Sharî'ah: Between Two Popes by Sherman Abdul-Hakim Jackson looks at some interesting differences in how the Catholic and Coptic popes approach the Shariah. Pope Benedict XVI, viewing the issue through the lens of modern Western notions of the state and assumes the shariah will impose a uniform law without any accommodation for religious difference. On the other hand, Pope Shanoudah, understanding that the shariah actually allows for religious minorities to govern themselves according to their own rules, actually appealed to the shariah in order to enforce Coptic principles on Coptic couples.
Friday, September 03, 2010
the postcolonial condition of muslim states
A brief observation of the condition of the Muslim world by Abdullahi An-Naim
dr. jackson issues a challenge
Dr. Sherman Jackson, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at University of Michigan and author of several pioneering books, including “Islam and the Problem of Black Suffering,” has issued a challenge for supporters of IMAN (the Inner-City Muslim Action Network based in Chicago) in these final days of Ramadan. In a generous commitment, Dr. Jackson has agreed to match, dollar for dollar, all donations received online until the end of our Heal the ‘Hood campaign. Read more about the challenge here.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
hip-hop artistry knows no borders
I was listening to NPR the other day and caught part of an interview with Ana Tijoux. Tijoux is a Chilean rapper, born in France to parents who fled there to escape the Pinochet regime. The interview also mentions Detroit MC, Invincible who has appeared here before. NPR also posted a clip Ana Tijoux: Tiny Desk Concert of Tijoux performing her raps in a small intimate space accompanied only by a single percussionist.
Aside from liking the music and her delivery, the other thing I was struck by is the degree to which hip-hop has become "respectable" in recent times. This year Invincible (Ilana Weaver) was awarded a Kresge Foundation grant. NPR is doing stories on rappers. And PBS is televising hip-hop shows. The times, they are a changing.
Planet Grenada:
invincible / emergence
mos def and k'naan on austin city limits
Aside from liking the music and her delivery, the other thing I was struck by is the degree to which hip-hop has become "respectable" in recent times. This year Invincible (Ilana Weaver) was awarded a Kresge Foundation grant. NPR is doing stories on rappers. And PBS is televising hip-hop shows. The times, they are a changing.
Planet Grenada:
invincible / emergence
mos def and k'naan on austin city limits
the king's torah and the roots (and branches) of jewish violence
What follows is mostly from Coteret with a few passages from Haaretz. But to make a long story short, Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur wrote a legal text called The King's Torah which discusses the circumstances, according to Jewish law, when it is permissible to kill non-Jews. The book is apparently a bestseller in Israel. Personally I don't find it all that shocking. Don't get me wrong, based on the excerpts, the book is definitely evil and racist and offensive. But it isn't particularly surprising. Even among mainstream rabbinic Judaism's traditional enumeration of the 613 commandments of the Torah you will find:
The above-listed commandments from Deuteronomy are clearly genocidal. And in the book of Joshua one can read about how they were implemented by the armies of the children of Israel who went from city to city "killing everything that had breath" in the "Promised land". And as far as the Old Testament is concerned those laws are still valid. Do I think all Jews and Christians are genocidal maniacs? Of course not. Christians typically teach that Jesus (as) abrogated those commandments (although I would argue it is still problematic to accept God would reveal such commandments in the first place) while many Jews today find creative ways to read those texts non-violently (e.g. saying that the Canaanite nations don't exist in the present-day, treating Amalek as a metaphor for the evil inclinations inside of everyone). Although in Israel today you definitely have more hawkish voices (like Netanyahu) who rhetorically invoke the label of "Amalek" to refer to the enemy of the day (Saddam Hussein, Iran, the PLO, Hammas, etc.)
So while the authors of the King's Torah are clearly extremists, they generally don't seem to be disavowed by the rabbinical establishment which makes it hard not to conclude that the apple isn't falling very far from the tree.
Something else which should be mentioned is that apparently US taxpayer money is being used to help support Rabbi Shapira's organization which definitely needs to be fixed.
[modified article begins]
The marble-patterned, hardcover book embossed with gold Hebrew letters looks like any other religious commentary you'd find in an Orthodox Judaica bookstore - but reads like a rabbinic instruction manual outlining acceptable scenarios for killing non-Jewish babies, children and adults.
The prohibition 'Thou Shalt Not Murder' applies only "to a Jew who kills a Jew," write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur of the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar. Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and attacks on them "curb their evil inclination," while babies and children of Israel's enemies may be killed since "it is clear that they will grow to harm us."
When is it permissible to kill non-Jews? The book Torat ha-Melekh [The King’s Teaching], which was just published, was written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the dean of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the community of Yitzhar near Nablus, together with another rabbi from the yeshiva, Yossi Elitzur. The book contains no fewer than 230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.
Although the book is not being distributed by the leading book companies, it has already received warm recommendations from right-wing elements, including recommendations from important rabbis such as Yitzhak Ginsburg, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, that were printed at the beginning of the book. The book is being distributed via the Internet and through the yeshiva, and at this stage the introductory price is NIS 30 per copy. At the memorial ceremony that was held over the weekend in Jerusalem for Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was killed nineteen years ago, copies of the book were sold.
Throughout the book, the authors deal with in-depth theoretical questions in Jewish religious law regarding the killing of non-Jews. The words “Arabs” and “Palestinians” are not mentioned even indirectly, and the authors are careful to avoid making explicit statements in favor of an individual taking the law into his own hands. The book includes hundreds of sources from the Bible and religious law. The book includes quotes from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the fathers of religious Zionism, and from Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, one of the deans of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, the stronghold of national-religious Zionism that is located in Jerusalem.
The book opens with a prohibition against killing non-Jews and justifies it, among other things, on the grounds of preventing hostility and any desecration of God’s name. But very quickly, the authors move from prohibition to permission, to the various dispensations for harming non-Jews, with the central reason being their obligation to uphold the seven Noahide laws, which every human being on earth must follow. Among these commandments are prohibitions on theft, bloodshed and idolatry. [The seven Noahide laws prohibit idolatry, murder, theft, illicit sexual relations, blasphemy and eating the flesh of a live animal, and require societies to institute just laws and law courts]
“When we approach a non-Jew who has violated the seven Noahide laws and kill him out of concern for upholding these seven laws, no prohibition has been violated,” states the book, which emphasizes that killing is forbidden unless it is done in obedience to a court ruling. But later on, the authors limit the prohibition, noting that it applies only to a “proper system that deals with non-Jews who violate the seven Noahide commandments.”
The book includes another conclusion that explains when a non-Jew may be killed even if he is not an enemy of the Jews. “In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created,” the authors state. “When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew’s presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed.”
One of the dispensations for killing non-Jews, according to religious law, applies in a case of din rodef [the law of the “pursuer,” according to which one who is pursuing another with murderous intent may be killed extrajudicially] even when the pursuer is a civilian. “The dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly,” the book states. “Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer.”
Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur determine that children may also be harmed because they are “hindrances.” The rabbis write as follows: “Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”
In addition, the children of the leader may be harmed in order to apply pressure to him. If attacking the children of a wicked ruler will influence him not to behave wickedly, they may be harmed. “It is better to kill the pursuers than to kill others,” the authors state.
In a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directly mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers.
Retaliation also has a place and purpose in this book by Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur. “In order to defeat the enemy, we must behave toward them in a spirit of retaliation and measure for measure,” they state. “Retaliation is absolutely necessary in order to render such wickedness not worthwhile. Therefore, sometimes we do cruel deeds in order to create the proper balance of terror.”
In one of the footnotes, the two rabbis write in such a way that appears to permit individuals to act on their own, outside of any decision by the government or the army.
“A decision by the nation is not necessary to permit shedding the blood of the evil kingdom,” the rabbis write. “Even individuals from the nation being attacked may harm them.”
Unlike books of religious law that are published by yeshivas, this time the rabbis added a chapter containing the book’s conclusions. Each of the six chapters is summarized into main points of several lines, which state, among other things: “In religious law, we have found that non-Jews are generally suspected of shedding Jewish blood, and in war, this suspicion becomes a great deal stronger. One must consider killing even babies, who have not violated the seven Noahide laws, because of the future danger that will be caused if they are allowed to grow up to be as wicked as their parents.”
Even though the authors are careful, as stated, to use the term “non-Jews,” there are certainly those who could interpret the nationality of the “non-Jews” who are liable to endanger the Jewish people. This is strengthened by the leaflet “The Jewish Voice,” which is published on the Internet from Yitzhar, which comments on the book: “It is superfluous to note that nowhere in the book is it written that the statements are directly only to the ancient non-Jews.” The leaflet’s editors did not omit a stinging remark directed at the GSS, who will certainly take the trouble to get themselves a copy. “The editors suggest to the GSS that they award the prize for Israel’s security to the authors,” the leaflet states, “who gave the detectives the option of reading the summarized conclusions without any need for in-depth study of the entire book.”
One student of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar explained, from his point of view, where Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur got the courage to speak so freely on a subject such as the killing of non-Jews. “The rabbis aren’t afraid of prosecution because in that case, Maimonides [Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135–1204] and Nahmanides [Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270] would have to stand trial too, and anyway, this is research on religious law,” the yeshiva student said. “In a Jewish state, nobody sits in jail for studying Torah.”
Coteret: Settler Rabbi publishes “The complete guide to killing non-Jews” — UPDATED
Haaretz: The King's Torah: a rabbinic text or a call to terror?
AlJazeera: The King's Torah
Pakalert Press: FALSE FLAG NUKE ATTACK ON U.S. JUSTIFIED….”KING’S TORAH”
Alternet: How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book's Shocking Religious Defense
of Killing Non-Jews (with Video)
MyJewishLearning: Genocide in the Torah: The existential threat of Amalek by Shmuly Yanklowitz
City of Brass: Iran as Amalek: Netanyahu pulls an Ahmadinejad
596. Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17
597. Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16
598. Wipe out the descendants of Amalek Deut. 25:19
599. Remember what Amalek did to the Jewish people Deut. 25:17
The above-listed commandments from Deuteronomy are clearly genocidal. And in the book of Joshua one can read about how they were implemented by the armies of the children of Israel who went from city to city "killing everything that had breath" in the "Promised land". And as far as the Old Testament is concerned those laws are still valid. Do I think all Jews and Christians are genocidal maniacs? Of course not. Christians typically teach that Jesus (as) abrogated those commandments (although I would argue it is still problematic to accept God would reveal such commandments in the first place) while many Jews today find creative ways to read those texts non-violently (e.g. saying that the Canaanite nations don't exist in the present-day, treating Amalek as a metaphor for the evil inclinations inside of everyone). Although in Israel today you definitely have more hawkish voices (like Netanyahu) who rhetorically invoke the label of "Amalek" to refer to the enemy of the day (Saddam Hussein, Iran, the PLO, Hammas, etc.)
