Tag Archives: Islam

Response: Selim Deringil’s “The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire 1876-1909″

2 Replies

By Uncredited [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Abdulhamid II in 1908. By Uncredited [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Selim Deringil’s book, The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire 1876-1909, is an attempt to find a more balanced and realistic interpretation of the reign of Abdulhamid II than that proposed by either the Turkish left, which demonizes the period, or that of the Turkish right, which places Abdulhamid II on a pedestal. He accomplishes this by stepping outside of the modern argument and presenting Abdulhamid II’s reign and the Ottoman state in the context of the larger world, as perceived by the Ottoman elite in Istanbul. According to Deringil, the main problem facing the Ottoman Empire during this period was one of legitimation, a problem faced by all autocratic empires during that time period, and Abdulhamid II’s reign was an extended period of contest with other Great Powers to legitimate and protect the image of his Well Protected Domains.

To legitimate his rule of the multiethnic Ottoman state in a period that showed increasing signs of national consciousness and hostility from outside powers, Abdulhamid II had to manage his government’s image on two fronts: internally and externally. He had to ensure loyalty from his diverse citizenry and manage the empire’s public image abroad. Essentially, he was focusing on maintaining the three pillars of the Ottoman Empire as posited by Reşid Paşa: the Islamic nature of the state, Ottoman rule, and the continuity of Istanbul as the capital of the empire.

Within the empire, Abdulhamid II focused on efforts at reforming the sharia and the educational systems, both for the purposes of maintaining the Islamic character of the state and both as a response to Western influences. Western legal codes had become codified, so the Ottomans felt compelled to codify the sharia as well, to justify its image as a modern state. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of codifying the sharia was that it removed a lot of the leeway individual jurists previously had when interpreting the law and applying it to cases. Also, the appearance of missionary schools created a problem for the Ottomans. Part of the state’s legitimacy was based on the Islamic character of the majority of the Ottoman’s subjects. Abdulhamid II feared that missionary schools would lead to large conversions of Muslims to Christianity, both removing his base of legitimacy and creating a situation where Ottoman subjects might feel greater loyalty to a foreign government.

One of the examples used, to justify this belief, was when the Maronite community bodily supported the French state during a war, but did not volunteer to enlist during the Ottoman’s war with Russia. To prevent this from happening, the Ottomans monitored, regulated and attempted to prevent missionary schools from being opened, utilizing many resources and man-hours on what ultimately proved to be a waste of time. The Ottomans realized the only way to compete with foreign education was to provide better local, Muslim services. Perhaps they could have done that if they hadn’t invested so much time, effort and resources into trying to prevent missionary schools from opening?

In a related push for domestic legitimacy, Abdulhamid II’s pushed for Islamic orthodoxy through education and forced conversion. A carrot-and-stick method was used to gain a conversion and then education facilities were established and teachers were posted to the areas to ensure the locals followed state Hanafi Islam. Deringil discusses the case of the Yezidi Kurds at length, showing how this policy of ensuring the conversion or correction of local Muslims could result in unintended consequences. In the case of the Kurds, mixed signals led to junior Ottoman officers engaging in violent behavior that only solidified resistance to central authority among Kurds. This also resulted in a loss of image in the international community.

International image management was also an important part of maintaining political legitimacy for the Ottomans. International press was closely monitored with the Sublime Porte frequently instructing local consulates and ambassador’s to issue rebuttals. The Ottomans also ensured that they were represented in any event that other Great Powers were participating in, such as World Fairs and Expos. The Ottomans often used their influence to shut down productions that they felt would insult the national honor and integrity of the Ottoman Empire. There was a Western tendency to make exotic the normal life of the Ottoman Empire, and to some degree the Ottomans internalized those images while fighting against them, as shown by their willingness to name their horses in World Fair exhibitions. The Ottoman’s preoccupation with ensuring a positive image in the world press was an effort to present themselves as a modern state, with just as much right to exist as a Great Power as Germany or Russia.

Selim Deringil’s book is a valuable and interesting resource that sheds light on how the Ottoman Empire interacted with other world powers in the late 19th to early 20th centuries, how it was similar to other world powers and how it guarded its political legitimacy both domestically and abroad. His attempt to humanize and normalize the Ottomans is an important step in breaking the stereotype of the Oriental ‘other’, so that we can better understand the development of the modern Middle East.

flattr this!

