then tells you to rip your eye out if it offends you.
Islam is hardly alone with forcing it’s followers to answer hard questions on their religious texts. As a matter of fact one Christian Arab once explained to me why he felt so few Muslims converted to Christianity. He said “why would a Muslim leave a religion that is pretty straight forward and linier as Islam and switch to a religion like Christianity that requires all sorts of leaps to follow”.
Abu Sinan, I think many Christians would say you are as ignorant of Christianity as you claim non-Muslims to be of Islam. But I don’t know, we’d have to ask a Christian.
‘So unless heaven and earth have come to pass, the “old laws” are still binding on Christians, and suprisingly enough, many devout Christians think just this way.
So the religious text of Judaism and Christianity is genocidal and advicates mass murder’
What exactly are these ‘old laws’ that would advocate mass murder? Can you quote a passage or two that tells a ‘Christian’ to kill?
Where do you see violence in Jesus telling people to control themselves and not sin, by plucking out their own eyes or cutting off their own hands if that is what it would take (my understanding of that). How does that compare to the Quran that allows others to take it upon themselves to control you (violently) if you cannot control yourself (sharia laws).
I am in no way a religious scholar but I do try to read a lot. Part of what I greatly appreciate about Islam and the Quran is that answers to questions are easy to find and addressed. Whereas in reading books of other faiths, it can get a bit congulated on what is being said or advised.
Jesus as the “son of God” doesn’t mean God had sexual relations with with a woman and had a child. Ancient Eastern people used the phrase “Son of” to indicate likeness or sameness of nature and quality of being. They had “sons of the prophets” and “sons of the singers” for example. In John 5:18 and John 19:7 the Jews knew Jesus was claiming to be God and wanted to kill him for breaking their law.
“We have a law, and according to that law he [Christ] must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” (Jn. 19:7)
If you read the Gospels you will see that Jesus accepted worship and you will realize the Jews recognized who he was claiming to be. Thus why some accepted him as their Savior and others rejected and wanted to kill him.
As for plucking out your eye if you are prone to lust, I like to believe Jesus used hyperbole on occasion. But, hey, if plucking out YOUR OWN eyeball (as opposed to the religious police doing it for you!) keeps you from sinning, pluck away!
Re: women keeping silent in churches & covering their hair — we should keep in mind cultural practices at that time. Just as Islam shouldn’t stay mired in ancient culture so that anything new is outright rejected as not Islamic, neither should Christians apply things meant only for ancient cultures to today. Unless God specifically said something was wrong then I like to think we have freedom in Christ. Romans 14 is a great chapter speaking of the liberty we have in Christ. Some can think one food is OK and another thinks it’s not OK, but if God accepts BOTH people, we should not judge our brothers and sisters for eating or not eating something we feel differently about. It’s part of letting people make choices in life and, I believe, it’s the true freedom God wants his people to enjoy.
Jesus fulfilled the Law and He set us free from having to measure up to it. God knew none of us could anyway. The Law was there to show us we were sinners in need of a Savior. Jesus set me free, and I feel Islam is just Muhammad’s attempt to put us back under the law only this time we have a gazillion hadiths so we have to figure out which rules apply to us for all time. (Even how we enter and use a bathroom.) No thanks! I’ll gladly keep Jesus and what HE did for me!
@Lynn,
I am well aware of Christianity, after all, I was one for years and went to Sunday School and the rest for more than a decade.
Anyway, if you were a bit more conversant in your own faith you’d be aware of passages of the sort below:
Deuteronomy 20
“12And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
13And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
15Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee”
So yeah, the God of the Old and New Testament REQUIRED mass murder. Sorry, but the verse is rather clear. God ordered genocide against specific groups of peoples, even names them.
Certainly you are aware of the fact that the God in The Bible ordered the murder of adulterers and homosexuals right? I guess you are unaware of the passage where God saved the Israeli nation because of the act of Israeli man who murdered an Israeli and his non Israel, pregnant wife, for race mixing. Numbers 25, I suggest you read it.
Mass murder, slavery, death for homosexual, adulterers and race mixers. That is the God of The Bible. Now you can try to rationalise it away, you can try and “reform” it all you want, say that the God of the The Bible has changed his ways, but it doesnt fly.
No one who knows The Bible and believes in it can have ANY comment about The Qur’an with a straight face.
You can say that Christians dont folllow their own text, that their God is different than the God of the Old Testament, but sorry to say that many laws in the Christian world, even until recently, were based on the Old Testament. You cannot pick and choose. You cannot pick the “nice” portions and ignore the rest.
@Susane,
You are aware that John 3:16 uses the word “begotten” right?
Let’s look at what that word means:
Adj. 1. begotten – (of offspring) generated by procreation; “naturally begotten child”
biological – of parents and children; related by blood; “biological child”
The basis of modern Christianity is that Jesus is the off spring of God. Even the story of Mary as understood by Christians confirms it. Not that Jesus was “like” God, but that he was part of God. That is where the trinity comes in, the triune God, three equal parts of the same God.
Your understanding, that Jesus was nothing more than a “sameness of nature and quality of being” is fundamentally different that what most modern Christians believe. They believe that Jesus was the literal son of God, not like him put PART of him.
A HUGE difference.
As to cultural practices, so you are saying that The Bible and it’s rules can be changed because of prevailing cultural practices of the day? So whereas the Old Testament ordered that gays be put to death, because it is rather common today, it is okay? Adultery, studies show that more than 50% of people will commit adultery at least once in their married life……does that mean it is okay because it is now part of our common cultural practices?
I understand that most modern Christians try their hardest to explain away the law, say they dont have to follow anything, but I never have and never will believe that Jesus came to completely remove any obligation to God to follow any set of rules.
Besides, if the rules are no longer valid, why do Christians have such a bad habit of pointing to them all of the time? If they dont matter, if Jesus came and got rid of all of those “old” rules, why talk about them or use them at all?
As for Jesus, he didnt do anything for you, God did. If you look at your own post you say Jesus was nothing more than someone who looked or was like God. So as a man he could do nothing for you. God, on the otehr hand, is different.
“Besides, if the rules are no longer valid, why do Christians have such a bad habit of pointing to them all of the time? If they dont matter, if Jesus came and got rid of all of those “old” rules, why talk about them or use them at all?”
Because they are legalists?
No, really, I believe Jesus summed all the Law into two great commands. Love God and love people. If what you do is against God and others (stealing, killing, committing adultery, etc.), don’t do it. Whether or not you celebrate Independence Day or listen to music, take photographs of your family members or eat certain foods doesn’t matter. God is more concerned with our hearts than with some good outward show we put on so the world will think we are pious.
“Begotten” is an English translation in the KJV of a Greek word and it has a couple different meaning so it doesn’t only mean procreation.
Jesus is Emmanuel — “God with us.” So when I say Jesus did something for me, I do mean God did it.
I’m sorry my post was confusing or whatever. I know what I mean, but obviously I don’t convey it well.
I totally agree that God was really bloody in the OT. I’ve never understood that. I take it you think the Jewish, Christian and Islamic God is *not* the same. I know some Muslims bend over backwards saying Allah is the same as the God of the Bible, but others don’t agree and it seems you are in the latter group.
Here’s how I see it, the Qur’an/Islam is the Ishmael version of the Torah/Jewish religion which celebrates God working through Abraham’s son, Isaac. As you know the Bible claims Isaac was the son Abraham offered. I don’t think the Qur’an even mentions the son’s name, and early Islamic scholars thought it was Isaac, but later it was changed to Ishmael by tradition (hadiths maybe?). I read this on a Muslim woman’s blog, by the way. She’s quite a researcher/reader and I found what she said interesting.
Thanks for your reply.
@Susanne,
When you say “I believe” it is just that, your beliefs. I was raised Protestant in an otherwise completely Catholic family and I can tell you that the idea that you are putting out is at odds with both of those traditions.
As to what God is concerned with, I find it VERY worrisome that you think God is more concerned with what is in our hearts that what we do. What we do is a direct reflectiion of what is in our hearts. So I guess as long as Hitler had the right intentions, if what was in his heart was okay…….then the fact that he murdered so many people is okay? Just like those Christians I have talked to who say that someone like Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed some 24+ people, could be completely forgiven and go straight to heaven if he just “accepted Jesus”. Everything would be okay……all sins erased, no accountability.
How many times have I heard Christians go on and on about how their actions dont matter, their behavior doesnt matter, because no matter what they do all they have to do is ask for forgiveness and it is all erased, no accountability? As long as “in my heart I accept Jesus as my savior, it doesnt matte if I get drunk and drive, sleep around, steal and do drugs.”
So, this is where I am with Catholics when it is felt that both actions AND what is in your heart matter. That is what Islam teaches, actions mean nothing without the intent, at the same time you are held accountible for both your actions and what is in your heart.
Imagine a world where nothing matters but what is in your heart……no accountability for your personal actions as long as you accept a particular doctrine. That is a SCARY world indeed.
So you are saying that you think Jesus is NOT the literal son of God, rather just a figerative son? If so…that throws the trinity right out the window. You cannot have a notion of the trinity if you believe that Jesus was actually not God, rather just a human with God like qualities.
I actually DO think the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the same God. My point was to show people here that when they accuse The Qur’an of being blood thirsty or ruthless they stand on VERY thin ice if they are Jewish or Christian because their texts are MUCH more violent than The Qur’an.