So while the authors of the King's Torah are clearly extremists, they generally don't seem to be disavowed by the rabbinical establishment which makes it hard not to conclude that the apple isn't falling very far from the tree.
Something else which should be mentioned is that apparently US taxpayer money is being used to help support Rabbi Shapira's organization which definitely needs to be fixed.
[modified article begins]
The marble-patterned, hardcover book embossed with gold Hebrew letters looks like any other religious commentary you'd find in an Orthodox Judaica bookstore - but reads like a rabbinic instruction manual outlining acceptable scenarios for killing non-Jewish babies, children and adults.
The prohibition 'Thou Shalt Not Murder' applies only "to a Jew who kills a Jew," write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur of the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar. Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and attacks on them "curb their evil inclination," while babies and children of Israel's enemies may be killed since "it is clear that they will grow to harm us."
When is it permissible to kill non-Jews? The book Torat ha-Melekh [The King’s Teaching], which was just published, was written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the dean of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the community of Yitzhar near Nablus, together with another rabbi from the yeshiva, Yossi Elitzur. The book contains no fewer than 230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.
Although the book is not being distributed by the leading book companies, it has already received warm recommendations from right-wing elements, including recommendations from important rabbis such as Yitzhak Ginsburg, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, that were printed at the beginning of the book. The book is being distributed via the Internet and through the yeshiva, and at this stage the introductory price is NIS 30 per copy. At the memorial ceremony that was held over the weekend in Jerusalem for Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was killed nineteen years ago, copies of the book were sold.
Throughout the book, the authors deal with in-depth theoretical questions in Jewish religious law regarding the killing of non-Jews. The words “Arabs” and “Palestinians” are not mentioned even indirectly, and the authors are careful to avoid making explicit statements in favor of an individual taking the law into his own hands. The book includes hundreds of sources from the Bible and religious law. The book includes quotes from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the fathers of religious Zionism, and from Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, one of the deans of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, the stronghold of national-religious Zionism that is located in Jerusalem.
The book opens with a prohibition against killing non-Jews and justifies it, among other things, on the grounds of preventing hostility and any desecration of God’s name. But very quickly, the authors move from prohibition to permission, to the various dispensations for harming non-Jews, with the central reason being their obligation to uphold the seven Noahide laws, which every human being on earth must follow. Among these commandments are prohibitions on theft, bloodshed and idolatry. [The seven Noahide laws prohibit idolatry, murder, theft, illicit sexual relations, blasphemy and eating the flesh of a live animal, and require societies to institute just laws and law courts]
“When we approach a non-Jew who has violated the seven Noahide laws and kill him out of concern for upholding these seven laws, no prohibition has been violated,” states the book, which emphasizes that killing is forbidden unless it is done in obedience to a court ruling. But later on, the authors limit the prohibition, noting that it applies only to a “proper system that deals with non-Jews who violate the seven Noahide commandments.”
The book includes another conclusion that explains when a non-Jew may be killed even if he is not an enemy of the Jews. “In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created,” the authors state. “When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew’s presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed.”
One of the dispensations for killing non-Jews, according to religious law, applies in a case of din rodef [the law of the “pursuer,” according to which one who is pursuing another with murderous intent may be killed extrajudicially] even when the pursuer is a civilian. “The dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly,” the book states. “Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer.”
Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur determine that children may also be harmed because they are “hindrances.” The rabbis write as follows: “Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”
In addition, the children of the leader may be harmed in order to apply pressure to him. If attacking the children of a wicked ruler will influence him not to behave wickedly, they may be harmed. “It is better to kill the pursuers than to kill others,” the authors state.
In a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directly mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers.
Retaliation also has a place and purpose in this book by Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur. “In order to defeat the enemy, we must behave toward them in a spirit of retaliation and measure for measure,” they state. “Retaliation is absolutely necessary in order to render such wickedness not worthwhile. Therefore, sometimes we do cruel deeds in order to create the proper balance of terror.”
In one of the footnotes, the two rabbis write in such a way that appears to permit individuals to act on their own, outside of any decision by the government or the army.
“A decision by the nation is not necessary to permit shedding the blood of the evil kingdom,” the rabbis write. “Even individuals from the nation being attacked may harm them.”
Unlike books of religious law that are published by yeshivas, this time the rabbis added a chapter containing the book’s conclusions. Each of the six chapters is summarized into main points of several lines, which state, among other things: “In religious law, we have found that non-Jews are generally suspected of shedding Jewish blood, and in war, this suspicion becomes a great deal stronger. One must consider killing even babies, who have not violated the seven Noahide laws, because of the future danger that will be caused if they are allowed to grow up to be as wicked as their parents.”
Even though the authors are careful, as stated, to use the term “non-Jews,” there are certainly those who could interpret the nationality of the “non-Jews” who are liable to endanger the Jewish people. This is strengthened by the leaflet “The Jewish Voice,” which is published on the Internet from Yitzhar, which comments on the book: “It is superfluous to note that nowhere in the book is it written that the statements are directly only to the ancient non-Jews.” The leaflet’s editors did not omit a stinging remark directed at the GSS, who will certainly take the trouble to get themselves a copy. “The editors suggest to the GSS that they award the prize for Israel’s security to the authors,” the leaflet states, “who gave the detectives the option of reading the summarized conclusions without any need for in-depth study of the entire book.”
One student of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar explained, from his point of view, where Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur got the courage to speak so freely on a subject such as the killing of non-Jews. “The rabbis aren’t afraid of prosecution because in that case, Maimonides [Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135–1204] and Nahmanides [Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270] would have to stand trial too, and anyway, this is research on religious law,” the yeshiva student said. “In a Jewish state, nobody sits in jail for studying Torah.”
Coteret: Settler Rabbi publishes “The complete guide to killing non-Jews” — UPDATED
Haaretz: The King's Torah: a rabbinic text or a call to terror?
AlJazeera: The King's Torah
Pakalert Press: FALSE FLAG NUKE ATTACK ON U.S. JUSTIFIED….”KING’S TORAH”
Alternet: How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book's Shocking Religious Defense
of Killing Non-Jews (with Video)
MyJewishLearning: Genocide in the Torah: The existential threat of Amalek by Shmuly Yanklowitz
City of Brass: Iran as Amalek: Netanyahu pulls an Ahmadinejad
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
synchronicity
It seems like every few years there are interesting and meaningful connections between days on the Islamic calendar and days on the Gregorian calendar. Unfortunately, it seems like this year, Eid al-Fitr may fall on 9/11. Ouch.
the rise of islamic rap
The Rise of Islamic Rap by Peter Mandaville focuses on how South Asian Muslim youth in the UK have chosen to express themselves using Black American musical forms. The article goes on to view this movement in the context of increasing cooperation between young Muslims and left-leaning movements (the World Social Forums, the Green Party, alter-globalization, etc.)
planet grenada and islam and hip-hop
planet grenada and islam and hip-hop
Monday, August 30, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
sausage and the law
Mark Twain once said, "Those who respect the law and love sausage should watch neither being made." But as a Muslim, I would actually argue that he was wrong on both counts. First, anyone who eats (pork) sausage should find out exactly what they are putting into their bodies with a quickness.
But in terms of the law (at least the shariah) I've had an interesting time trying to learn more about usul al-fiqh. Right now I'm in the middle of Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence by M.H. Kamali. Unfortunately I was only able to find it free online after ordering it on Amazon. The book goes into a fair amount of detail on how the ulema across different schools of thought derive legal rulings from the Quran and sunnah and the chapters are nicely organized according to various sources or principles. I found it refreshing because it gave me respect for some of the logical and linguistic nuance which goes into harmonizing different texts. It was also comforting to see that local customs, public interest, and avoiding harm are also considered in the shariah and allow it to be more flexible than many people realize.
In case you don't have time to read a 300 plus something book on usul al-fiqh, The Fundamental Principles of Imam Malik's Fiqh from Muhammad Abu Zahrah is organized in much the same way as Kamali's work except it is much more abbreviated and emphasizes the Maliki school's opinion.
Some other interesting pages:
Maxims of Islamic Jurisprudence from Al Majalla (an Ottoman law Manual) gives 100 different legal aphorisms which guide legal reasoning, from a Hanafi perspective.
The blog, Scholar's Pen: The Tools of a Mujtahid- A glance at the Hanafi Methodology gives a brief summary of some of the distinctive principles of the Hanafi school.
While The Principles and Codes of Law of Hanafi Fiqh by Hadhrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thaanwi is another large book, full of untranslated legal terms and is much less clear than Kamali's work.In fact, these last three sites are all a bit technical and would make much more sense after reading the first two pieces.
Planet Grenada: differences between schools
But in terms of the law (at least the shariah) I've had an interesting time trying to learn more about usul al-fiqh. Right now I'm in the middle of Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence by M.H. Kamali. Unfortunately I was only able to find it free online after ordering it on Amazon. The book goes into a fair amount of detail on how the ulema across different schools of thought derive legal rulings from the Quran and sunnah and the chapters are nicely organized according to various sources or principles. I found it refreshing because it gave me respect for some of the logical and linguistic nuance which goes into harmonizing different texts. It was also comforting to see that local customs, public interest, and avoiding harm are also considered in the shariah and allow it to be more flexible than many people realize.
In case you don't have time to read a 300 plus something book on usul al-fiqh, The Fundamental Principles of Imam Malik's Fiqh from Muhammad Abu Zahrah is organized in much the same way as Kamali's work except it is much more abbreviated and emphasizes the Maliki school's opinion.
Some other interesting pages:
Maxims of Islamic Jurisprudence from Al Majalla (an Ottoman law Manual) gives 100 different legal aphorisms which guide legal reasoning, from a Hanafi perspective.
The blog, Scholar's Pen: The Tools of a Mujtahid- A glance at the Hanafi Methodology gives a brief summary of some of the distinctive principles of the Hanafi school.
While The Principles and Codes of Law of Hanafi Fiqh by Hadhrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thaanwi is another large book, full of untranslated legal terms and is much less clear than Kamali's work.In fact, these last three sites are all a bit technical and would make much more sense after reading the first two pieces.
Planet Grenada: differences between schools
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
man bites dog: buddhist fundamentalists and muslim prisoners of conscience
I totally missed this story when it happened but it seems worth noting as an example.
For the whole story, see: Author Sarah Malini Perera held ‘for offending Buddhists’ in Sri Lanka
The same piece mentions that the Sri Lankan government denied a visa to Muslim (yes Muslim) singer Akon because the video for his song Sexy Chick included images of video "vixens" dancing with a statue of the Buddha in the background. Part of the backlash included a crowd of over 200 angry rock-throwing Buddhists attacking the offices of Akon's concert promoters, damaging property and injuring a few individuals. You can find more details on that story here.
Both these stories, especially taken together, totally invert the usual narratives we are spoon-fed about religion and the tolerance/ sensitivity and peacefulness/ violence of Buddhism / Islam respectively. I'm a little surprised (but not really) that they didn't get more attention. A few more accounts like these and the dominant narrative would begin to crack. If members of a "good" religion like Buddhism can be pushed to violence when their sensitivities are threatened and if even Muslims can be victims of censorship and exclusion for acting on their conscience then who are the heroes and who are the villains?