The “Muslim” Halloween Costume

Leave a reply

At one point, I had made a joke about dressing up as Osama bin Laden, or perhaps as a Taliban Mullah, for Halloween.  I could walk around with a stick and yell at women whose ankles were showing.  I know that’s blending in aspects of the Saudi Arabian religious police, but I thought it might be passable as good humor given that I’d be mocking the people that, by their actions, mock the religious system they claim to profess.  Of course, common sense prevailed and I shelved the idea as just being way too soon, especially in New York City, where a decade is likely not enough to erase the pain of loss that many experienced on September 11th, 2001.

For just a moment tonight, on the Q train in Brooklyn heading into Manhattan, I was surprised to see that someone hadn’t exercised the same level of judgment I had, and even worse, had gone beyond what I’d intended and had instead put on a costume that would mock an entire religion, rather than just “bad guys”.

Man dressed as a "Muslim" for Halloween.

Man dressed as a “Muslim” for Halloween.

Somewhere around Sheepshead Bay, a guy and his friends got on.  The guy was wearing traditional Arab Muslim clothing.  Or at least, sort of.  He had the kufi (?, long shirt), brimless cap, cotton pants and the sandals, but he wasn’t wearing them quite right.  The cap was way too small for him and the pants were rolled up, but not to above the ankles.  I don’t imagine he was too concerned about the details, but if you’re going to be a jackass, you might as well do it right.

He was laughing and joking with his friends and passing around a bottle of vodka on the train.  I heard them mocking the burqa, and commenting that the man’s female companion should have dressed up like a whore.  I heard the guy yell, “Kill the white people!  Kill, kill, kill, kill them all! [laughing] … Kill, kill, kill, kill…”  Another time, he said, “I’ve got a bomb!  Hit the deck!”

The situation was absurd to the point of being slightly surreal.  At what point does it become ok to turn free speech into hate speech, to degrade and disrespect an entire culture, just because you don’t agree with some elements of that culture?  And by elements, I mean some segments of the society, not elements that pervade the whole.  Violence perpetrated by Islamist groups is a problem, yes, but there are violent fools in every culture and we don’t claim them as representative and use them as justification for generalized insults.

Would it be OK for a person to dress as Jesus (I say Jesus, because his iconic look is the only recognized ‘Christian’ appearance) for Halloween and laugh and joke about blowing up buildings (Timothy McVeigh) and killing “niggers” (KKK)?  Would it be ok for a person to dress like a Jew for Halloween and laugh and joke about blowing apart Arab children with cluster bombs and white phosphorous, or starving people into capitulating (IDF)?  Would it be OK to dress as a Buddhist monk and then joke about using nerve gas in subway systems (Aum Shinrikyo)?  Or, to take it off the religious track and focus on the mockery of ethnicity, would it be OK for a person to dress up as a Negro Slave for Halloween?

Some things are funny and some things aren’t.  Just because we possess freedom of speech in the United States doesn’t mean we should toss the concept of appropriateness out the window and ‘say’ whatever we want.  We should still have some self-moderation and not generate what is essentially racist hate speech because we’re too stupid to understand the more complex realities in other parts of the world, and too lazy to find out.

Hey bro, I hope no one urinates in your beer tonight, but you deserve it.

flattr this!

Israeli School of U.P.K. Black Jewish Supremacist Extremist Group

Leave a reply
Israelite U.P.K. School Demonstration in Times Square

Israelite U.P.K. School Demonstration in Times Square

Last Saturday my wife and I were in Times Square, heading to Olive Garden to have a nice dinner for our anniversary.  We got off the train at 42nd street and walked through Times Square to do a little site seeing first.  I was surprised to see what looked like a hate group preaching in the middle of Times Square.

When we were there, I didn’t really pay too much attention to them, other than to stop and take the above photo and note that they were yelling loudly about black people being oppressed.   When I got home, I looked them up on Wikipedia and found the following information:

Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge (ISUPK) is a non-profit organization based in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, United States. The group is part of the Hebrew Israelism movement, which regards American blacks as descendants of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.  The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled ISUPK an “extremist” and “black supremacist” group.