To be a Muslim you MUST believe that the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the same God, as a matter of fact, you must believe that God gave divinely inspired religious texts to both of them. I guess the problem there is that no one really knows what those texts originally looked like since there have been SO many changes to them over the years. Entire passages added, subtracted, words deleted and changed. I found the BBC story about the oldest bible in the world, and how it is so different from modern Bibles, to be really interesting.
Here is what I think, Judaism is the trunk of the tree of monotheism, Christianity is the branches of that tree and Islam is the bloom, the flower of monotheism.
Dont mistake such a statement as an endorsement of the Muslim community, countries or societies, because I think the Muslim community has failed Islam and failed God miserably.
‘Anyway, if you were a bit more conversant in your own faith you’d be aware of passages of the sort below’
Didn’t I just say ‘you’d have to ask a Christian’ if I WERE one why would I suggest that?
I’ve told you before that I am not a Christian.
Deuteronomy lol Muslims LOVE that book don’t they? I think that Suzanne430 has already pretty much explained what Christians believe about much of that. And, ‘Re: women keeping silent in churches & covering their hair — we should keep in mind cultural practices at that time..’ That does not mean that a Law of God was changed to suit the purpose of the worshippers. As I understand it what you are speaking of ‘covering the head etc’ was told, NOT by God, but as advice to new Christians to not be upsetting the community by no longer following their old cultural practices.
‘As for Jesus, he didnt do anything for you, God did.’
So what about the Christians that say that Jesus IS God?
But anyway, this post is not about Christianity it’s about what Muslims can do to improve their image, and arguing that other religions are just as bad is NOT the way to do it.
@Carol ‘ Part of what I greatly appreciate about Islam and the Quran is that answers to questions are easy to find and addressed.’
What about all the contradicting hadeeth and beliefs of different sects? Or are you a Quran only Muslim or do you just accept explainations given to you? If it was so easy why would you find the need to take a class and have discussions? There is NO doubt in my mind that if you took a class in ANY religion the answers will be addressed very easily.
Abu Sinan,
As I have said earlier, I was educated in Christian schools and got Christian education and religious experience as part of my normal schooling. What you say is all true, but the point is that Christianity – as also the other religions – has moved with times and tried to change its norms and there has been a separation of the State from the Church in “Christian majority nations.” This means that the Biblical passages don’t determine the laws of the land and that even if someone wants to follow the Bible to the letter, s/he can’t impose it on others in the name of “correct religious advice.” Moreover, with changing times, Christians have realised they should modify their religious practices to suit the needs of our own times. Same can be said of all other older religions.
On the other hand, Islam refuses to allow flexibility in its laws, there is no separation between the State and the clergy, people think it’s their birthright to go around advising others about correct Islamic practice and as has been shown on this very blog, they are simply not willing to listen to any kind of critical dialogue about their religion – as long as the world thinks their religion is the only true and perfect religion, it’s fine. The moment someone dissents, they take up cudgels against the person. Reformist Muslims such as those from South Asia aren’t even regarded as Muslims by the Arabs and they are looked down upon which is against the spirit of Islam. All this goes against the spirit of modern, democratic dialogue. If this was restricted to only the Sharia-ruled countries, the world wouldn’t have had much problem with it, but the Muslims don’t live in only those countries – they are also living in other countries and this orthodox, rigid, inflexible mentality is affecting the society of those countries which includes other religious groups as well.
The way I see the problem, it’s not really a matter of what a religion says – that’s between the practitioners of the religion and their God, but whether a religion is willing to give space to changing times. If you really read the Hindu texts, you will find there are many practices in Hinduism which are not practical for today’s times, but Hinduism has changed with times and Hindu society has accepted the International Civil Law for itself, even if rules of this code do not follow Hinduism. Of course there are fanatics like the BJP as you mentioned earlier, but the Hindu society on large listens to criticism and majority of Hindus don’t follow these fanatics – they were voted out of power and are not coming back to power in near future. I don’t see this kind of flexibility and willingness to listen to an alternative view in Shari-ruled societies.
‘So I guess as long as Hitler had the right intentions, if what was in his heart was okay…….then the fact that he murdered so many people is okay?’
I think one could argue that Hitlers heart was NOT ok and that he did NOT have the right intentions.
‘no matter what they do all they have to do is ask for forgiveness and it is all erased, no accountability’
Kind of like Hajj? lol only that is a business so basically Muslims who can afford to pay to go to Hajj can get their sins washed away. Where the Christian to be forgiven has to really believe in Jesus and if he really believed then his heart would be pure and he would atone for his sins and live to make sure that he never sinned again.
Lynn,
I just finished arguing even Quran has contradictions within itself.
Daisy, I know that it does which is why I get baffled when Muslims talk about it’s ‘simplicity’.
Abu Sinan,
“As to what God is concerned with, I find it VERY worrisome that you think God is more concerned with what is in our hearts that what we do. What we do is a direct reflectiion of what is in our hearts. So I guess as long as Hitler had the right intentions, if what was in his heart was okay…….then the fact that he murdered so many people is okay?”
I’m sorry to worry you, and lest you think I’m similar to Hitler in doing horrible deeds, let me assure you that I DO think works are important. Our actions reflect what is inside as you nicely put it, however, some people look good because they are great pretenders (hypocrites) whereas inside they are really, really ugly. Jesus warns about wolves being dressed up like sheep afterall. The Bible says even Satan appears as an angel of light … he doesn’t have horns and a pitchfork like we often draw him.
In my earlier post I was thinking of God’s words to Samuel when Samuel was sent to anoint David as Israel’s next king. Samuel thought the handsome, strong firstborn son would be God’s chosen one, but God said he rejected him and reminded Samuel that man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart. That’s what I meant….not trying to excuse Hitler if he had good intentions. Not at all. Actually I believe intentions to be overrated sometimes. Isn’t there a saying about the path to hell being paved with good intentions?
“Imagine a world where nothing matters but what is in your heart……no accountability for your personal actions as long as you accept a particular doctrine. That is a SCARY world indeed.”
Again, your actions reflect what’s in your heart, and the Bible is clear: faith without works is dead. So all those who say they can live however they want and just say the magic Jesus words and be OK are wrong. A living faith works. We don’t work to earn our salvation, but we work because OF our salvation. Just like a fruit tree produces fruit simply because it’s a fruit tree. (See John 15 and Jesus’ words on that.)
“So you are saying that you think Jesus is NOT the literal son of God, rather just a figerative son? If so…that throws the trinity right out the window. You cannot have a notion of the trinity if you believe that Jesus was actually not God, rather just a human with God like qualities.”
I believe Jesus is God come to earth. Again, Emmanuel is “God with us.” I don’t know why God coming to earth is so hard for you to figure out. Jesus is not God’s child. He is not a figurative son. He is not “just a human with Godlike qualities.” He is God with us on earth in human form showing us the right path.
Thank you for your reply and for answering me about the God of Islam and all that.
@Susanne,
I have a problem with the “God’s son” thing because it pre-dates Christianity. Zeus had a son, so did Odin. The trinity pre-dates Christianity, Odin, Freija and Thor were a “trinity” before Jesus was born. As a matter of fact, almost every culture had a “trinity myth”.
Many early Christians didnt believe in the trinity, they felt it was borrowing from pagan tradition. Unfortunately, they didnt win out. Many early Christians didnt believe in the divinity of Jesus, they didnt win either.
Those who believed in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus were just better at slaughtering and mass murdering their theological rivals. Had the other side won the various religious wars modern Christians wouldnt believe in the trinity nor in the divinity of Jesus.
It is just like The New Testament and the 70+ books that were originally thought to be a part of it by various Christians. This didnt end until a bunch of men sat down and decided what belong and what didnt, everyone who didnt agree was labeled a “heritic” and were hunted down and murdered or forced to conform.
Even the books they did pick have been changed greatly over the last 1,000 and more.
The idea of God being divided, sub divided, or having a “son” completely violates the idea of monotheism, that is the real reason Jews had a problem with the early Christians who preached this doctrine.
I will end this discussion here because we are off topic. Suffice to say that not all Christians, either modern or early, agreed with the trinity and the divinity of Jesus.
But I do notice how you didnt address the fact that when Jesus was asked several specific questions in the New Testament he replied that he didnt know, only God knows. If Jesus was God, why would he state that he didnt know, only God did?
It would be like me saying “I dont know………..only I know”.
Lets be brutally honest, the vast majority of terrorists in the world are NOT Muslims but white males from North America and parts of Western Europe. 1.3 million Iraqis dead, another 500000 Afghans dead in addition to murder, torture, rape of countless more around the world in secret prisons run by Uncle Sam.
The only reason this rubbish about “Muslims are terrorists” is taken seriously if because racist white western discourse which sees non-whites as non-entities. Resistance is not terrorism, so Uncle Sam and his supporters should STFU. Where are those mythical Iraqi WMDs again?
Abu SInan is right, the divinity of Jesus was decided by a small majority vote at the concilium of Nicae, more than three centuries after Jesus’ death.
It was purely a propaganda-spin. We are talking about a world ruled by Roman ideologies, and anybody who wanted to be anybody proclaimed themselves the son of one God or other. (Julius Ceasar for example called himself ”The son of Venus”)
Also the then Roman variant of Christianity was heavily influenced by the then equally popular cult of Mithras, many aspects of the Mithras cult are now part of Christianity, including the son of God principle.