An expatriate Sri Lankan woman who wrote two books about her conversion from Buddhism to Islam has been arrested while on holiday in Sri Lanka, apparently for causing offence to Buddhists.
Sarah Malini Perera, who was born in Sri Lanka but has lived in Bahrain since 1985 and converted to Islam in 1999, was arrested last week under the country’s strict emergency laws, according to the police.
They declined to give precise details of the 38-year-old writer’s offence, but suggested that her books were deemed to have caused offence to ethnic Sinhalese Buddhists, who account for about 70 per cent of Sri Lanka’s 20 million people.
For the whole story, see: Author Sarah Malini Perera held ‘for offending Buddhists’ in Sri Lanka
The same piece mentions that the Sri Lankan government denied a visa to Muslim (yes Muslim) singer Akon because the video for his song Sexy Chick included images of video "vixens" dancing with a statue of the Buddha in the background. Part of the backlash included a crowd of over 200 angry rock-throwing Buddhists attacking the offices of Akon's concert promoters, damaging property and injuring a few individuals. You can find more details on that story here.
Both these stories, especially taken together, totally invert the usual narratives we are spoon-fed about religion and the tolerance/ sensitivity and peacefulness/ violence of Buddhism / Islam respectively. I'm a little surprised (but not really) that they didn't get more attention. A few more accounts like these and the dominant narrative would begin to crack. If members of a "good" religion like Buddhism can be pushed to violence when their sensitivities are threatened and if even Muslims can be victims of censorship and exclusion for acting on their conscience then who are the heroes and who are the villains?
catholic church involved in terrorist cover-up
NPR: Cover-Up In 1972 North Ireland Bombing
The British government and the Roman Catholic church colluded to cover up the suspected involvement of a priest in a 1972 bombing that killed nine people and injured 30, a new report said Tuesday.
The British government and the Roman Catholic church colluded to cover up the suspected involvement of a priest in a 1972 bombing that killed nine people and injured 30, a new report said Tuesday.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
alianza afro latina islamica / casa a.l.i., inc.
From their website
I haven't researched them carefully but perhaps when it comes to zakat, or at least sadaqa we could consider organizations like these which have a local impact rather than sending money overseas.
Our mission is to give men and women released from incarceration or treatment facilities a place where they can live, keep personal property, have access to phone calls, job searches, public assistance programs, parole, and basic needs till they get on their feet.
We give our residents not only a respectable living environment but also guidance on how to conduct themselves, and how to deal with adversity and/or rejection in order to avoid rearrest or denial of employment.
Men and women are given spacious living areas where they don’t feel as if they are in a shelter environment and have to be up at the crack of dawn to leave the facility in search of employment.
Our intake and residential program is six months long with the reserved option of extending that period for three months if necessary for a total maximum of nine months. We also provide them with transportation for them to go to and fro to the places they need to. We residence to ensure their success.
Our After Care Director sees to it that after our residents leave our homes they are not left without a support group to assist them if they encounter difficulties.
Residents successfully completing the program are eligible to return if they encounter difficulties or are unable to maintain gainful employment and stable residence, but only on a case by case basis.
As Afro-Latinos and African-Americans ourselves we have firsthand experience with the effects that lack of decent community assistance programs can have on our neighborhoods so we know our market.
We will be also taking the burden off of government by providing a valuable service and lifting part of the financial burden recidivism, homelessness, and unemployment create.
Our approach is more holistic in the sense that we also provide mentoring through our volunteers and staff, some of whom in the past were incarcerated or underwent treatment at a substance abuse facility but have successfully made the transition into responsible, gainfully employed adults and can now show our residents how they did it in order to have a positive impact on their lives.
I haven't researched them carefully but perhaps when it comes to zakat, or at least sadaqa we could consider organizations like these which have a local impact rather than sending money overseas.
the holiest night of the year for a nuyorican muslim
Killing the Buddha: Better than a Thousand Months by Ashley Makar
sometimes you can't tell the difference between the onion and the real news...
The Daily Show: FOX Failed To Mention Co-Owner Is One They Accuse Of 'Terror Funding' As a part of its typical fear-mongering, Fox News did a story described links between Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and an unnamed Saudi sponsor by means of the Kingdom Foundation... but it turns out that the Saudi in question, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal is actually one of the largest shareholders of Fox News' own parent corporation. What!
Sunday, August 22, 2010
latino muslims in america: the rebirth of a community
IslamAmerica: Latino Muslims in America: the Rebirth of a Community by Aaron Siebert-Llera
This paper represents the beginning phases of research originally intended as part of the author's PhD thesis in Sociology at Northwestern University. Aarón/Haroun now attends Loyola Law School in Chicago. His mother is Mexican and his father is Jewish. He converted to Islam two years ago, and considers himself part of the growing community of Latino Muslims in America.
This paper represents the beginning phases of research originally intended as part of the author's PhD thesis in Sociology at Northwestern University. Aarón/Haroun now attends Loyola Law School in Chicago. His mother is Mexican and his father is Jewish. He converted to Islam two years ago, and considers himself part of the growing community of Latino Muslims in America.
"refudiating" islamophobia: park 51 / cordoba house / the (not-really-at)-ground zero mosque
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Municipal Land-Use Hearing Update | ||||
| ||||
Obviously by now, much ink has already been spilled over the whole controversy about the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. But perhaps someone out there might benefit from a round-up of some of the articles and a summary of some talking points.
1. First, it isn't at Ground Zero. The proposed location is several blocks away in what used to be a Burlington Coat factory. You can't see it from Ground Zero and Ground Zero can't be seen from the proposed location.
2. It isn't a mosque. It is a cultural center. The plans include a swimming pool, a basketball court, an auditorium, a performing arts center, a fitness center, a bookstore, a food court and even a culinary school, along with space to pray.
3. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf isn't a radical. He is an mainstream Muslim with an extensive amount of experience in interfaith activities and has written several books on the compatibility of Islam and the West in a pluralistic democratic context.
4. If Ground Zero is to be considered "hallowed ground" what's up with the two strip clubs within three blocks of the site?
5. If this is really about respect for 9/11 victims what about the national opposition to all the other mosques in the US?
6. There already is mosque in the area which operates without causing a problem.
7. That part of the city has had historical Muslim-American presence even before the Towers went up.
One of the first Arab-American enclaves in New York City was located on Washington St. in lower Manhattan - the very area in which the World Trade Center was later built. Founded by Arabic-speaking Christians and Muslims from Ottoman Syria in the 1880s, it was called Little Syria.
[...]
The African Burial Ground, discovered in 1991, is six blocks away from the proposed Muslim community center. Scholars continue to debate the religious identity of the hundreds buried there, but the fact that some of the dead wore shrouds and were interred with strings of blue beads, frequently used as Islamic talismans, suggests Muslim were among the enslaved people who helped build Manhattan into a bustling city.
8. I'm sure that some of the outrage is heartfelt and sincere. But a large portion of it is artificial and stoked by Pamela Geller. The local NYC Community Board voted overwhelmingly to support the project.
Details on the Above:
HuffPost: "Ground Zero" Mosque: AP Fact Check
HuffPost: Park 51: The Ground Zero Mosque Is Not a Mosque
Daily Beast: My Meetings With the Man Behind the Mosque
NYT: For Imam in Muslim Center Furor, a Hard Balancing Act
NYT: Vote Endorses Muslim Center Near Ground Zero
NY Daily Post: Islam has long history downtown: Why the 'Ground Zero mosque' belongs in lower Manhattan
WSJ: For Strippers Near Ground Zero, It’s Business as Usual Amid Mosque Uproar
HuffPost: Just How Far Is the "Ground Zero Mosque" From Ground Zero?
HuffPost: Quietly, Another Mosque Operates In Shadow Of Ground Zero
HuffPost: Pamela Geller, 'Queen Of Muslim Bashers,' At Center Of N.Y. 'Mosque' Debate
More General Thoughts:
Daily Beast: The Mosque Litmus Test
HuffPost: Ground Zero Mosque: American Intolerance on Full Display for Muslim World
Juan Cole: Palin on the Ground Zero Mosque vs. the Founding Fathers
Wikipedia: Park 51
Wikipedia: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
Park 51 Website
why they want obama to be a foreign-born muslim
An excerpt from FogCityJournal.com: Why Republicans Need Obama to be a Foreign-Born Muslim By Rachel Kiernan
What needs to be addressed is why so many in this country want to believe that Obama is a Muslim, even when they criticized Obama for following a “radical” black Christian leader. This is true in spite of the fact that Obama was raised by his Christian mother and grandparents, having barely known his father. It speaks of the very essence by those who fear an America which no longer looks like they. This manufactured phobia of all things Muslim and of all things non-white (think “white slavery” and the anti-Hispanic establishment) is a response by those who feel that they have lost control over their own lives and power to those who traditionally have been the most disenfranchised and powerless.
This goes beyond those who wish that Obama was a Muslim and a foreigner. This is a manufactured crisis by those who wish to divide the country into two camps by whipping up hysteria against Muslims, blacks, Hispanics and anyone who does not look and pray as they.
Friday, August 20, 2010
mooz-lum trailer
see also: mooz-lum, coming soon!
Examiner: MOOZ-lum the movie: Official Hollywood trailer
Huffington Post: I Am a Muslimamerican by Qasim Basir (the film-maker behind Mooz-lum)
Thursday, August 19, 2010
third party for african-americans (in ny)?
Race-Talk: A third party: The choice for the African-American masses by Frederick Meade describes the reasons behind the creation of the state-wide third party, the New York Democratic Freedom Party. (Primarily, a perceived neglect of African-American interests on the part of the Democratic Party, even post-Obama).
see also: top ten reasons why van jones should give up on obama and the democratic party and come home to the greens
see also: top ten reasons why van jones should give up on obama and the democratic party and come home to the greens
islam and the secular state
I recently picked up Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im's Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a so it was an interesting coincidence to also find a podcast over at the Muslim Voice's site which included an interview with the author. (see Islam's Reformation in the Sudan). An-Na'im's perspective on the secular state is influenced by the ideas of the earlier Sudanese reformer, Ustadh Mahmoud Mohamed Taha whom I've mentioned before in the second message of islam.
You can find more of Taha's writings and thoughts here.
You can find more of Taha's writings and thoughts here.
recovering luqman the wise
Magari Aziza: Recovering Luqman the Wise brings together some interesting materials and insights on the person of Luqman, one of the pious people of African descent mentioned in the Quran.
is there islam in latin america?
Muslim Voices: Is there Islam in Latin America? by Rosemary Pennington, Program Coordinator for Voices and Visions is a graduate student in the School of Journalism at Indiana University.