I zoomed in on the info boards they had set up and saw some things I didn’t expect:

Christianity Board Crop-Closeup

Christianity Board Crop-Closeup

They apparently consider Jesus to be the anti-Christ.  I’m no expert on Jewish theology, but I think that’s a harder line than the average Jew would take, fears of antisemitism aside.

Islam Board Crop-Closeup

Islam Board Crop-Closeup

Islam wasn’t spared either; not that anyone thinks to spare Islam these days when there’s an opportunity for criticism.  The ISUPK has apparently equated the Ka’aba (the square structure in the photo) with an idol.  They’ve gone so far as to tag the ‘black stone’ as a “clitoris”.  If you’re not aware, Muslims believe that Abraham visited Hagar and his son by her, Ishmael, and helped them construct a home near a spring which came up out of the ground when struck by Ishmael’s feet as a baby.  That’s the black square structure.  Or, at least, the rebuilt and maintained representation of it.  Muslims pray facing this structure, regardless of where they are in the world and perform a pilgrimage, but not because they worship the structure.  It’s just a symbol; it’s the focal point that unites all Muslims.  Islam as a religion is big on the concept of unity, though you couldn’t guess it considering some of modern day politics.

The black stone which the ISUPK referred to as a “clitoris” is a black stone said to have fallen from Heaven to show Adam and Eve where to build an altar for sacrifice to God.  It was, according to tradition, placed in the Ka’ba by the Prophet Muhammad.  Muslims attempt to touch it or kiss it on one of their seven circuits around the Ka’aba during the Hajj, or pilgrimage.

Neither the Ka’aba nor the black stone are idols in the sense that they’re worshipped.  They’re merely focal points for the religion.  I’d put good money on Jesus Christ not being the anti-Christ as well.

flattr this!

Egyptian-American Muslim Girl Gets Grilled on Polygamy By Hispanic Woman

4 Replies

“Hey, are you Egyptian?”  I was standing at a table on the side of the post office, filling out a shipping label, when a Hispanic woman walked up and asked the girl next to me that question.  I glanced over at the girl and saw she had Middle Eastern features and she was wearing a hijab (the head scarf, if you’re not familiar with the word).  Oddly enough, the woman had guessed right.  The girl replied that she was half Egyptian and was born in the US.

“You’re a Muslim right?”  At this point, I was considering moving to another part of the post office, because I was expecting this Hispanic woman to go nuts and start haranguing this girl for being a Muslim, which she obviously was, since she was wearing a hijab.  New York City has a reputation for being filled with lunatics and you really never know if you’re talking to one until it’s too late.  The girl looked a little hesitant, but again she answered yes.

‘Here it comes,’ I thought.  But, instead of what I was expecting, the Hispanic woman asked, “What do you think about marrying more than one woman?  If you were married to a man, would you be ok with him marrying a woman in another country?”

“No, I wouldn’t be ok with that.”

“Ok, because I know Muslims believe in marrying more than one wife.”

“Well, not all Muslims do that,” the girl replied.  “That’s mostly something that happened a long time ago, because it’s too hard to handle more than one wife, since the guy has to take care of them equally.  It’s a lot of trouble, but I wouldn’t do it myself.”

“Oh, well you’re mostly American since you were born here, but do you know if Egyptians do that?”  I imagine she was trying to fish for another answer, perhaps to justify the problem she was about to lay out to this girl.

“Well, yes, but I just don’t think it’s ok and I don’t think many people would do that.”

“My husband was here, and he married me, but then he went back to Egypt and he married another woman.  If you were the other woman and you knew the man was married, would you do that?  Would you marry a man that was already married?  What kind of woman does such a thing?”

The above conversation is paraphrased, of course.  I don’t remember exactly what they said to each other, but it went along those lines.  At that point, I stopped following the conversation completely because I was just about done with filling out my shipping label and sealing the envelope, but the Hispanic woman kept pressing this girl about why her husband, who had been deported, would find a new wife in Egypt instead of being faithful to her.  The girl told her it sounds like a personal problem.  She was probably trying to separate the issue from religion, before it devolved into something ugly.  She told the woman that if she wasn’t satisfied with the situation she should divorce her husband, but the Hispanic woman told her something about losing benefits.