Because the Roman sect of Cristianity was so wel organised, and so powerful, they managed to rewrite history, and destroyed almost all writings from other earlier sects.
The very few that have been hidden and have been preserved, the Nag Hammadi papyri for example, do not all speak of Jesus as the son of God.
The bible has also been heavily editted, and the four gospels are but part of a very large number of gospels, they just happened to be the favorites of one particular bishop, and he thought four was a nice round number so his choice made it into the new testament.
Abu Sinan, sorry for not answering that part earlier. I was saying so much already and didn’t address everything.
I’m not sure how I got off on this topic about Christianity. Sorry for that.
The link above is a small part of a lecture that I found interesting to hear from a while back. I finally managed to find this link and thought I would share it.
The second link is also part of a lecture.
Both lectures were part of a christain and muslim debates (with well known representitives from both sides) on the similarities as well as differences between both religions.
NOW PLEASE DON’T MISINTERPRITE IT AS ME SAYING THAT MY OPPINION IS CORRECT OR READ ANYMORE INTO IT THAN WHAT EACH PERSON AS INDIVIDUALS WANT TO UNDERSTAND FROM IT FOR THEMSELVES.
Thanks
Maryam, did either of those links have a Chrisitan explaining the Christian beliefs? Would we accept a non-Muslim’s lecture on Islam?
Lynn,
I was a Christian for 28 years…….do you so easily dismiss what I have to say? There are major gaps in the Christian faith that are very hard to explain. As a Muslim I will also say there are things in Islam, whether part of the religion or cultural understanding, that are hard as well.
At least with The Qur’an we know the text we have today is as it was when it came. No one knows what the original Bible looked like, but we know for sure it doesnt look like it does today.
@ susanne430
I don’t think you need to apoligize for getting on a religious theme…we were all talking in the same vein. You did nothing different than the rest of us. Don’t feel badly.
@abu sinan…
“At least with The Qur’an we know the text we have today is as it was when it came. No one knows what the original Bible looked like, but we know for sure it doesnt look like it does today.”
Only 15 minutes ago I finished reading a narrative by a man who said the exact same thing…But he didn’t explain HOW you know the Qur’an is pure and unadulterated?
@Lynn
Yes I’m sorry, I’m still trying to find the clips or other clips from the “other side” of the debate to put up so please forgive me for now.
I have been looking for all the clips for a few days now but so far nothing on the net that is not at least 30 min to an hour long. If people don’t mind or want to see the whole debates which cover variouse topics, then as long as American Bedu gives me the permission, I will find and post the full versions of what I find. But I will continue to look and will post asap what I find.
Thanks
What matters is not whether one is born in a tradition but rather, how much one has studied a tradition – very often people who are not born in a tradition can bring a critical insight in its study, which the insiders can’t, because the outsiders have a more rational and objective perspective to the subject, while the insiders have more of an emotional approach and hence, they sometimes overlook many aspects of the tradition which the outsiders can capture.
In fact, Western scholars have studied different Asian traditions much more than the indigenous scholars themselves have done and the Western scholars’ work is equally valid.
But of course, there are exceptions to every rule.
Abu Sinan,
Changing sacred texts is not necessarily a bad thing – it shows the flexibility of that sacred tradition – its willingness to accommodate new ideas, new social groups along with their practices, new worldviews. That’s a very democratic way of functioning, isn’t it?
In fact, Islam is a very good religion in many ways, but the biggest problem with Islam is that it doesn’t allow its sacred text to be reinterpreted or changed with the changing times – it shows its rigidity and perhaps also intolerance towards different worldviews. I honestly don’t want to hurt anyone by saying this, but this is the way it appears to non-Muslims and even Muslims who may belong to a different cultural environment than the one in which Quran was born and who don’t want to be stuck in an inflexible worldview.
http://www.halaltube.com/jesus-christ-in-christianity-and-in-islam
This is not the debate but the full lecture on a comparison of Jesus (pbuh) in christianity and islam (it is an hour and 3 min long)
SORRY AMERICAN BEDU, I HAVE TAKEN SOME LIBERTIES AND POSTED THIS NEXT LINK WITHOUT THE PERMISSION I AM SEEKING SO PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DELETE. MY SINCERE APPOLOGIES IF I HAVE UPSET YOU IN ANY WAY, but i have posted the link to try and be balanced in replying to the request Lynn has put to me.
This lecture is not the same as the one I posted earlier (i think not because the christian lecturer seems to be different) but the Muslim representitive is the same so please forgive me. I will continue to look for the whole lecture to the first link I posted. Unfortunately, I saw the full lecture on a programe and heard the tapes.
The lecture is in 18 parts and each follows the other so anyone watching has to be patient to get both sides of the debate.
The first 11 minutes almost is an introduction to the whole debate so some may want to skip it. There is a link posted where the whole lecture and others can be downloaded.
As I am posting this, I have not listened to the whole lecture my self but some of the points brought up are adressed like the meaning of the word “begotten” which has been mentioned in an earlier post.
I listened up to the end of the christian pastor’s presentation to make sure that I have included it in the link given.
Thanks
@Daisy…
I think you might have touched on one of the things I was looking at Islam for although until you verbalized it I had not crystallized the idea in my head.
I believe and have always looked upon Islam as one of the world’s great faiths. So I didn’t enter the study of it to find negatives…I entered it or tried to, like a blank slate…neither with a bad or good idea, but rather trying to have NO idea so that I don’t place preconceived notions on my own shoulders to steer me in a particular direction. And moreover, I was trying to figure out how Muslims applied their religion. I guess that is the more important idea…There were things about Christianity that were applied/used 2000 years ago that in that time and place made sense for the culture. But those things have fallen away as they are no longer applicable in modern life. For example…stoning was considered a way to punish or murder people back then, but it would be considered inhumane now. so I would imagine that the Qur’an is the same way and part of my search to see what is says was to see if the “ways” of Arabia 700 years ago are considered applicable now. Plus I wanted to know what the Qur’an actually says because I couldn’t believe that it supported all the terrorists out there. As a great faith it couldn’t.
the basic tenants of a faith I would think should be able to pass through time unaltered. It is how it is APPLIED or INTERPRETED that needs to change with the centuries I think.
Hope that made sense…
Oby,
Great remarks. Yes, starting to learn about something with a blank slate IS the right way to do it. You are absolutely right that Biblical cultures have modified their practices like stoning or amputating limbs as you say. That’s also because as I said in the comment above (the earlier comment, not the last one), in Biblical cultures there has been a separation of State and Church and laws follow the International Civil code. Unfortunately, in Sharia-ruled states, there has not been a separation of State and clergy and they try to literally implement the laws as formulated in the Quran and the Hadiths. These laws made sense in 7th century tribal Arabia, which functioned on the ideals of constant inter-tribal wars and raids – therefore the emphasis placed on violent punishment. But it doesn’t make sense today. Unfortunately, the Sharia-ruled countries have not understood this so far – or perhaps this is the mechanism through which the political powers hold a control over the subjects.
Yes, you are right, rather than overwriting a sacred text, its reinterpretation and modification of practices is the need. But in history, when texts were copied or translated, sometimes the writings were also changed. This may no longer happen now with printing technology, wide dissemination of information etc. But a modification of practices keeping the essential spirit of the religion intact is certainly needed.
For example, not granting post-divorce maintenance after 90 days doesn’t make sense just because they want to follow the Quran literally. Rather, its spirit should be followed – Quran says in numerous verses that people should treat their women in the best manner possible – if this essential spirit is taken, then I don’t see why post-divorce maintenance should not be made a law.
Same with veiling – the concept behind veiling is modesty and modesty is really a state of mind – one can wear revealing clothes and be modest in one’s behaviour and another person can wear the veil and still engage in “immodest” behaviour. So the basic spirit should be followed here that men and women should treat each other with dignity and be graceful in their behaviour, regardless of the clothes they wear. Yes, Quran also enjoins upon the men to lower their gaze, but that is always forgotten. If one looks at the situation from this angle, a strict law about veiling is not really necessary.
Daisy…
Thanks for your comment and clarification. It is my understanding, however, that some of the things attributed to the Qur’an are not Qur’anic at all, but leftovers of a tribal time as you alluded to above. For example covering…I thought that the Qur’an said that one needs to dress modestly covered from chest/breast to knees. that actually surprised me because I, without even knowing it, had always followed this Quranic directive(except perhaps when swimming for obvious reasons)…I had never been one to “let it all hang out” shall we say. And if I, a non muslim can follow that directive without even realizing it, it seems like a reasonable rule. The full covering is from tribal Arabia(or wherever) yet it has become such an ingrained part of the Quranic belief as to be almost indistinguishable and has overridden the Quran’s directive. So you see, it can be very confusing and difficult because things that would be workable in today’s society(modest dress) have been changed to become more challenging.
Oby,
You are right – a lot of injunctions in Quran are really based on already existing customs – some of them modified, some legitimised. As I said on another post, bride-price already existed in pre-Islamic Arabia – only it was paid to the guardian, while Muhammad made it liable to be paid to the girl.
Polygamy was already a widely prevalent custom in pre-Islamic Arabia.