There has been a lot of research and reporting on Muslim populations living in the United States and Europe. That work often centers around issues of identity and integration. And these issues are often portrayed as being unique to the “West.”
What that scholarship and reporting, has often overlooked is that there are Muslim populations in other non-majority Muslim regions. That includes Latin America.
A Social Science Research Council funded project at Florida International University’s Latin American & Caribbean Center is working to educate English speaking scholars and reporters about the Muslim populations in the region.
Beyond The Middle East
“I think Latin America has been one of the forgotten regions because of the Spanish and the Portuguese,” says Project Director Maria Logrono. She says most scholars who study Islam learn Arabic or Persian or focus on a traditional region in which to study the religion. “Most scholars approach the Middle East in area studies, not thinking about the larger geographic borders of it.”
Logrono says English-speaking media often ignore the Muslim populations in Central and South America until something bad happens.
“I guess we can say journalists have approached Islam in Latin America,” Logrono says, “But I think they have approached it only when there’s conflict and tension.”
Logrono says there is certainly tension in some parts of Latin America, especially where Islam chafes against Catholicism, but that’s not true of every country in the region or every Muslim group, either.
“The Muslim populations that you have in Latin America are, and this is especially the case of South America, mainly migrants and converts,” Logrono says. “When it comes to integration … what we have noticed is that Muslim migrants have integrated very well.”
Creolization Of Islam
In fact, there’s some debate whether a kind of “Creole” Islam has begun to develop in places like Brazil and Cuba.
“Scholars working on Islam in Cuba will tell you, ‘Yes, there is actually an attempt at Creolization of Islam, or creating a Cuban Islam,’ in which something as unthinkable as eating pork may be something that Muslims in Cuba are considering.”
Logrono and her project staff have been working on a short documentary for the last year about Islam in the region. It’s limited in scope, focusing on Argentina and Brazil, but Logrono hopes it will give viewers a taste of what life is like for Latin American Muslims.
“We went and filmed communities and their gatherings and their practices and their histories to show the diversity of Muslim communities in Latin America,” she says. “Because we couldn’t accomplish all Latin America…what we tried to do is take two of the most representative places but obviously trying to open questions for debate and, hopefully, for future research.”
You can find more find more information about Logrono’s work as well as view photos and the documentary at the project’s website.
There has been a lot of research and reporting on Muslim populations living in the United States and Europe. That work often centers around issues of identity and integration. And these issues are often portrayed as being unique to the “West.”
What that scholarship and reporting, has often overlooked is that there are Muslim populations in other non-majority Muslim regions. That includes Latin America.
A Social Science Research Council funded project at Florida International University’s Latin American & Caribbean Center is working to educate English speaking scholars and reporters about the Muslim populations in the region.
Beyond The Middle East
“I think Latin America has been one of the forgotten regions because of the Spanish and the Portuguese,” says Project Director Maria Logrono. She says most scholars who study Islam learn Arabic or Persian or focus on a traditional region in which to study the religion. “Most scholars approach the Middle East in area studies, not thinking about the larger geographic borders of it.”
Logrono says English-speaking media often ignore the Muslim populations in Central and South America until something bad happens.
“I guess we can say journalists have approached Islam in Latin America,” Logrono says, “But I think they have approached it only when there’s conflict and tension.”
Logrono says there is certainly tension in some parts of Latin America, especially where Islam chafes against Catholicism, but that’s not true of every country in the region or every Muslim group, either.
“The Muslim populations that you have in Latin America are, and this is especially the case of South America, mainly migrants and converts,” Logrono says. “When it comes to integration … what we have noticed is that Muslim migrants have integrated very well.”
Creolization Of Islam
In fact, there’s some debate whether a kind of “Creole” Islam has begun to develop in places like Brazil and Cuba.
“Scholars working on Islam in Cuba will tell you, ‘Yes, there is actually an attempt at Creolization of Islam, or creating a Cuban Islam,’ in which something as unthinkable as eating pork may be something that Muslims in Cuba are considering.”
Logrono and her project staff have been working on a short documentary for the last year about Islam in the region. It’s limited in scope, focusing on Argentina and Brazil, but Logrono hopes it will give viewers a taste of what life is like for Latin American Muslims.
“We went and filmed communities and their gatherings and their practices and their histories to show the diversity of Muslim communities in Latin America,” she says. “Because we couldn’t accomplish all Latin America…what we tried to do is take two of the most representative places but obviously trying to open questions for debate and, hopefully, for future research.”
You can find more find more information about Logrono’s work as well as view photos and the documentary at the project’s website.
12 week plan
I've mentioned Billy Wimsatt (Upski) before. Now he has a 12 Week Plan to help coordinate progressive political efforts in preparation for the November elections.
Huffington Post: The 12 Week Plan: A Road Map to Not Getting Our A**es Kicked on November 2
Huffington Post: The 12 Week Plan: A Road Map to Not Getting Our A**es Kicked on November 2
islam and homosexuality
Over at the Goatmilk blog there has been an interesting set of discussions on homosexuality and Islam. The original articles are framed in terms of whether American Muslims should support the right of same sex marriage in the US. Mahdi Ahmad and Sister A take the "No" position while Sabir Ibrahim and Michael Muhammad Knight argue "Yes." The negative argument emphasizes the sinfulness of homosexual acts according to Islamic principles. The more nuanced affirmative argument says that yes, homosexual acts are sinful but the US isn't run according to the Shariah and Muslims should embrace a model of American society which allows space for many different groups (racial / political / ethnic / religious / sexual) have a right to co-exist.
What I found surprising is that much of the discussion in the comments section wasn't about the above arguments as much as about whether homosexual acts were really prohibited in the first place. For most Muslims, the fact that homosexual acts are prohibited in Islam is fairly uncontroversial. In order to argue otherwise one basically has to ignore any kind of mainstream fiqh, take a radically skeptical attitude towards the hadith which clearly speak negatively towards sodomy (whether homosexual or heterosexual) and then radically reinterpret the multiple Quranic statements addressing the people of Lot along the lines of: Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.
In the course of participating in those discussions I found some interesting resources:
First, a blog called Eye on ‘Gay Muslims’ with the subtitle "Principled, compassionate Islamic perspective"
Second, a paper The Effeminates of Early Medina by Everett K. Rowson gives some insights and descriptions into the role of the mukhannathun or so called 'effeminates' during the time of the prophet and the later generations.
And thirdly, the paper Ibn Hazm on Homosexuality: A Case-study of Zahiri Legal Methodology which, as the title explains, looks at how the Zahiri (Literalist) school derives its ruling on homosexuality. I think the paper is interesting on two counts; first, it is a good example of how "literal" doesn't necessarily mean "strict" or "harsh", and second, the paper argues that Ibn Hazm himself was a chaste homosexual.
What I found surprising is that much of the discussion in the comments section wasn't about the above arguments as much as about whether homosexual acts were really prohibited in the first place. For most Muslims, the fact that homosexual acts are prohibited in Islam is fairly uncontroversial. In order to argue otherwise one basically has to ignore any kind of mainstream fiqh, take a radically skeptical attitude towards the hadith which clearly speak negatively towards sodomy (whether homosexual or heterosexual) and then radically reinterpret the multiple Quranic statements addressing the people of Lot along the lines of: Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.
In the course of participating in those discussions I found some interesting resources:
First, a blog called Eye on ‘Gay Muslims’ with the subtitle "Principled, compassionate Islamic perspective"
Second, a paper The Effeminates of Early Medina by Everett K. Rowson gives some insights and descriptions into the role of the mukhannathun or so called 'effeminates' during the time of the prophet and the later generations.
And thirdly, the paper Ibn Hazm on Homosexuality: A Case-study of Zahiri Legal Methodology which, as the title explains, looks at how the Zahiri (Literalist) school derives its ruling on homosexuality. I think the paper is interesting on two counts; first, it is a good example of how "literal" doesn't necessarily mean "strict" or "harsh", and second, the paper argues that Ibn Hazm himself was a chaste homosexual.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
ramadan mubarak y'all
Seekers Guidance: The Fiqh Of Fasting In the Hanafi Madhhab by Ustadha Naielah Ackbarali
more responses to wyclef
First, Former Fugee Pras Not Backing Wyclef In Haitian Presidential Bid, Slams Jet Use and also Sean Penn 'Very Suspicious' Of Wyclef Jean's Haitian Presidential Bid
But finally, on Savior's Day (with Wyclef in attendance) Farrakhan cautions the singer/candidate that people will try to get their claws on him in order to serve their own agendas:
But finally, on Savior's Day (with Wyclef in attendance) Farrakhan cautions the singer/candidate that people will try to get their claws on him in order to serve their own agendas:
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
hialeah haikus
For a while now I've been wrestling with the idea of writing poems about Miami and by a happy coincidence I found out that a local bookstore was having an event tonight to promote a short volume of poetry called Hialeah Haikus. For the moment, these are a few of my favorite.
1.
left side of face hurts
big mistake at Mami's house
Che Guevara shirt
2.
we buried pancho
now, like Cuban Highlander
gramps is the last one
3.
"el de la barba
quien carajo es, primo?"
Citizenship Test.
University of Wynwood: Hialeah Haiku, 2nd Printing Book Release and Reading
1.
left side of face hurts
big mistake at Mami's house
Che Guevara shirt
2.
we buried pancho
now, like Cuban Highlander
gramps is the last one
3.
"el de la barba
quien carajo es, primo?"
Citizenship Test.
University of Wynwood: Hialeah Haiku, 2nd Printing Book Release and Reading
sarah palin, the fourteenth amendment and alaska
I plan to say something in another blogpost about the recent mean-spirited talk about repealing the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (or specifically its provisions which grant citizenship to all those born "in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", even the children of undocumented aliens). But for now I want to focus on a different part of the Fourteenth Amendment:
The above was written in the wake of the Civil War but now it certainly makes me think of Sarah and Todd Palin's involvement in the openly secessionist Alaskan Independence Party.
From one perspective my objection is moot since a long time ago the Congress voted to indefinitely remove the restriction in order to help heal the wounds created by the Civil War. But even so, I would argue that the principle is a serious one and should be given more attention than it seems to have gotten. I mean, I can understand what it means to be a Muslim patriot or a Christian patriot or a Buddhist patriot or even an atheist patriot. And I can understand what it means to be a left-wing patriot or a right-wing patriot or a liberal patriot or a conservative patriot. But I don't believe one can be a secessionist and a patriot. Instead of seeking what is best for the United States, the Palins and the AIP seem the political equivalent of South Park's Eric Cartman ("Screw you guys, I'm going home".)
Alaska Sounds like Aztlan -- Secessionists Go Mainstream
The Constitution Party: Delusional Religious Fanatics Pushing for Christian Tyranny
Wikipedia: Alaskan Independence Party
Alaskan Independence Party: The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The above was written in the wake of the Civil War but now it certainly makes me think of Sarah and Todd Palin's involvement in the openly secessionist Alaskan Independence Party.
From one perspective my objection is moot since a long time ago the Congress voted to indefinitely remove the restriction in order to help heal the wounds created by the Civil War. But even so, I would argue that the principle is a serious one and should be given more attention than it seems to have gotten. I mean, I can understand what it means to be a Muslim patriot or a Christian patriot or a Buddhist patriot or even an atheist patriot. And I can understand what it means to be a left-wing patriot or a right-wing patriot or a liberal patriot or a conservative patriot. But I don't believe one can be a secessionist and a patriot. Instead of seeking what is best for the United States, the Palins and the AIP seem the political equivalent of South Park's Eric Cartman ("Screw you guys, I'm going home".)
Alaska Sounds like Aztlan -- Secessionists Go Mainstream
The Constitution Party: Delusional Religious Fanatics Pushing for Christian Tyranny
Wikipedia: Alaskan Independence Party
Alaskan Independence Party: The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
if he was president...
Some of you may have heard that former Fugees-member Wyclef Jean is considering a run for President of Haiti. For those of us who like his music and are moved by his lyrics it is tempting to assume that he would be a wonderful choice.
But some are questioning that assumption by pointing to some of Wyclef's connections to right-wing elements of the Haitian polticial scene.
(For more see: Wyclef Jean for president of Haiti? Look beyond the hype by Charlie Hinton, with editing assistance from Kiilu Nyasha)
But some are questioning that assumption by pointing to some of Wyclef's connections to right-wing elements of the Haitian polticial scene.
To cut to the chase, no election in Haiti, and no candidate in those elections, will be considered legitimate by the majority of Haiti’s population, unless it includes the full and fair participation of the Fanmi Lavalas Party of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Fanmi Lavalas is unquestionably the most popular party in the country, yet the “international community,” led by the United States, France and Canada, has done everything possible to undermine Aristide and Lavalas, overthrowing him twice by military coups in 1991 and 2004 and banishing Aristide, who now lives in South Africa with his family, from the Americas.
[...]
Fanmi Lavalas has already been banned from the next round of elections, so enter Wyclef Jean. Jean comes from a prominent Haitian family that has virulently opposed Lavalas since the 1990 elections. His uncle is Raymond Joseph – also a rumored presidential candidate – who became Haitian ambassador to the United States under the coup government and remains so today. Kevin Pina writes in “It’s not all about that! Wyclef Jean is fronting in Haiti,” Joseph is “the co-publisher of Haiti Observateur, a right-wing rag that has been an apologist for the killers in the Haitian military going back as far as the brutal coup against Aristide in 1991.
(For more see: Wyclef Jean for president of Haiti? Look beyond the hype by Charlie Hinton, with editing assistance from Kiilu Nyasha)
Thursday, July 29, 2010
inception and islam
Inner Wakefulness
This place is a dream
only a sleeper considers it real
then death comes like dawn
and you wake up laughing
at what you thought
was your grief
A man goes to sleep in the town
where he has always lived
and he dreams
he's living in another town
in the dream he doesn't remember
the town he's sleeping in his bed in
he believes the reality
of the dream town
the world is that kind of sleep
Humankind is being led
along an evolving course,
through this migration
of intelligences
and though we seem
to be sleeping
there is an inner wakefulness,
that directs the dream
and that will eventually
startle us back
to the truth of
who we are
-Rumi
'Man is asleep and when he dies he awakens'
-attributed to the prophet Muhammad
And nothing is the life of this world but a play and a passing delight; and the life in the hereafter is by far the better for all who are conscious of God. Will you not, then, use your reason? (Quran 6:32)
I saw the movie Inception this past weekend. It was a pretty enjoyable and thought-provoking film. For those that don't know, Inception is the latest entry in the genre of reality-bending films like Total Recall and the Matrix series. If you have already seen the film, you can follow some of the links below to see more detailed discussions and debates over what is "really" going on. If you haven't seen the film, I don't want to ruin it for you with spoilers. I'll just say that the film plays around with the distinction between dreaming and reality and that one of the more common ways to "wake up" from within the dream is to die.
One of the things which struck me about this film (as is hopefully evident from the various quotes at the start of this blog entry) is the extent to which Inception resonates with Islamic metaphysics. In other words, from the perspective of Islam (or at least, some of the mystics) our world is actually very similar to that of Inception. In fact, there are at least two interesting ways to make this correspondence. As suggested by the above quotes, either we are the dreamers and we wake up when we die. Or if you look at some explanations of wahdat al-wujud, then Allah (swt) is the reality and we are less real (dream-like projections) relative to Him.
On a related side note, one of the characters of the film is actually named Yusuf (played by Dileep Rao) who in the Quran (and the Bible) is known for his ability to interpret dreams.
Goatmilk: “INCEPTION – THE TOP KEEPS SPINNING”
Goatmilk: “INCEPTION – The Top Stopped Spinning”
The Volokh Conspiracy: Understanding Inception
Cinematical: Dissecting 'Inception': Six Interpretations and Five Plot Holes
Vulture: Inception’s Dileep Rao Answers All Your Questions About Inception
This place is a dream
only a sleeper considers it real
then death comes like dawn
and you wake up laughing
at what you thought
was your grief
A man goes to sleep in the town
where he has always lived
and he dreams
he's living in another town
in the dream he doesn't remember
the town he's sleeping in his bed in
he believes the reality
of the dream town
the world is that kind of sleep
Humankind is being led
along an evolving course,
through this migration
of intelligences
and though we seem
to be sleeping
there is an inner wakefulness,
that directs the dream
and that will eventually
startle us back
to the truth of
who we are
-Rumi
'Man is asleep and when he dies he awakens'
-attributed to the prophet Muhammad
And nothing is the life of this world but a play and a passing delight; and the life in the hereafter is by far the better for all who are conscious of God. Will you not, then, use your reason? (Quran 6:32)
I saw the movie Inception this past weekend. It was a pretty enjoyable and thought-provoking film. For those that don't know, Inception is the latest entry in the genre of reality-bending films like Total Recall and the Matrix series. If you have already seen the film, you can follow some of the links below to see more detailed discussions and debates over what is "really" going on. If you haven't seen the film, I don't want to ruin it for you with spoilers. I'll just say that the film plays around with the distinction between dreaming and reality and that one of the more common ways to "wake up" from within the dream is to die.
One of the things which struck me about this film (as is hopefully evident from the various quotes at the start of this blog entry) is the extent to which Inception resonates with Islamic metaphysics. In other words, from the perspective of Islam (or at least, some of the mystics) our world is actually very similar to that of Inception. In fact, there are at least two interesting ways to make this correspondence. As suggested by the above quotes, either we are the dreamers and we wake up when we die. Or if you look at some explanations of wahdat al-wujud, then Allah (swt) is the reality and we are less real (dream-like projections) relative to Him.
On a related side note, one of the characters of the film is actually named Yusuf (played by Dileep Rao) who in the Quran (and the Bible) is known for his ability to interpret dreams.
Goatmilk: “INCEPTION – THE TOP KEEPS SPINNING”
Goatmilk: “INCEPTION – The Top Stopped Spinning”
The Volokh Conspiracy: Understanding Inception
Cinematical: Dissecting 'Inception': Six Interpretations and Five Plot Holes
Vulture: Inception’s Dileep Rao Answers All Your Questions About Inception
Monday, July 26, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
soy palestino
An Aljazeera documentary by Palestinian filmaker Osama Qashoo, who goes to Cuba and learns that "Palestino" is Havana slang learns that "Palestino" is Havana slang for second-class citizens from the rural east (Oriente Province).
h/t to MT. Akbar
h/t to MT. Akbar
Friday, July 23, 2010
what should be the national anthem...
I've always loved how Ray Charles chose to start with one of the deeper later stanzas before going to the more scenic (superficial) first stanza from when he was a "youngster" back in school.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
female imams blaze trail among china's muslims
NPR: Female Imams Blaze Trail Amid China's Muslims by Louisa Lim
I wish that I (and the Muslim community generally) had been more aware of this history back when Amina Wadud was making waves with the whole issue of female-led prayers. Basically, they have had female imams for about 100 years in China (along with female mosques which developed organically from Quranic schools for girls). It might be interesting to compare Amina Wadud's approach to female empowerment with what the Chinese Muslims have done. Wadud's move was arguably more radical and uncompromising but also marginalized as non-orthodox. The Chinese Muslim community, on the other hand, seems to have found spaces within fairly traditional parameters for female leadership in the community.
see also:
quran and woman
I wish that I (and the Muslim community generally) had been more aware of this history back when Amina Wadud was making waves with the whole issue of female-led prayers. Basically, they have had female imams for about 100 years in China (along with female mosques which developed organically from Quranic schools for girls). It might be interesting to compare Amina Wadud's approach to female empowerment with what the Chinese Muslims have done. Wadud's move was arguably more radical and uncompromising but also marginalized as non-orthodox. The Chinese Muslim community, on the other hand, seems to have found spaces within fairly traditional parameters for female leadership in the community.
see also:
quran and woman
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
more than one way to break a fast
Your lips are dark, my love,
and fleshy, like a date
And night is honeyslow
in coming, long to wait
I have fasted, darling,
daylong all Ramadan
but your mouth -- so sweet,
so near -- the hours long!
Grant but one taste -- one kiss!
You know what good reward
feeders of fasters gain
from our clement Lord
See how the fruits are ripe
and ready, O servant of God
Kiss me -- it's time, it's time!
And let us earn reward
By Mohja Kahf
and fleshy, like a date
And night is honeyslow
in coming, long to wait
I have fasted, darling,
daylong all Ramadan
but your mouth -- so sweet,
so near -- the hours long!
Grant but one taste -- one kiss!
You know what good reward
feeders of fasters gain
from our clement Lord
See how the fruits are ripe
and ready, O servant of God
Kiss me -- it's time, it's time!
And let us earn reward
By Mohja Kahf
ok, now can we call israel an apartheid state?
Tel Aviv Rabbis: Renting apartments to foreign workers violates Jewish law
(From Haaretz by way of Loonwatch)
Twenty-five rabbis from Tel Aviv have signed an edict forbidding the rental of apartments to “infiltrators” and illegal foreign workers.
In a public announcement, the rabbis said that “in the wake of the severe pressure that the neighborhoods of south Tel Aviv face and their abandonment by the government, that begins with the Israeli-Egyptian border and ends with the lawlessness and violence that is taking over south Tel Aviv, the residents of the neighborhoods have decided that the present situation cannot continue”.
The authors of a petition on the subject added that “they will not let the neighborhoods in which they grew up to turn into Sudanese neighborhoods, something that has already happened to the Neve Sha’anan neighborhood. After many attempts using acceptable legal means, the residents decided to have the rabbis sign an ‘Edict Forbidding the Rental of Apartments to Infiltrators,’ and hope that this will halt the deterioration of the
neighborhoods.”