Similarly, the full dress for both Arab men and women was actually worn even in pre-Islamic times as a safeguard against the desert sandstorms and hot sun. Women often covered their face to protect themselves from the sand and sun. Islam legitimised it as the prescribd dress-code. In fact, the verses in Quran about dress-code are again conflicting. There are the verses that says the women should throw their scarves over their their bosom and men and women should cover their body from chest to the knee level. But there is also the verse that says women should conceal their adornments from unrelated men – which means they should not show their body except their hands, feet and face. Then there are some verses in Hadiths which seem to imply that use of screen was meant only for the wives of Muhammad, not for everyone. So, Islamic societies seem to have taken all of this together and made the rule about full covering. But I feel what is needed is to emphasise how men and women should look at each other – with respect and dignity and as intelligent human beings, without thinking of each other as only sex objects and nothing else – that is the need of today’s times. And if men are supposed to lower their gaze, then women really don’t have to veil in order to avoid arousing desire in men – as is argued by people in favour of veiling.
Daisy…
“But I feel what is needed is to emphasise how men and women should look at each other – with respect and dignity and as intelligent human beings, without thinking of each other as only sex objects and nothing else – that is the need of today’s times. And if men are supposed to lower their gaze, then women really don’t have to veil in order to avoid arousing desire in men – as is argued by people in favour of veiling.”
I do agree with the statement you made referenced above. But it seems to me that this full covering is a newer phenomenon in Islamic practice at least in some countries…In the 60′s/70′s Egypt had a more moderate way of dressing,as did Iran, as did many other Muslim countries including KSA. If you listen to the blogs people talk about the “good old days” when complete covering was not required. I am not familiar with KSA as much as others so I am not sure what that means exactly, but it seems that the covering completely, at least to an outsiders eyes, has come into fashion more as a statement of one’s Islamic IDENTITY rather than for purely modest purposes. Certainly, I don’t think we can say in fairness that the Muslims of the 60′s and 70′s were not as Allah loving or were somehow less truly Muslim yet they dressed in a more modern way than many of the Muslims of today do. It is how the modesty question has gotten INTERPRETED and therefore expressed.
I guess I wonder if people 40 years ago were perfectly respectful Muslims, filled with love for Allah and were able to keep themselves from acting on any sort of “immodest thoughts” while at the same time dressing without full covering, yet modestly…why has it changed? Have people lost their self control all of a sudden? Are they no longer able to lower their gaze? Are men so weak and unable to control themselves that they are unable to interact with women with women unless they are covered? I don’t think any of that is true.
If they could do it 40 years ago without total covering why can’t they do it now?
The Qur’an is unchanging for all times according to Muslims. If that is the case WHY has the modesty issue changed and the required dress? I don’t believe the modesty issue has changed at all…the Qur’an still requires it. It is how people have interpreted it and applied it that has changed and that isn’t from God in my opinion. That is a man made thing.
Your point about the covering being protective in the desert heat and sandstorms make perfect sense…for a Bedouin living in the desert where such protection would be vital for survival. But it has gotten applied everywhere now when like I said 40 years ago it wasn’t “required”.
I am actually agreeing with you, yet at the same time trying to make my point…hope I haven’t completely frustrated you! LOL!
I agree with the above comment. If you want to go with the Quran you hvae to cover your breasts and down to your knees. No headcover required.
I have heard it many times that even in Saudi Arabia women were not so totally covered 20, or 30 years ago. This is a new fashion. The Saudi goverment forced this covering on its own people.
If you look at my post about how religion influences dresscodes you will se many pictures of arabian women without the excessive covering which is so fashionable nowadays.
And as Muslims are getting progressively worse by the passing generations (as per hadith) so these people fom at least 4 generations ago can’t have it wrong can they?
There are photo’s of Arabian women having just a loose haircover, but their braids hanging free. Including a photo of Fetemah who ruled Hail in the early nineteenhundreds.
http://clouddragon.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/women-dress-and-undress-and-religions/
Oby, my Syrian Muslim friend told me a while back that the Muslims were “more liberal” back in those days (25-50 years ago). He said he is often surprised to see pictures of his mother as a young woman without the hijab. She — and his sisters (in their 20s) — now wear the head scarf. The gist of what he explained to me is this. He told me that back in the ’80s, I believe, the Muslims saw how awful their countries were and thought Allah was punishing them for getting away from Islam. So in order to please Allah they decided to “go back to Islam” which apparently meant women covered more and I don’t know what else. Maybe the men started lowering their gazes. I don’t think their countries have improved a whole lot so maybe they will think going to even stricter interpretations is the next step. I don’t know, but it seems logical.
The Muslim world is just like any other place in that fashions and movements ebb and wane.
I have heard some people say that the modern hijab was created in Lebanon in the 1980s, but I saw pictures my MiL had from 50+ years ago of people wearing the hijab just as it is today.
People wore it back then, people wear it now. Anyone who says that women are forced to cover in the Middle East have never been to places like Beirut, Amman, Damascus and other places.
In short, covering and the hijab is not a new practice in the Middle East or the Islamic world, like anything else it goes back and forth, but to claim that it is something new is not true. 1,000 years ago you’d find almost everyone covered, Muslims, Jews and Christians.
The religious movement of countries, especially in the Middle East, owes a lot to the fact that the only real alternative to the ruling establishment is Islam. The dictators, monarchies and the various mass murderous in the Middle East are the single biggest cause for extremism and the move to the right in their countries.
@Susanne,
You need to understand the context of pictures in the Middle East, Women who wear hijab will often have pictures of themselves without hijab that are meant only for their families. So it would be entirely likely to see pictures of a woman uncovered who normally covers, these pictures being reserved for members of their family.
So pictures of women without hijab is not really indicitive of anything, unless it is clear that the picture was taken in a public place with non related males present. Even public pictures with just women present will sometimes show women uncovered who normally cover.
@ susanne430…
Maybe…but what I have understood from several sources that I have read is that it was the Wahabbi Islam (read very strict) coming out of Saudi Arabia, flush with new petrodollars, which KSA exported to the rest of the world starting in the 1970′s. They printed most of the Korans (which preached a lot of hate and have some very negative things about Jews and Christians in them that aren’t in the original (true) Koran.) a great deal of the info on Islam found in the world comes from KSA which in a very large way shaped today’s Islam as we know it. More tribal, more restrictive, less tolerant.
This is not only my opinion, but the opinion of many people, many of them Muslim which I msut say helped shape my opinion to a large degree. Even on these and other blogs people say it. There is a book called “Inside the Kingdom” which is a fascinating look at KSA and talks about this in particular among many other things…LOVED the book!
I am sure that AFTER the Wahabbi’s told people that this was the more Islamic way and that they had gotten away from their “core” they started believing it and followed suit. But there is nothing in the Koran that says KSA is right with all the covering completely. And I think it is a shame that good, Allah loving Muslims were made to feel that they were not being devout. I guess that means all the Muslims in the western countries who don’t cover up are not “true” Muslims.
@ susanne430…
The book I recommend above in my opinion is NOT a bad book about KSA. I just want to dispel any myths about that. It is probably a more honest view…not overly negative or positive. I learned a LOT about KSA. It dispelled a lot of commonly held myths for me and in fact gave me a sense of respect for Saudi Arabia and what it has gone through since it’s inception to today. It talks about strengths and weaknesses like all countries have, and it gives a nice overview of the country. I couldn’t put it down. This writer is one of the ones who talks about Islam and KSA. It is gripping and I could really feel the warmth and genuineness of the people come through. Just me opinion…I think it is a worthwhile read.
Oby,
As Aafke’s photographs show and as Abu Sinan says, this was more cultural than a legal requirement till a few decades ago. If you look AAfke’s photographs, you’ll see that in most of them the women do cover their head, but it’s not a strict covering – it’s rather a graceful cover on the head, showing some hair, thus making the woman look even more attractive! There was no strict injunction that the hair shouldn’t show, only eyes should be visible and the cloak has to cover the woman from head to toe. And since there was no law for it – it was mostly a cultural dress, with modernisation, if the women went without head covering in cities I guess it didn’t matter much.
It must have been like it is in India – there is no law for veiling. In cities, you see women wearing all kinds of dresses – Western, traditional Indian, revealing and decently covering. In villages they wear more traditional dresses. As for Muslim women, mostly lower-class from semi-literate families veil more, while elite class Muslim women don’t veil at all, nor do the middle-class women. And since there is no law about it, at any time they can stop wearing the veil – which is really a cultural phenomenon here.
In the same way, in West Asia, most women in small towns and villages may have veiled or worn their traditional dress covering their head showing part of their hair, while in bigger cities, middle-class and upper-class women may not have veiled. In Iran at least, women were very westernised and mostly wore western dresses – they still do under the black cloak. In other countries of the West Asia where veiling laws are not strict, I am told it’s possible to see veiled women as well as those who don’t veil.
So it seems that when there is no strict Sharia law requiring the women to completely veil, some women do it anyway because it is tradition for them, but others modify the veiling practice to show part of their hair, wearing the head scarf in a fashionable style etc, or they don’t veil if they are living in a modern environment. Hence, it’s not as if all women are forced to veil or all women do it willingly – it’s a mix of the two situations.
As for the Quranic injunctions – as I said, there are different verses having different stand on veiling – one as Aafke said, requires all men and women to cover from chest to knee. There is another verse in Quran which says the women shouldn’t show their adornments to unrelated men – this means they have to cover except hands, feet and face. The fact that the Prophet’s wives stayed behind a screen, added prestige to the custom of veiling. Hence, many men like to have their women veiled because it adds to the men’s prestige – the higher a man is placed in society, the less his women should be visible.
Seeing all this it does appear that in times when Sharia didn’t rule these countries, there were quite a few women, especially in cities, who went without a veil and some may even have worn western dresses. On the other hand, there were always some women who veiled even without a law about it. It appears to me that the Sharia makes it obligatory for the women to be completely invisible, because this is a tool to control half of the population. As for the women themselves, a lot of them do think it’s their religious custom and don’t have much problem with it. But there are also a lot of women who don’t want to veil.
That’s why I argued that if the men are supposed to lower their gaze, why should it be obligatory for the women to veil? Let there be no law about it – the women who want to veil will do it anyway and the women who don’t want to do it, don’t have to do it – men should lower their gaze – an injunction that is never enforced on men, not even in Sharia-ruled countries.
Oby, thanks for the book recommendation. I think I read a bit about it on Murtadha’s blog. He’s a young Saudi studying in the US presently. I’ll see if I can find it especially since you, too, recommend it.
Abu Sinan, thanks for the additional information. I am only repeating what my friend told me. His parents lived in Germany for awhile and he said his mom did not wear hijab back then. And his surprise at seeing photos of her is because she is not covering her hair in places or with people she would now cover it.
FWIW, I do not think people in Syria – or at least Damascus – are radical in their Islamic interpretation. Yes, there are religious Muslims, but they seem very tolerant and pleasant. Didn’t want anyone to think I was equating “going back to Islam” and wearing hijab to Muslims getting less tolerant. The ones I met in Damascus were incredibly gracious and welcoming.
Off topic — it’s cool to see the number getting close to a million hits! Maybe by the time I wake up in the morning, it will have been reached.
I just read Daisy’s comment and think we need a post dedicated to men lowering their gazes!
Aafke,
You have made a great research of women’s dresses from ancient times till today, covering many cultures. But you left out two very ancient civilisations – South Asia and China – both of these cultures didn’t have the women covering their head or face. In fact the veil has come to India with Islam – pre-Islamic sources from India don’t have any evidence of veiling. In fact, ancient Indian images tend to show women – human and deities – as almost naked! And there were no negative meanings associated with these images.
Now married Hindu women in rural areas where they have contact with the Muslim poulation, cover their head and face infront of their older in-laws – but never in their parents’ house. South India still doesn’t have any practice of veiling, since it was not under Islamic influence much. This is another evidence of exchanges between the Hindu and Muslim communities in India.
Oby,
I have seen that book about KSA – it’s good. No, the passages against Jews and Christians are part of the original Quran. Even in 19th and early 20th century editions, these passages exist.
….and whether that means only lowering their gazes around Muslim women, all women or even if they are allowed to watch TV women who don’t dress appropriately. I understand Desperate Housewives is popular in the Arab world so I’m guessing a fair number of Muslim men watch it too.
OK…going to bed now. G’night.
Susanne430,
If Sharia rulers want to enforce this law accurately, men should lower their gaze in front of all women and shouldn’t watch TV programmes showing unveiled women!
And what about punishing the Religious Police with a 100 lashes because they are not lowering their gaze but looking at women to see what the women are doind and how they look?
Daisy , that post was allready far too long for a blog post, I mainly concentrated on the Abrahamic religions, and as far as christianity goes that includes roman and greek cultures as modern christianity is based on the Roman interpretation thereof.
Including the roman st Pauls misogynist views of how women should dress and what their place in society should be.
Oby, but speaking of adornments, Yes, maybe nowadays every part of a woman is viewed as a sexual adornment (the inevitable result of excessive covering) but it is far more reasonable to conclude that in the time of the prophet it would mean the breasts and genitalia.
After all, the Quran is actually very specific: ”Cover the brests and down to the knees”.
Which mean that a cute fifties style strapless fifties style coctaildress would have been seen as adequate covering in the time of the prophet.
And lets also remember, the prophet did not like excesses. He liked moderation in all things.
And as men and women are equal in the eye of God according to the Quran, it can never be a divine rule that there should be more restrictions in anything, including dress, on women.
Therefore the insistance on hijab for women is bidah.
Aafke and Oby,
Here are the relevant verses from Quran –
XXIV/31 – “Believing women should cast down their looks, guard their private parts and not display their beauty and ornaments except what shows (naturally); they should wear their veils (another translation – head scarves) over their bosoms and not show their beauty except to their fathers, husbands, sons…and should not strike their feet so as not to draw attention to their hidden ornaments…”
XXX/59 – “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters and other believing women that they should wear their outer garment over themselves when going out, which is most proper, so that they’ll be known as such and not be molested (another translation – given trouble).”
Unfortunately my friend is not here right now; he’ll come only after two weeks. I have given above these translations after comparing two different editions of Quran. When he comes, I’ll confirm with him if these translations are correct and if there is a discrepancy, will get back on this.
But from what goes above, it appears that while covering the private parts (from chest to knee level) is the essence of veiling, women are also supposed to hide all parts of the body where they wear ornaments – which means all the body except hands, feet and face. They are also not supposed to draw people’s attention to their hidden ornaments. Moreover, when they go out – Prophet’s wives and daughters as well as other women – are supposed to cover themselves with an outer covering garment – something like the Arabian Abaya, Persian Chador or in the South Asian case, Dupatta spread over one’s body so as to cover it. They are also supposed to hide all signs of beauty. The veil or ead scarf is supposed to also cover the bosom – indeed, this is exactly the way Dupatta was traditionally worn in India – covering the head as well as the bosom.
Please also note what I said about the prestige value – the veiled women will be recognised by the people as believing women belonging to a respectful Muslim man, hence will not be troubled. This is another reason why they should be covered showing minimal parts of their body.
Aafke, I am not in favour of veiling, just trying to understand what these verses mean. Your interpretation is the liberal interpretation and I am not against it. I come from a culture which accepts multiple interpretations of a text, so I find it natural that the orthodox Muslims and you interpret these verses differenty.
At least from the English translation, it appears Sharia laws haven’t misunderstood these verses much. But I’ll get back on this after talking to my friend.
@abu sinan…
“At least with The Qur’an we know the text we have today is as it was when it came. No one knows what the original Bible looked like, but we know for sure it doesnt look like it does today.”
Actually, Islam came orally and was passed on orally was it not? How many years after the first ‘revalation’ was it finally written? And where is this ‘original text’ and who is allowed to see it to determine what it really says? How much of what is considered ‘Islam’ is hadith? How many hundreds of years after Islam was ‘revealed’ were the hadeeth written in order to explain this ‘simple’ religion?
I’m not a fan of ANY religions, so don’t think that I am trying to argue the validity of ANY of them. I only base my opinions re: their validity on their current practices and by that I mean that the religion would be resepected if it produces a good society and how many times have I seen you write that you are a Muslim in SPITE of Muslims and their societies (Americans included)? Someone said earlier (Daisy perhaps?) about the unfair and ruthless dictators and rulers of these Middle Eastern societies being the blame for the extremism that we see today but how do you explain it HERE in the U.S., yes, it is here and it is being taught as the TRUE Islam and ignorants are happy to accept it as truth rather than do the research that it takes to truly understand exactly what the ‘truth’ is?
@Daisy…
I have not personally found in the Qur’an( at least not yet) what I am referring to about the Saudi printed Qur’an…I may be looking at a santized version of the Qur’an
National Geographic had a show on about 2 months ago about Islam. It talked about and amazingly enough showed the King Abdullah printing press or whatever it is called and stated that the majority or all(can’t remember exactly) of the Qur’ans in the world are printed there and how what they are printing is divisive. They then took one directly off the printing press and showed the words to the camera. I cannot remember the exact words but I was shocked what it said on one page alone… it talked about:
“our enemies” (Christians)
“sons of pigs and apes” (jews)
the way I have shown it is the way it was printed on the page. I might have the EXACT words wrong…but it was lots of derogatory comments followed by the parenthesis to clarify who they meant. The point they were getting at and I was trying to make here is that when all you know is a book that says these things and are raised to believe that how can people have a good view of others non Muslim? That is part of the problem the Saudi’s were exporting. I believe as per the book (Inside the Kingdom) that they are now trying to make changes and reverse some of that but it won’t be easy…it is all over the world and at least two generations.
BTW, I understood your post about covering…I get the feeling you think I misunderstood. Yes, like all things Islamic dress fashion trends would come and go. And certainly people a hundred years ago in any culture dressed more covered…I was just saying that people, both men and women have changed their dress from the 60′s/70′s to become MORE modest than before. and it isn’t necessarily a choice. Just let a young woman walk around Iran without a Chador..yet during the Shah’s time girls could walk around covered modestly with a scarf on their head…or not as they chose. It is not a choice in many places anymore…certainly not in Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan etc. and that is not due to fashion trends…it is due to the clergy changing the expected requirements.of Modesty. I do agree it is due to a stricter application of Sharia. And it would be nice if men lowered their gaze, but of course they don’t. Nor will they have to until sharia is applied more fairly.