An announcement that activists intend to post on bulletin boards around the city states that “we, the undersigned, neighborhood rabbis and synagogue rabbis, hereby warn the public of the religious prohibitions and the foreseeable dangers that would result from renting apartments to these people.” The rabbis added that “may the efforts of those that toil to defend the Jewish character of the City of Tel Aviv be strengthened.”
“This is a sad day for the citizens of Israel, when racism receives legitimization,” said Ran Cohen, the Director of the Migrant Refugee & Non-Status Division of the organization Doctors for Human Rights. “We call upon citizens to fiercely reject this petition and courageously stand in opposition to this display of fear and xenophobia that is gaining traction within our society.”
Meretz MK Ilan Gil’on said that “again, we are witness to racist incitement on the part of the rabbis. The same rabbis that should be preaching love of Israel and all of humanity are attempting to incite hatred and arouse fear among Israeli society. The Attorney General must investigate to find out if these rabbis are on the government payroll.”
spilling the beans
the green party supports divestment
churches call for divestment from israel
juan cole on borders, both ancient and modern
(From Haaretz by way of Loonwatch)
Twenty-five rabbis from Tel Aviv have signed an edict forbidding the rental of apartments to “infiltrators” and illegal foreign workers.
In a public announcement, the rabbis said that “in the wake of the severe pressure that the neighborhoods of south Tel Aviv face and their abandonment by the government, that begins with the Israeli-Egyptian border and ends with the lawlessness and violence that is taking over south Tel Aviv, the residents of the neighborhoods have decided that the present situation cannot continue”.
The authors of a petition on the subject added that “they will not let the neighborhoods in which they grew up to turn into Sudanese neighborhoods, something that has already happened to the Neve Sha’anan neighborhood. After many attempts using acceptable legal means, the residents decided to have the rabbis sign an ‘Edict Forbidding the Rental of Apartments to Infiltrators,’ and hope that this will halt the deterioration of the
neighborhoods.”
An announcement that activists intend to post on bulletin boards around the city states that “we, the undersigned, neighborhood rabbis and synagogue rabbis, hereby warn the public of the religious prohibitions and the foreseeable dangers that would result from renting apartments to these people.” The rabbis added that “may the efforts of those that toil to defend the Jewish character of the City of Tel Aviv be strengthened.”
“This is a sad day for the citizens of Israel, when racism receives legitimization,” said Ran Cohen, the Director of the Migrant Refugee & Non-Status Division of the organization Doctors for Human Rights. “We call upon citizens to fiercely reject this petition and courageously stand in opposition to this display of fear and xenophobia that is gaining traction within our society.”
Meretz MK Ilan Gil’on said that “again, we are witness to racist incitement on the part of the rabbis. The same rabbis that should be preaching love of Israel and all of humanity are attempting to incite hatred and arouse fear among Israeli society. The Attorney General must investigate to find out if these rabbis are on the government payroll.”
spilling the beans
the green party supports divestment
churches call for divestment from israel
juan cole on borders, both ancient and modern
Friday, July 16, 2010
oneness of being, oneness of witnessing
I've been in a studious mood lately. Mostly I've been going over some basic fiqh by trying to see how much of Molana Ashraf Ali Thanvi's Bahishti Zewar I can read through before Ramadan comes in. (tick, tock) But I've also been trying to go deeper into some topics in aquidah and in the process I picked up a CD of Nuh Ha Mim Keller discussing what it means to be an Ashari where he mentions wahdat al-wujud. It just moved me to try to see if I could find a clearer exposition of the topic online and I found: Wahdat al-Wujud, Wahdat al-Shuhud and the Safest Position by Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani.
see also:
nothing unreal exists
see also:
nothing unreal exists
Thursday, July 08, 2010
muslims against sharia? (part three)
The following is a rehash of an exchange which was originally in the comment section of Planet Grenada under mccain's spiritual advisor hates muslims and islam between myself "A" and someone using the username Muslims Against the Sharia "B". I'm reposting it mainly because the person behind the username apparently disappeared along with their comments (fortunately they were preserved in e-mail). Also, since that initial exchange, I've learned that Pamela Geller is one of the main people behind Muslims Against Sharia and she has also been popping up in the news for various Islamophobic activities (trying to stop Cordoba House, putting anti-Islamic messages on buses in major cities, etc). Another figure behind the site is named Khalim Massoud who serves as president of the organization. I'm not sure who exactly is the person behind the username in this exchange.
see also:
muslims against shariah? (part one)
muslims against sharia? (part two)
A: Isn't Muslims against the Sharia kind of like saying Jews for Pork?
B: No. "Muslims Against Sharia" is more like "Christians Against the Inquisition".
A: I understand that that may be the intention but the term "shariah" basically refers to the commandments of Islam, even when they are not also enforced by the state.
B: And which commandments would they be, Abdul-Halim V.?
A: All of them.
B: Could you be more specific? "All of them" is an answer of the person who has no idea what he is talking about.
A: [online definitions deleted]
So the Shariah includes all the commandments of Islam, dietary restrictions, rules about fasting, prayer, the rest of the pillars, inheritance law, performing dhikr, hygine etc.
So even a "liberal"/"progressive" Muslim who views religion as a fundamentally private affair and prays and fasts on their own is still following part of "the shariah"
So to say you are against the Shariah suggests a rather thorough kind of anti-nomianism.
B: Do those commandments include "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them"?
A: well here's a little bit more of the passage:
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
So if you see more of the context, this passage is definitely not telling Muslims to fight against peaceful non-Muslims who are minding their own business. It is talking about fighting back against non-Muslims who have attacked the Muslims and driven them from their homes.
If you check out
http://www.twf.org/Library/Violence.html
You could see more discussion of the verses which Islamophobes typically cite on the issue of violence and Islam.
B: What a bunch of crap! How about 9.5? What context is that in?
A: same thing. In my experience, every single time a non-Muslim points to an isolated verse which seems to command towards violence, all one has to do is read a couple of verses before and a couple of verses after and it becomes clear that the verse is talking about the Muslims protecting themselves from a group which has already attacked the Muslims. There is no Quranic justification for attacking peaceful tax-paying non-Muslims who mind their own business.
9:4 says to keep ones treaties with the pagans who have not attacked the Muslims or helped their enemies.
9:5 says one can attack the other pagans but if they repent the Muslism should leave them alone.
9:6 says: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
9:13 gives more description of the pagans being described whom the Muslims have permission to fight:
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!
So given the tone of your response I have to wonder if you are even Muslim?
B: I don't know what Koran you have, but 9.5 is the infamous Verse of the Sword: "Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
A: Yes, I read that and summarized that previously. But what kind of pagans. Does it talk about pagans who are peacefully living with the Muslims minding their own business. No. That's clarified by the later verse.
9:13
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you?
So is Muslims Against Sharia not really run by Muslims?
B: Again, that's a bunch of crap. Anything non-Muslims do can be interpreted as an attack on Islam. Mere presence of non-Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula is often interpreted as such.
Muslims Against Sharia consists of Muslims, but we let anyone become our blog contributors.
A: So in other words, you are actually a non-Muslim and opposed to Islam per se.
B: That's another one of your idiotic assumptions. Every MASH blogger who has "Muslim" in his/her screen name is a Muslim. Every MASH blogger whose screen name is "Muslims Against Sharia" is a member of Muslims Against Sharia. I hope the explanation is not too complicated for you.
A: So you are actually a Muslim and believe that the Quran is a revelation from God?
B: Yes / Most of it
A: So which passages would you not consider revelation from God?
B: http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php
A: I don't know what it would mean to claim to be Muslim and at the same time reject several whole surahs and other passages from the Quran. What makes you a Muslim and not just some Unitarian.
B: My parents are Muslim, I believe in Five Pillars, and , most importantly, I consider myself Muslim.
A: I would say your parents don't matter. And believing in pillars is nice. But if there are whole sections of the Quran which you don't just question or doubt, but actually kick to the curb that's a more serious issue.
B: The whole point is that we DO question those sections. Perhaps you should read our our Manifesto before continuing this discussion.
A: No, you don't understand. It would be one thing if you believed that the entire Quran were valid as revelation and then struggled to understand it. You've apparently stopped struggling and have decided to reject some of it.
I was raised Christian but when I reached the point of actually rejecting parts of the Bible, I knew it was time to shop for a new religion.
Also, your manifesto is incorrect. There are definitely passages in the Bible which clearly call for genocide of certain ethnic groups and capital punishment for certain religious violations.
B: "I was raised Christian but when I reached the point of actually rejecting parts of the Bible, I knew it was time to shop for a new religion."
So you were smart enough to find inconsistencies in the Bible, but you're too dumb to find inconsistencies in the Koran?
The Bible does not call for murder of people based solely on the infidel status.
A:
Deuteronomy 13
[6] "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which neither you nor your fathers have known,
[7] some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other,
[8] you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him;
[9] but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
[...]
[12] "If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there,
[13] that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known,
[14] then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you,
[15] you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword.
So I'd invite you to reconsider your claims about the Bible. And also remember that there are some Reconstructionist Christians who actually do consider these old commandments to be valid even though they are in the OT.
To be honest though, this wasn't the worst aspect for me. The most objectionable commands (from my perspective) are the genocidal ones:
Deuteronomy 7
[1] "When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves,
[2] and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.
[3] You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons.
[4] For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.
[5] But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Ashe'rim, and burn their graven images with fire.
[6] "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.
And then you can read about how these commands were implemented later on in the Bible in the historical sections. For example most of the Book of Joshua.
In that last verse note that it says to totally eliminate those particular nations. It doesn't even give them a chance to convert. Whatever else you may say about the Quran, it certainly doesn't justify genocide. Interestingly enough, Jewish rabbis have actually come up with a detailed list of all the commandments in the Torah (the traditional list itemizes 613 commandments) and the genocidal ones are still there.
And again, if you look at the verses in context, the Quran does not justify attacking peaceful tax paying non-Muslims who mind their own business.
For example (4:90) "...if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them."
Your comment regarding the Bible seemed odd. Are you sure you are not Christian?
B: Deuteronomy 13 - my bad. Apparently the Bible also calls for murder of infidels. That must have been the basis for the Inquisition. However, I haven't heard this verse recited by either Jewish or Christian religious figures, while Koran 2.191 or 9.5 are repeated constantly.
"Your comment regarding the Bible seemed odd. Are you sure you are not Christian?"
If I were, wouldn't I know what Deuteronomy 13 says?
A: I make very few assumptions about how well people know the books of their own traditions. And in particular, I've seen a wide variation in how well Christians know the Bible.
So are you going to correct what your Manifesto says about the Bible?
B: Absolutely. "While neither Testament calls for mass murder of unbelievers, the Koran does." will be removed.
A: It's unfortunate (for you) I think. I probably shouldn't even give you advice but your group would have been a lot better off not talking about the Judeo-Christian aspect at all. Instead you went over the top in defending the Bible and you ended up putting things in your manifesto which you've basically acknowledged are not true (which then speaks to the integrity of your organization). It also makes it easier to make the claim that you don't just want Muslims to be better Muslims, but you actually would like for Muslims to convert to believing in the Bible.