@Lynn…
I also asked Abu Sinan that question…not to be challenging but becasue I had finished reading a chaper of a book in which the author said the same thing… that it is known that the Qur’an of today was exactly as Mohammed got it 1400 years ago and there have been NO alterations. Much to my frustration he never said HOW
they know that. If they know for sure then to me, that is a pretty amazing accomplishment. And I wanted to know how it is that they know for sure it is the exact unaltered words of God.
Clarification: when I said “Much to my frustration he never said HOW they know that.” I wasn’t referring to you Abu Sinan…I was referring to the author of the book I read…
@Oby
“And I wanted to know how it is that they know for sure it is the exact unaltered words of God.”
I am sure you understand that directing this question at a believer is irrational. Whether something is a word of God is a matter of belief and not fact. Logically, the only “fact” you can ascertain is whether the earliest known copy of the Quran is identical to the Quran circulating in our time. Everything else – including how the earliest known Quran was compiled and came to be – will forever remain a matter of belief and not fact. Is it a word of God? It is if you believe it! And if you don’t, it isn’t! It is not possible to know scientifically whether anything – anything – in any book – is a “direct and unaltered” word of God.
PS: Don’t see what the big deal is with lots of discrepancies and conflicts in the New and Old Testament. These books were never understood to be a direct “word of God.”
@Abu Sinan
I’m sure anciest Christianity was positively awash with conflicting and competing beliefs. Eventually one of them won, using distinctly human means, and that victory has been enshrined by dogma. But I’m sure you realize that these are the ways of the world you can find at the source of any major religion. People struggle for power. That’s a reality. Eventually, one of the factions wins, acquires control over the message and the means of distribution, and what it says becomes the Truth with a capital T, gosh darn it. Surely you can observe these patterns in the history of every major religion?
To try to clarify how the Qur’an was written, I would like to point out the the content of it has not changed (the arabic text) since it’s revelation, it was memorised and taught through copying what the teacher said to begin with.
But to preserve it so that people did not forget, it was ordered that those who could write, write down all the verses they knew, these were then verified by comparing what had been written with what had been memorized.
The original texts were written in calligraphy without dots or vowels.
During the time of Ali (r) the letters were vowelized calligraphy +vowels ( the dashes you see above and below the texts)
Dots were placed on the letters that resembled each other during the days of the caliph Abdul Malek Ibn Marwan (calligraphy, dashes and dots)
And now in some of the current forms, to help with the correct recitation, different colours have been used to indicate the rules and elongation of certain letters known as Tajweed.
So it is common to find Qur’ans with the calligraphy,vowels, dots and colour coding all together. The colours being red, orange, dark red, blue, green, gray and black (black for the actual text) and dark blue.
Each colour has a rule to it.
Unfortunately, I do not know how to demonstrate these changes on here.
Hope this helps.
@NN,
I think Christianity is unique in the way that it has been changed over the years by war, persecution and oppression.
Islam, for example, in it’s core beliefs is pretty much the same since it’s inception. When you look at the beliefs of large sections of early Christians it will be obvious that modern Christianity looks almost nothing like it looked like to a very large percentage of early Christians.
Shortly after 9/11 I remember one Western author noting that if Jesus came back today he’d probably be more comfortable in a mosque than in a church. I think that tell us how much Christianity has changed since Jesus left.
@Oby,
Sorry for not getting back to you, but I think Maryam cleared it up.
@ Lynn,
Mohammed could not read nor write. Maryam pretty much cleared up the issue. Unlike Christianity, you wont find a Qur’an from 1,000 CE that is different from a Qur’an you can pick up at Borders today. They will be exactly the same.
As to religions, I dont hold religions responsible for the actions of it’s followers. If that were the case I’d be an atheist, as no religion, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Paganism……..none of them stand up to that test.
@Oby
“I cannot remember the exact words but I was shocked what it said on one page alone… it talked about: “our enemies” (Christians), “sons of pigs and apes” (jews).”
You can still find these exact words in the textbooks used in 4th through 11th grade in Saudi-funded schools anywhere today, including just a few steps outside of Washingon, DC where I live. You will also find darling little quizzes at the end of each chapter driving home the point of the “best religion”, “infidel’s blood and booty is halal” and all that good stuff. Do a search on Washingtonpost.com and you’ll see the full story.
Saudis were able to spread that hate because their religious establishment in tandem with the royal family at one point decided that spreading their version of religion worldwide is a big priority, and they had the funds to do it. This is why today you can find these teachings in parts of Islamic world to which it was originally completely alien, such as Bosnia, North Caucausus, etc.
@Abu Sinan
I think we are in agreement, at least with regard to Christianity, except I would extend that same pattern to all religions. I know it’s a major bragging point that the scriptural Islamic text is unchanged from inception till today. I am just unimpressed by that argument because in my opinion the lack of change is in no way an indicator of divine origins. We simply don’t know what disputes and struggles took place before that text was put to paper. And once you take that logic to ahadith…boy, all bets are off.
“I remember one Western author noting that if Jesus came back today he’d probably be more comfortable in a mosque than in a church. I think that tell us how much Christianity has changed since Jesus left.”
I think all that tells us that that this particular Western author believed that it did.
‘I think all that tells us that that this particular Western author believed that it did’
NN you took the words right out of my mouth! Or right off of my fingers?
Oby,
No I didn’t misunderstand, was just trying to discuss what you said. Yes, you are right about political compulsions of the people that brought about the change in dress code – earlier women veiled as a matter of choice, now there is no choice.
I have never seen a Saudi publication of Quran – I use other translations. The 19th-early 20th century translations were not printed in Arabia – they were printed in Europe, mostly in England. Then there is a much-used translation by Yusuf Ali, which contains text, transliteration and translation, which was originally published in 1938 from Lahore, reprinted from Cairo and Riyadh simultaneously. Eventhough KSA had come into existence by 1938, Yusuf Ali was not a Saudi, but an Indian from Bombay, who emigrated to England later in life. His translation is available online and perhaps most widely used. Though it’s not an exact translation of Arabic, it still has much less problems than the Saudi versions. Arabs do tend to ignore the contribution of Indian Muslims in Islamic studies, which is in fact quite sizeable.
These English translations do command the Muslims not to make friends with Jews and Christians – which means they are enemies, but I haven’t come across their references as sons of pigs. I’ll look it up and will let you know. You may also go online and see if Yusuf Ali’s Quran says this. Suras (Chapters) 2, 3, 5, 9 are the good places to look. If it is there, then at least in 1938 this was very much a part of the Arabic Quran. Otherwise it’s a Saudi propaganda. But the anti-Jew and Christian feelings are certainly present in all versions. At the same time, you also have verses talking about treating other religions with respect. It’s related to the early history of Islam.
NN,
I argued above that lack of change in a religious tradition is not something commendable; it’s the core of the problem, eventhough the Quran does have many good things to say. Please read my comments to Abu Sinan above.
Oby,
I think you may be interested in this book – Islam: Beliefs and Institutions by H Lammens (Routledge Library Editions – Islam, 2008). In about 200 pages, it gives an objective account of the early ideas of Islam, growth of Hadiths and Islamic jurisprudence and different Islamic sects, placing all of this in the history of Arabia. The book also has an account of pre-Islamic religion in Arabia, from where Islam may have borrowed certain practices. The tone of writing is very objective, neither anti nor pro Islamic, which is very helpful.
Oby,
I checked the English translations for the reference to sons of apes and swines. Most of the verses which refer to apes and swines say something like, ‘Those who transgress (or dibelieve) will be turned into apes and swines’ – the specific references to Jews and Christians as sons of apes and swines are hard to find, even though Muslims are commended not to have friendship with them as I said earlier.
I could find only one verse which refers to Allah saying to Muslims that he sent The Book to the People of Moses (mentioned several verses earlier) who broke their Sabbath and disobeyed Allah, so he turned them into apes (see Quran VII/166). Here too, Jews are NOT mentioned as sons of apes, but this is more a punishment they got for their breach of promise with God.
But as I said, this is the English translation, I can’t get it cross-checked by my friend at this moment to see what exactly the Arabic verse says, since he is not here. When he comes I can ask him and tell you.
But most probably, it seems that the Quran refers to the disbelievers and transgressors as turning into apes and swines as a punishment (perhaps on the Day of Judgement?) and the Saudi translation has changed this into Jews and Christians being sons of apes and swines as a part of its religious-political propaganda.
Daisy, I did have a Saudi version of Quran (well, it was printed in KSA at least) I wish that I still had it so that I could compare it to other ones. It was one of those free ones you could get on-line and I can’t tell you how difficult it was to get through it but I did manage.
Lynn,
Perhaps you can get a free Saudi translation through Google search, if not the same one. Yusuf Ali’s translation is certainly there online. So that would be a good comparison. I myself have never used a Saudi version.
Yes, but what I am talking about was written in English. I don’t read or write Arabic.
Oby,
Yes, I know – I have checked with the English translation as I too don’t know Arabic. The non-Saudi English translation doesn’t have this reference. The reason why it is in Saudi translation could be either they have translated from Arabic or it is politically motivated. My suspcion is latter is the case. I can confirm this only when my friend comes back. But I checked three non-Saudi English versions and none of them had this reference, which means most probably it’s politically motivated.
@Daisy…I am interested in hearing what you find out.