B: "you've basically acknowledged are not true (which then speaks to the integrity of your organization)."
It does. If we were assholes like you, we'd never acknowledge to making a mistake. We'd keep pressing on that something like 2.191 or 9.5 or Deuteronomy 13 is an acceptable concept for the Holy Text.
A "hypocrite" rather than an "asshole" would be a better description.
A: [20.44] Then speak to him a gentle word haply he may mind or fear.
in any case, hypocrisy isn't an issue. I'm actually following the Quranic verses in question as I understand them. (i.e. I haven't been subject to violent attacks, I have the right to practice my religion freely, so I have no reason to fight) I just think that you are misinterpreting those verses uncharitably for your own reasons.
In terms of the Biblical verses, I'm not sure why you are being difficult. It seems like an easy fix. *You* as an individual have admitted that the verses are problematic (which is great) but since the manifesto hasn't been changed, your organization still isn't "acknowledging mistakes" (to borrow one of your slogans) If you had said to me "We have to have a Muslims Against Sharia committee meeting before changing the manifesto but we are considering it" that would have been fine, at least for a while.
Also, no need for name calling (I've noticed that, not just here but in other blogs where you or other group members have been posting)
Also I think I've given you explanations for 2:191 and 9:5 by bringing in the surrounding context. If you disagree, just say why. Otherwise just let the matter drop.
B: "We have to have a Muslims Against Sharia committee meeting before changing the manifesto but we are considering it"
As we wrote before, that line will be removed, because it is factually incorrect. There is no reason for considering that. If you can't keep your panties on, there is nothing we can do.
As for 2.191 and 9.5 you can't e more full of shit even if you tried. However, there is a distinct possibility that you're really THAT stupid and don't see anything wrong with them. I that case, we'd see no reason for trying to show you the light either.
"Also, no need for name calling"
Don't flatter yourself. Calling you a "hypocrite" or "full of shit", is an accurate description.
A: For a decent discussion of 4:90 which I already mentioned, and which provides a context for the verses you've been mentioning, we could check out:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/quran-quote-of-day-on-peace-fourth.html
If you are really serious about reading the Quran intelligently, a big part of that is to not just cherrypick verses, but to actually read the different verses together.
B: Yeah, that's exactly what we need, to consider an opinion of another degenerate apologist for radical Islam. Let's skip Cole and go straight to al-Zawahiri for interpretations. At least we won't get apologetic bullshit from him.
A: Juan Cole's credentials and experience when it comes to Middle Eastern history and current events are pretty considerable and you can't easily dismiss him.
Also, he's never been a Muslim. In fact, for many years he was a Bahai. And if you knew anything about the Bahai faith you would realize that the Bahai faith, in some respects, is more radical than Muslims Against Shariah in the sense that the Bahais will openly say that the laws of Islam are no longer valid and have already been replaced by other codes of law.
B: "Juan Cole's credentials and experience when it comes to Middle Eastern history and current events are pretty considerable and you can't easily dismiss him."
One dumbshit is prasing another. What a surprise!
"Also, he's never been a Muslim."
So what? Neither has John Esposito. Or Gordon England. Or Jeremiah Wright. Or Noah Feldman. Or Jonathan Powell. Etc. You don't have to be an Islamist to be an apologist for radical Islam. You can be a Christian, a Jew, or anything else. Degenerates come in all shapes and sizes.
If you had enough brains to make judgments based on several articles, rather than a single one, you wouldn't be coming off dumber than you look.
A: articles?!? Sometimes I even read books. And again, you still haven't given an actual counter-argument.
B: "counter-argument"? Arguing with Cole's ideas is like arguing with a person who claims that humans have three legs. It's just a waste of time. Which we have done enough here.
A: Cole was just a convenient reference. The basic argument is clearly there in the Quran. If you just read wholistically instead of taking verses in isolation it is obvious that the Quran puts all sorts of caveats and conditions and constraints on the use of force.
For example (4:90) "...if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them."
That's not a matter of credentials or being an "apologist for radical Islamism". It's just a matter of reading comprehension.
see also:
muslims against shariah? (part one)
muslims against sharia? (part two)
A: Isn't Muslims against the Sharia kind of like saying Jews for Pork?
B: No. "Muslims Against Sharia" is more like "Christians Against the Inquisition".
A: I understand that that may be the intention but the term "shariah" basically refers to the commandments of Islam, even when they are not also enforced by the state.
B: And which commandments would they be, Abdul-Halim V.?
A: All of them.
B: Could you be more specific? "All of them" is an answer of the person who has no idea what he is talking about.
A: [online definitions deleted]
So the Shariah includes all the commandments of Islam, dietary restrictions, rules about fasting, prayer, the rest of the pillars, inheritance law, performing dhikr, hygine etc.
So even a "liberal"/"progressive" Muslim who views religion as a fundamentally private affair and prays and fasts on their own is still following part of "the shariah"
So to say you are against the Shariah suggests a rather thorough kind of anti-nomianism.
B: Do those commandments include "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them"?
A: well here's a little bit more of the passage:
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
So if you see more of the context, this passage is definitely not telling Muslims to fight against peaceful non-Muslims who are minding their own business. It is talking about fighting back against non-Muslims who have attacked the Muslims and driven them from their homes.
If you check out
http://www.twf.org/Library/Violence.html
You could see more discussion of the verses which Islamophobes typically cite on the issue of violence and Islam.
B: What a bunch of crap! How about 9.5? What context is that in?
A: same thing. In my experience, every single time a non-Muslim points to an isolated verse which seems to command towards violence, all one has to do is read a couple of verses before and a couple of verses after and it becomes clear that the verse is talking about the Muslims protecting themselves from a group which has already attacked the Muslims. There is no Quranic justification for attacking peaceful tax-paying non-Muslims who mind their own business.
9:4 says to keep ones treaties with the pagans who have not attacked the Muslims or helped their enemies.
9:5 says one can attack the other pagans but if they repent the Muslism should leave them alone.
9:6 says: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
9:13 gives more description of the pagans being described whom the Muslims have permission to fight:
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!
So given the tone of your response I have to wonder if you are even Muslim?
B: I don't know what Koran you have, but 9.5 is the infamous Verse of the Sword: "Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
A: Yes, I read that and summarized that previously. But what kind of pagans. Does it talk about pagans who are peacefully living with the Muslims minding their own business. No. That's clarified by the later verse.
9:13
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you?
So is Muslims Against Sharia not really run by Muslims?
B: Again, that's a bunch of crap. Anything non-Muslims do can be interpreted as an attack on Islam. Mere presence of non-Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula is often interpreted as such.
Muslims Against Sharia consists of Muslims, but we let anyone become our blog contributors.
A: So in other words, you are actually a non-Muslim and opposed to Islam per se.
B: That's another one of your idiotic assumptions. Every MASH blogger who has "Muslim" in his/her screen name is a Muslim. Every MASH blogger whose screen name is "Muslims Against Sharia" is a member of Muslims Against Sharia. I hope the explanation is not too complicated for you.
A: So you are actually a Muslim and believe that the Quran is a revelation from God?
B: Yes / Most of it
A: So which passages would you not consider revelation from God?
B: http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php
A: I don't know what it would mean to claim to be Muslim and at the same time reject several whole surahs and other passages from the Quran. What makes you a Muslim and not just some Unitarian.
B: My parents are Muslim, I believe in Five Pillars, and , most importantly, I consider myself Muslim.
A: I would say your parents don't matter. And believing in pillars is nice. But if there are whole sections of the Quran which you don't just question or doubt, but actually kick to the curb that's a more serious issue.
B: The whole point is that we DO question those sections. Perhaps you should read our our Manifesto before continuing this discussion.
A: No, you don't understand. It would be one thing if you believed that the entire Quran were valid as revelation and then struggled to understand it. You've apparently stopped struggling and have decided to reject some of it.
I was raised Christian but when I reached the point of actually rejecting parts of the Bible, I knew it was time to shop for a new religion.
Also, your manifesto is incorrect. There are definitely passages in the Bible which clearly call for genocide of certain ethnic groups and capital punishment for certain religious violations.
B: "I was raised Christian but when I reached the point of actually rejecting parts of the Bible, I knew it was time to shop for a new religion."
So you were smart enough to find inconsistencies in the Bible, but you're too dumb to find inconsistencies in the Koran?
The Bible does not call for murder of people based solely on the infidel status.
A:
Deuteronomy 13
[6] "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which neither you nor your fathers have known,
[7] some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other,
[8] you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him;
[9] but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
[...]
[12] "If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there,
[13] that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known,
[14] then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you,
[15] you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword.
So I'd invite you to reconsider your claims about the Bible. And also remember that there are some Reconstructionist Christians who actually do consider these old commandments to be valid even though they are in the OT.
To be honest though, this wasn't the worst aspect for me. The most objectionable commands (from my perspective) are the genocidal ones:
Deuteronomy 7
[1] "When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves,
[2] and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.
[3] You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons.
[4] For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.
[5] But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Ashe'rim, and burn their graven images with fire.
[6] "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.
And then you can read about how these commands were implemented later on in the Bible in the historical sections. For example most of the Book of Joshua.
In that last verse note that it says to totally eliminate those particular nations. It doesn't even give them a chance to convert. Whatever else you may say about the Quran, it certainly doesn't justify genocide. Interestingly enough, Jewish rabbis have actually come up with a detailed list of all the commandments in the Torah (the traditional list itemizes 613 commandments) and the genocidal ones are still there.
And again, if you look at the verses in context, the Quran does not justify attacking peaceful tax paying non-Muslims who mind their own business.
For example (4:90) "...if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them."
Your comment regarding the Bible seemed odd. Are you sure you are not Christian?
B: Deuteronomy 13 - my bad. Apparently the Bible also calls for murder of infidels. That must have been the basis for the Inquisition. However, I haven't heard this verse recited by either Jewish or Christian religious figures, while Koran 2.191 or 9.5 are repeated constantly.
"Your comment regarding the Bible seemed odd. Are you sure you are not Christian?"
If I were, wouldn't I know what Deuteronomy 13 says?
A: I make very few assumptions about how well people know the books of their own traditions. And in particular, I've seen a wide variation in how well Christians know the Bible.
So are you going to correct what your Manifesto says about the Bible?
B: Absolutely. "While neither Testament calls for mass murder of unbelievers, the Koran does." will be removed.
A: It's unfortunate (for you) I think. I probably shouldn't even give you advice but your group would have been a lot better off not talking about the Judeo-Christian aspect at all. Instead you went over the top in defending the Bible and you ended up putting things in your manifesto which you've basically acknowledged are not true (which then speaks to the integrity of your organization). It also makes it easier to make the claim that you don't just want Muslims to be better Muslims, but you actually would like for Muslims to convert to believing in the Bible.