I believe that the one I was talking about came free from Islamicity.com if you are non Muslim and living in the United States you may request one (according to their site)
@Lynn…
I know I might sound cynical but I would rather get one from a source that writes them in English for Muslims (say someone born here who can’t read Arabic). I want to see what the Muslims would be reading not what someone wants a non Muslim to read.
Why was it difficult to get thorough? Was the translation rough or hard to understand?
Oby,
I only spoke of that one as an example of one that was published in Saudi Arabia. Trust me, it was NOT in the least sugar coating ANYthing. The reason I had a hard time getting through it was because it was just so very offensive to my sensibilities that I wanted to just throw it in the garbage without finishing it but I pushed through. It certainly did not seem to me to be something that would make someone say ‘Hey, this sounds like a reasonable religion I think I’ll try it!’ It had the complete opposite effect on me. Some parts I laughed and other parts I said OH.MY.GOD!!
Oby and Lynn,
I just checked that website. It seems the website is an Arab one, though it’s not clear from which Arab country – they seem to have some links with Al-Jazeera. They have Quran’s translations from 3 translators – 1) Pickthall, an Englishman, who came to India, converted to Islam and produced his Quran’s translation in 1930, 2) Yusuf Ali – I have talked about him earlier – he was Indian from Bombay and produced his translation in 1938 from Lahore, Cairo and Riyadh and 3) Muhammad Asad, an Austrian-Hungarian Jewish scholar, who came to India, converted to Islam, and published his translation of Quran from Pakistan in 1980 – after the partition of Indian sub-continent in 1947 he went to live in Pakistan.
Interestingly enough, Asad’s translation is BANNED in Saudi Arabia because he doesn’t translate some of the verses in the traditional orthodox manner.
It’s interesting that ALL of the above translations have some link with India, not with Saudi Arabia and one of them is banned there because it doesn’t follow the orthodox line.
The Arab website that Lynn mentions gives the translations from all three, including the one banned in KSA, which means most probably it’s NOT a Saudi website.
Lynn,
taking the above into account, most probably the verses you read were part of the Arabic Quran, as I said earlier that early history of Islam has produced some chapters in Quran, which are hard to digest by anyone not familiar with Islam and is reading those chapters for the first time.
They had the same effect on me when I read the Quran for the first time and it took me quite a while to accept these chapters as only a natural product of early Islamic history.
Oby,
It will be another week before my friend comes back. Meanwhile, if you have read any specific verses if you give me the Sura (chapter) and verse number, I’ll get its Arabic text read by my friend when he comes. Otherwise I’ll ask him to translate whatever verses I know about those references.
I mean about apes and swines.
Here is an earlier post I had written about printing of the Quran in Saudi:
http://americanbedu.com/2009/02/18/saudi-arabia-king-fahd-complex-for-printing-of-the-holy-quran/
and for those not aware, if you wish a copy of the Quran all you need to do is send a fax to your local Saudi embassy (or consulate) to the direction of its Islamic Affairs Department. In your request, state your name, address and what language. Most Saudi embassies have a lot of interesting material about the Kingdom to include CD’s, videos, posters. These materials touch on all aspects of the Kingdom and not only religion.
@Carol,
I dont think this is accurate anymore. I believe that the Islamic Affairs Department has been closed here in the US after 9/11.
I know someone who went to the Saudi Embassy in DC and tried to contact someone from the office to get free Qur’ans and was told that the office was no longer open and that they no longer distributed religious materials from the office.
I think this happened after it came to light that the Saudi Embassy had issued diplomatic visas to people teaching religion at a local Saudi backed institute. It was raided by the FBI after it turns out they were airing videos of scholars calling for jihad. So not only were they issuing diplomatic visas outside of the boundries of doing so, they were airing videos by scholars who supported “jihad”.
The institute itself shut down after the Saudi Embassy withdrew it’s funding and sent the members with diplomatic visas back to Saudi. I think it is after this even that the religious office at the Saudi Embassy was closed.
I took Arabic classes at the Institute before it closed. It was a great place and many Americans of all faiths took Arabic classes there. It is a shame the administration of the services there was handled in such a poor manner and it had to be shut down.
Thanks for the explanation Lynn…maybe I will get one from there. I am still on my Koran for Dummies book which is a good book so far in explaining what it says. I am reading three books at the same time so it is a bit slow going getting through all of them. Each touches on an aspect of KSA, Koran or Islam.
I appreciate the heads up so when I get to those passage I will be prepared. However, like Daisy said perhaps it is part of the Qur’an’s writings from the past. There are many violent things in the Bible especially the Old Testament. I am Catholic and I think if you did a poll of my church most if not all people would not take those verses literally as something to emulate today. I think that they understand that they were written in a different time and place that is starkly different from our world today. When I read them I am not put off by them because I know no one except the most literal fundamentalist would consider them even remotely applicable to today’s society. I am assuming that is what Daisy meant and I am hoping that is how most Muslims would view the verses in their Qur’an. They certainly would be applicable to an enemy at the time it was written but perhaps out of step for today.
@Oby,
I understand where you are coming from, but even the words of Jesus come from a different time and age. So unless Christians wish to invalidate his words then it must be more than that to allow Christians to completely ignore portions of the Old Testament they dont like.
What about other inconvenient stuff in the New Testament like women staying quiet in the church? If people are also going to pick and choose what to follow even in the New Testament because it came from a “different time and place” then you really have a situation where nothing is concrete, nothing is set in stone, there are no core values.
Think about it……everything from The Bible, Qur’an or otherwise is from a “different time and place”. So everything can be followed or dismissed at will.
As a Muslim I am aware that the majority of what would be considered “the violent verses” were actually talking about a specific situation at a specific time and were not general guidlines for behavior.
The Bible, being much larger, has a lot more of these inconvenient verses and chapters and it is harder to explain them off.
Anyway, I guess my issue is with how some people cherry pick the portions of their religion they want to follow and ignore of make up reasons why they dont follow the rest of it.
The problem is those extremists who take things out of context and try to apply them to today. Muslims do this sometimes, so do other religious groups. There are extremist Jews who advocate ethnic cleansing of Israel based on Old Testament scripture.
Actually Abu Sinan, it still does exist although with a much smaller staff and the program continues. My spouse was Director of Islamic Affairs at the embassy until our return to KSA in 2006.
I read both Testaments of the Bible from cover to cover as a 7 yrs old child – at that stage I was in a school where it was mandatory for all students to pass in the Bible exam to go to the next grade – regardless of our religious backgrounds. I came across those passages and was really terrified. But gradually got over it and didn’t mind them anymore.
It’s true that most followers of any faith don’t take these passages literally – that’s how most common people are able to live with each other peacefully.
But throughout history, extremist religious groups have used these passages to persecute the people of other faiths. Christianity and Judaism have passed that phase by now to a large extent, but much of the Islamic extremism is fed by these violent verses in Quran. The extremists Jehadis are brainwashed into believing that this is the command of Allah and they should follow it. Now a large scholarship is emerging in the West to study how Islamic extremism is being fed by these Quranic verses.
There is a serious need to teach the Muslim children from young age and also to neo-convert adults that these verses are not meant to be followed as they were meant for a specific period in history.
@Daisy,
I guess I am a “neo-convert” and my wife is a “born Muslim”. Rest assured we are raising our kids on a true middle of the road fashion. Probem is there arent many of us here. You seem to either get the extremist or those liberals who agree with you, then want to forget prayers…….want to drink ect.
@Carol,
Interesting. I wonder why the guy whom I know went to the Embassy 2-3 years ago was turned away? We were doing a booth at my work’s Culture Day that we have done for years and we regularly give away HUNDREDS of Qur’ans.
He went a few years ago and was turned away, told that the office was closed and that they only kept a few Qur’ans in stock at any one time. This guy is an Arab from Jordan who is a supervisory electrical engineer for the federal government.
As I am sure he didnt get past security it would seem that whom ever he talked to at the front door/security either had wrong information or didnt want to help.
If he was there until 2006 that means he was there the entire IIASA (? I forget) incident where the FBI came in and confisicated all of the stuff at the Saudi institute, the issue with the religious workers having diplomatic visas, ect.
I remember coming home from work one day and Manal called me to come watch the TV as they came out of the place with their computers, files and the like. Sad that they shut it down. It had the best advanced Arabic grammar program around!
Abu Sinan,
Yes, I know you believe in good values and will teach only good values to your children. I was making a general comment – more people should be like you in raising chidlren.
Abu Sinan,
I read sometime back that now the extremist Islamic groups are beginning to use White neo-converts for their Jihad campaigns – because White “terrorists” merge with the Western population and may be get past the security checks more easily if they retain their older name in their passport. That’s why I included neo-converts in my comment.
It seems such a White Islamist extremist was caught sometime back – he was a Pakistani-American and looked like American, not like South Asian.
@Daisy,
Well, being tall, blond haired and blue eyed with tattoos I would blend in perfectly. However, I hate extremists of all stripes with a passion! If I was ever approached the FBI would get a phone call quick than you can say “Gitmo Bay” lol.
Abu Sinan,
Yes I know, you are not the one extremists can brainwash. Perhaps you can start a counter-brainwashing camp for Western neo-converts to Islam! I think the US governement will fund such a project well. You can’t count on Saudi funding for this, though.:-)
@Daisy…
I don’t know if you are kidding with your last comment but you might be closer to an answer than you think. It reminds me of an article…On another blog Crossroads Arabia, one of the respondents posted a link to a British article in one of the main British papers…it was quite long but the gist of it was that in England some of the most active and virulent jihadis have renounced violence in Islam and have dedicated their lives to spreading this message to other Jihadis but also to homegrown British men/women who are known terrorists or potentially are on the fence. (It seems even more than the foreigners the native Jihadis are on the rise.) they lecture, write articles and do whatever they can to talk to people about how violence in Islam is wrong and Jihad is not “Allah’s Way”. The article was very touching in that it highlighted three or four terrorists and how they had come to realize that non Muslims should not be killed and that they could peacefully coexist.
One story was about a Pakistani boy whose friends were all white British. Several times neo nazis got a hold of his FRIENDS, not him and murdered some of his friends over a few years. Because he saw himself as the cause of his friends deaths he drifted away from them to sort of protect them and started hanging with the “wrong” crowd. Filled with anger(who could blame him?)as he grew up he turned it into jihad for Islam as it was with the Muslims he felt like there was a safety in numbers sort of protection. when he came home for a visit after training and being a Jihadi he was welcomed by these British friends he had drifted away from years ago and they accepted him back into the fold of their friendship even though he had been away for so long. He felt a little twinge of discomfort about his Jihadi beliefs and eventually as he self reflected he grew convinced that it was totally wrong and decided to do what he could to reverse his actions.
Another guy filled with jihadi intent had a non Muslim neighbor that was a bit of a grouch and he never trusted but who had taken his younger brother under his wing and had been kind to him. The man died and in going through his belongings this angry young man found a birthday gift from the man to his brother…I forget what it was something like a cricket mitt or something…anyway he was touched and thought “how can I harm a man like this who has shown such kindness to my brother without asking for anything in return?” That little whisper in his head started him on the path to non violence. The stories were really neat.
The British government has put such stock into their actions that they have funded it to the tune of about 2 million pounds and these people are now like a debrainwashing team. Interestingly, if I remember right they said that more and more people-especially young ones- are now speaking out against violence in Islam because they feel safer knowing that there is a group out there that is actively doing that. They always felt that way but were afraid to speak out. Now they feel they are not alone and it seems to be a movement gaining ground at least in Britain.
Thought you might find that interesting.
a constant refrain going on in my head is “where the heck are the PARENTS”.. someone’s brainwashing your kid and yes i do know the kids don’t talk to parents much but something should tell you they changed, people who they hang out with, what they read, watch etc., etc.,
It’s not any govt job to debrainwash. they can do it if they want but i hope parents keep an eye on things.
@ Radha…
I do definately agree that it is the parents responsibility to monitor their kids and watch for changes. Not all parents are as proactive as you or I might be. A lot of them are poor and working long hours to make ends meet and in many cases the kids are left to handle themselves. Plus, at least in the two cases I sighted above, they were first generation immigrants so the kids grew up with a sense of confusion about who they are. Yes the boy is Pakistani (and by the way, he was from one of the pooest sections of England) by birth but he came to England young and is now raised in two worlds. He became disillusioned which left him open for those with bad intent. I think it is similar to the young men from the ME who get involved in extremist activity…many are poor and have little future or are unemployed and drifting and are looking for something to belong to, something to indentify with. Even though it might not be the government’s job to debrainwash I think that they are wise to see an opportunity and use it to help them stem some of the potential violence against thier country by their own country men.
@Abu Sinan,
In regards to requesting a Quran, it must be done via fax. Due to security no one can just show up and expect to be allowed in and given one.
Oby,
Thanks for that very sensitive and touching account. I didn’t know Britain was already doing what I said in a joke the US should do. Now that I think about it more seriously, I do feel it’s a very pragmatic approach towards achieving some kind of a solution to this problem the world is facing now. Yes, Quran also has positive verses and they should be highlighted in these teachings, as also the fact that all religions have some positive teachings to give to the world and hence, we shouldn’t hate any religion – critiquing the negative practices is fine, but even while critiquing we shouldn’t harbour a hatred towards any religion – even if we want to be atheists. And you are right – this teaching is in order not only for Muslim, but for all people.
Radha,
You are right in principle that parental role is important. But especially in the West, with increasing breakdown of families and single parents carrying all responsibilities by themselves, the children don’t often get the time and attention they should get from their parents. To a large extent, it is also this instability that makes the children look for stability elsewhere – often in negative institutions.
But then, terrorism has been originally manufactured in Asia, where this family breakdown problem is not there – parents are around to look after their children, still some of them grow up to go into terrorist camps. Here, it is more the problem of poverty, lack of opportunities, or as in West Asia, too much money with not much work and lack of proper education, complicated by the negative religious teachings that create this problem. When it goes to West, an instable social environment sustains it. Of course, this is a very diluted account of a very complex process, but I do think all countries should go for this positive religious teaching programme.
Oby,
You posted while I was typing. What I say is in addition to your response, which is correct.
@Carol,
You used to be able to come to the Saudi Embassy, even after 9/11 and get Qur’ans. The same guy that was turned down in 2006(?) was able to show up in previous years, unannounced, and get boxes and boxes of Qur’ans from the Embassy for free.
I believe it has less to do with security and more to do with the Saudis not wanting to be overt in being perceived to try to spread Islam in the USA.
As to security at the Embassy, I know it is REALLY tight, but at the public entrance and the private back enterance, having been to the Embassy both ways.
I was struck at how well the inside of the Embassy probably ONCE looked, but it seems they have spent little to no money in upkeep in it. The furniture in the various waiting areas was old and in disrepair and I was surpised when I went to the Charge D’Affairs office that he didnt even have a computer, but he did have a TV blairing CNN news. lol
@Abu Sinan,
It actually sounds like we are talking about two different embassies here!
@Carol,
I was there a year ago, through the front way, 2-3 years ago through the back/private way, up to the Charge D’Affairs office through the second layer of security.
I remember sitting in the back/private waiting area. The furniture was a bit old, I remember getting up and moving chairs because I was worried the one I was in was so in need of repair it was going to break. The vintage late 70s/early 80s wood panels in the elevator. Although it was nice to have a full time elevator man even though the place didnt look too busy.
I was pretty impressed with the VERY large piece of ‘Oud framed and hung on the wall along with all of the various culture items, dress ect. I think it was rather wasted though……………would go great in our incense burner!
Abu Sinan,
You are a good economist and an astute policy maker, but you don’t seem to have much interest in traditional cultural objects. The furniture and other displays you are describing must be valuable from a cultural point of view. You should not burn them. Most probably the officer-in-charge had a PA with a computer. The Officer-in-Charge may not be doing his own office paper/computer work himself.
Carol,
How about a post on the international inter-religious conference organised by Saudi Arabia and what it says about the representation of Islam by the Saudi government in international cirlces?
@Daisy,
The furniture in the lobby of the Saudi Embassy in DC were nice at some point, but calling them “cultural objects” would be a bit of a stretch. They are just utilitarian objects that have outlived their purpose. The real “cultural objects” were in glass cases against the wall and hung on the wall itself, at least in the back/private lobby area.
As to the Charge D’ Affairs, he might have had someone doing his computer work for him, although knowing enough senior government type workers, not having your own computer for e-mails and the like seemed unusual.
No matter, I met some of the low level workers in the visa section and not even all of them had computers. I knew one of them whose father had at one point been a high ranking official there. She liked the job because she could pretty much make her own hours….the benefits of “wasta” (connections) you see. The non Saudi co-workers werent afforded the same opportunities, but that is par for course.
I guess you could say I was less than impressed with the whole set up, which was pretty much in line with my experience with those I met there as workers.
That is what you get when the system is set up to give jobs and advancement basedoften on WHO you know rather than what you you know.
Abu Sinan,
It seems Saudi Arabia has exported its indigenous, laidback lifestyle to its Embassies abroad. It’s quite usual to see these kinds of offices in traditional countries, but when they represent themselves abroad and especially in a country like the US, they should look sophisticated. You are right, a non-professional approach involving right connections further reinforces this laidback style.
I feel I need to interject here… I have been in a number of Saudi embassies and consulates and I have found each and every one to be both professionally and exquisitely designed showcasing Saudi culture and customs. Most Saudi embassies and consulates will also have beautiful art work or even pieces of the kiswah. I’m pleased to say that the Saudi embassy in Washington has some work from a very talented Saudi female artist on display. (Maybe Mohsin should get some of his exquisite photos on display too!)
All Saudi employees and local hires who require computer access to do their job are equipped with all they need. Most have nice spacious offices with all modern tools and technology.
It is not easy to enter a Saudi embassy and nor should it be. (it’s not easy to enter any embassy in the world these days) Embassy holding areas (public waiting areas) will be comfortable and sometimes spartan but beyond that I’ve never seen anything but fine impressions.
OK, changing the topic, but staying on the topic of this post, perhaps the visitors will find this interesting about Saudi scholars’ opinion of Swiss Minarets ban –
http://thegulfblog.com/2009/12/06/saudi-scholars-slam-swiss-minaret-decision/
Thank you Daisy!
I think trying to apply a ban on minarets is atrocious and to me at least, very surprising to have it forthcoming from Switzerland of all places!