B: "you've basically acknowledged are not true (which then speaks to the integrity of your organization)."
It does. If we were assholes like you, we'd never acknowledge to making a mistake. We'd keep pressing on that something like 2.191 or 9.5 or Deuteronomy 13 is an acceptable concept for the Holy Text.
A "hypocrite" rather than an "asshole" would be a better description.
A: [20.44] Then speak to him a gentle word haply he may mind or fear.
in any case, hypocrisy isn't an issue. I'm actually following the Quranic verses in question as I understand them. (i.e. I haven't been subject to violent attacks, I have the right to practice my religion freely, so I have no reason to fight) I just think that you are misinterpreting those verses uncharitably for your own reasons.
In terms of the Biblical verses, I'm not sure why you are being difficult. It seems like an easy fix. *You* as an individual have admitted that the verses are problematic (which is great) but since the manifesto hasn't been changed, your organization still isn't "acknowledging mistakes" (to borrow one of your slogans) If you had said to me "We have to have a Muslims Against Sharia committee meeting before changing the manifesto but we are considering it" that would have been fine, at least for a while.
Also, no need for name calling (I've noticed that, not just here but in other blogs where you or other group members have been posting)
Also I think I've given you explanations for 2:191 and 9:5 by bringing in the surrounding context. If you disagree, just say why. Otherwise just let the matter drop.
B: "We have to have a Muslims Against Sharia committee meeting before changing the manifesto but we are considering it"
As we wrote before, that line will be removed, because it is factually incorrect. There is no reason for considering that. If you can't keep your panties on, there is nothing we can do.
As for 2.191 and 9.5 you can't e more full of shit even if you tried. However, there is a distinct possibility that you're really THAT stupid and don't see anything wrong with them. I that case, we'd see no reason for trying to show you the light either.
"Also, no need for name calling"
Don't flatter yourself. Calling you a "hypocrite" or "full of shit", is an accurate description.
A: For a decent discussion of 4:90 which I already mentioned, and which provides a context for the verses you've been mentioning, we could check out:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/quran-quote-of-day-on-peace-fourth.html
If you are really serious about reading the Quran intelligently, a big part of that is to not just cherrypick verses, but to actually read the different verses together.
B: Yeah, that's exactly what we need, to consider an opinion of another degenerate apologist for radical Islam. Let's skip Cole and go straight to al-Zawahiri for interpretations. At least we won't get apologetic bullshit from him.
A: Juan Cole's credentials and experience when it comes to Middle Eastern history and current events are pretty considerable and you can't easily dismiss him.
Also, he's never been a Muslim. In fact, for many years he was a Bahai. And if you knew anything about the Bahai faith you would realize that the Bahai faith, in some respects, is more radical than Muslims Against Shariah in the sense that the Bahais will openly say that the laws of Islam are no longer valid and have already been replaced by other codes of law.
B: "Juan Cole's credentials and experience when it comes to Middle Eastern history and current events are pretty considerable and you can't easily dismiss him."
One dumbshit is prasing another. What a surprise!
"Also, he's never been a Muslim."
So what? Neither has John Esposito. Or Gordon England. Or Jeremiah Wright. Or Noah Feldman. Or Jonathan Powell. Etc. You don't have to be an Islamist to be an apologist for radical Islam. You can be a Christian, a Jew, or anything else. Degenerates come in all shapes and sizes.
If you had enough brains to make judgments based on several articles, rather than a single one, you wouldn't be coming off dumber than you look.
A: articles?!? Sometimes I even read books. And again, you still haven't given an actual counter-argument.
B: "counter-argument"? Arguing with Cole's ideas is like arguing with a person who claims that humans have three legs. It's just a waste of time. Which we have done enough here.
A: Cole was just a convenient reference. The basic argument is clearly there in the Quran. If you just read wholistically instead of taking verses in isolation it is obvious that the Quran puts all sorts of caveats and conditions and constraints on the use of force.
For example (4:90) "...if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them."
That's not a matter of credentials or being an "apologist for radical Islamism". It's just a matter of reading comprehension.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
reyes de las calles - el mundo va acabarse
Just some amusing Afro-Cuban, Afro-futuristic, anti-racist, apocalyptic hip-hop. If I had more patience I would transcribe the lyrics along with the translation. (And I'm actually surprised and a little disappointed that no one else out there seems to have done it already.) The group's name means "Kings of the Streets" and the song's title means "The world is going to end". The lyrics tell the story of what happens when God (and the Martians) come down to Earth to set things right.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
steele and afghanistan round-up
I have to admit that I like Michael Steele a bit more than I "should". It's not just the entertainment value of his gaffes but I actually think adding his voice to the mix is healthy for the Republican Party and, in the very long term, for the country as a whole. Don't get me wrong... he's Republican, so on average I'm going to not like his positions. But I also wholeheartedly agree with Earl Ofari Hutchinson's observation:
I would even say I'm slightly optimistic that the growing prominence of Black (and also Indian-American) conservatives might help turn the image into a reality. In the healthiest case, the Republicans would dump their race-baiting, Southern-Strategy-playing xenophobic elements and morph into an honest pro-business libertarian party.
I would also mention that this episode shows how Ron/Rand Paul style libertarianism is not uniformly scary but is more of a mixed bag. Yeah, they have their reservations about the Civil Rights Act (which is not a trivial problem) but they are also more critical of the US various "adventures" in the Muslim world and elsewhere (which is also not a negligible thing).
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Steele got it Right about Afghanistan, But for the Wrong Reason
Fareed Zakaria Criticizes 'Disproportionate' Afghanistan War On CNN
Ron Paul Praises Embattled RNC Chief Michael Steele For 'Leadership' On Afghanistan
Jon Fleischman Is Latest GOP Official To Criticize Afghan War
Steele Summoned to Limbaugh's (Extremely) White House
Steele's Resignation Would Be a Catastrophe for Obama
Rethink Afghanistan
For now though the RNC still needs Steele for the very reason he was plucked for the lead role in the first place. In the wake of Obama's smash White House win, he was the best hope to prevent a battered, beaten, and demoralized GOP had from being shoved to the netherworld of national politics. The GOP is still widely sneered at and dismissed as an insular party of unreconstructed bigots, Deep South, rural and, non-college educated blue collar whites. Steele gives the party an image sheen that is anything but white, rural and Deep South.
I would even say I'm slightly optimistic that the growing prominence of Black (and also Indian-American) conservatives might help turn the image into a reality. In the healthiest case, the Republicans would dump their race-baiting, Southern-Strategy-playing xenophobic elements and morph into an honest pro-business libertarian party.
I would also mention that this episode shows how Ron/Rand Paul style libertarianism is not uniformly scary but is more of a mixed bag. Yeah, they have their reservations about the Civil Rights Act (which is not a trivial problem) but they are also more critical of the US various "adventures" in the Muslim world and elsewhere (which is also not a negligible thing).
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Steele got it Right about Afghanistan, But for the Wrong Reason
Fareed Zakaria Criticizes 'Disproportionate' Afghanistan War On CNN
Ron Paul Praises Embattled RNC Chief Michael Steele For 'Leadership' On Afghanistan
Jon Fleischman Is Latest GOP Official To Criticize Afghan War
Steele Summoned to Limbaugh's (Extremely) White House
Steele's Resignation Would Be a Catastrophe for Obama
Rethink Afghanistan
danny glover asks "what to the slave is the fourth of july"
I've referenced this speech by Frederick Douglass before (see below) but here is a performance of an abridged version by Danny Glover:
"when in the course of human events..."
"patriotism" is a way of saying "women and children first"
"when in the course of human events..."
"patriotism" is a way of saying "women and children first"
christian book touting manly aggression inspires violent fundamentalist meth trafficking cult
To be fair, John Eldredge, the author of the book Wild At Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man’s Soul is probably not happy that his book has become required reading for a "a ruthless cultic Christian paramilitary fundamentalist crime syndicate that controls most of the Crystal Meth traffic in the US and is fond of tossing severed heads into Mexican discos". Furthermore, it isn't as if the meth gang (La Familia) had been selling Girl Scout cookies before Eldredge's book came out.
On the other hand, the book does say things like:
and
and
In a lot of ways Eldredge is a fairly mainstream evangelical who happens to be less apologetic than most about the patriarchal and martial aspects of the Bible. In any case, even apart from Eldredge's influence, the cartel also has ties to a Traditionalist Catholic community called New Jerusalem with its own history of latent sectarian violence which bubbles to the surface from time to time.
The Arizona Republic: Government, leader deaths reshape apocalyptic sect in Mexico
NarcoGuerraTimes: More on The Faith-Based Cartel
Alternet: Christian Book Touting Manly Aggression Inspires Violent Fundamentalist Meth Trafficking Cult
see also:
all terrorists are muslims... except the 94% that aren't
on joe (joseph) stack
claim that all terrorists are muslims ignores history
the murder of george tiller
thoughts on the hutaree
On the other hand, the book does say things like:
Aggression is part of the masculine design, we are hardwired for it. If we believe that man is made in the image of God, we would do well to remember that “the LORD is a warrior, the LORD is his name.” (Ex. 15:3)
and
The kingdom of heaven suffers violence,” Jesus said, and violent men take it by force.” (Matt 11:12 NASB) Is that a good thing or a bad thing ? Hopefully by now you see the deep and holy goodness of masculine aggression and that will help you understand what Christ is saying.
and
(quoting Tremper Longman, author of God is a Warrior) Virtually every book of the Bible–Old and New Testament–and almost every page tells us of God’s warring activity… what would Miss Manners have to say about taking the promised land ? Does wholesale slaughter fit under “Calling on Your New Neighbors.”
In a lot of ways Eldredge is a fairly mainstream evangelical who happens to be less apologetic than most about the patriarchal and martial aspects of the Bible. In any case, even apart from Eldredge's influence, the cartel also has ties to a Traditionalist Catholic community called New Jerusalem with its own history of latent sectarian violence which bubbles to the surface from time to time.
The Arizona Republic: Government, leader deaths reshape apocalyptic sect in Mexico
NarcoGuerraTimes: More on The Faith-Based Cartel
Alternet: Christian Book Touting Manly Aggression Inspires Violent Fundamentalist Meth Trafficking Cult
see also:
all terrorists are muslims... except the 94% that aren't
on joe (joseph) stack
claim that all terrorists are muslims ignores history
the murder of george tiller
thoughts on the hutaree
Friday, July 02, 2010
maybe michael steele just really likes the princess bride?
Michael Steele on Obama's shifting the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan:
Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? Alright, because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed.
Huffington Post: Michael Steele Says Afghanistan Was 'War Of Obama's Choosing,' Not Something The U.S. 'Wanted To Engage In'
Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? Alright, because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed.
Huffington Post: Michael Steele Says Afghanistan Was 'War Of Obama's Choosing,' Not Something The U.S. 'Wanted To Engage In'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)