Then I walked away to get my postage for my envelope.

I wonder if that happens often?  I doubt that girl expected to have a conversation quite as bizarre as that when she put on her hijab that morning and left her house.

flattr this!

Broadway Street Fair, 14th Street to 8th Street

11 Replies

A street fair on Broadway near Union Square Park.

Today, Broadway was closed down from 14th Street, where Union Square is, down to 8th Street for a street fair.  The road was lined on both sides with stalls selling everything from costume jewelry to barbecue pulled pork.  There were even stalls set up by The New York Times, trying to get people to buy subscriptions, and a booth promoting Islam.  This is a story best told with pictures:

Costume jewelry for sale at a street fair in New York City.

This costume jewelry was laid out in a huge pile across a few tables.  It was on sale.  A closeout sale in fact.  Only $3.00 apiece.  Doesn’t seem like much of a sale to me.  I’m sure if you looked hard enough you could find this stuff for a dollar apiece.  It’s pretty to look at though, especially when it’s laid out together like it was.

Kettle Corn NYC.

Some $9.00 bags of kettle corn.  If you’ve never had kettle corn, it’s sweet.  It tastes awesome and smells great.

Shirts for sale at a street fair on Broadway in New York City.

Japanese balls. Yum!

I stopped by this booth to look at what they had to offer.  The sign on the front of the table says that everything on the table is free.  The guy in the blue jacket on the right spoke fluent English and Spanish, and the Korans he’s putting down are translated into Spanish.  The Lower East Side has a lot of Hispanic families, so maybe that’s the demographic they were mostly prepared for.  I took a few of the flyers.  I’m sure they’ll make great reading material for the train.  The guy in the blue jacket seemed encouraged by my interest in the flyers and asked me what I know about Islam, so I started talking about dates, like Mohammad’s birth, death, the first revelation, etc.  I know these things, since I just learned about it in an Art History course and I’m taking a test over it tomorrow.  He asked me if I wanted to spend a few minutes learning about the basics of the Islamic faith.  I thanked him, but said no.  It’s not that it wouldn’t be interesting, but given recent events, I don’t want to hang around anything promoting Islam.  Some nutball might show up and do something violent.  Besides, I have a feeling he was going to tell me about the 5 pillars of the Islamic faith: Attestation (“There is no god but God, and Mohammad is his prophet.”), Alms, Prayer (5 times a day), the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca), and fasting during Ramadan.

Marrakesh: Moroccan Bazaar and Decor booth at a street fair on Broadway.

There were even Moroccan rugs!

Funnel cake stand.

And funnel cakes!  I love funnel cakes.  I didn’t get one though, because I was on my way to meet my mom for lunch.  It was Mother’s Day, and I didn’t want to spoil my appetite.

I saw a LOT more than just this street fair today, including some Asian cultural festivities, but I’ll save that for a post tomorrow, or the day after.  I hope you enjoyed the photos!

flattr this!

Banning the Burqa: Good or Bad?

3 Replies

Women wearing the niqab.

No, these are not female ninjas.  (Image from: MuslimVoices.org)

It seems like I’ve been hearing more and more about Islam over the last few weeks.  The 28th of March through the 3rd of April was Islamic Awareness Week.  There were posters set up in various parts of the CCNY campus with quotes from the Koran on them.  During the same week in an art history class, we happened to cover Islamic art and did a brief overview of the beginnings and major points of Islam.  Then the French law banning the burqa came into effect and wound up as a point of discussion in an introductory anthropology course I’m taking.  Islam is a fascinating religion that, due to American media, and media in general, it’s generally painted in a bad light.  I don’t want to go into that here, but I will say that news media is all about ratings, so, just like your favorite TV show, the goal is to be as sensational as possible to retain repeat viewers.  After seeing some of the news reports on the law passed in France, I had a few questions that came to mind, and after thinking about it for a while, I realized that there was a better solution than what the French legislature came up with.
The first thing that came to my mind is how politically correct we all are, here in the Western world.  Would things play out differently, I wonder, if groups of Western women immigrated to Saudi Arabia and were protesting the proscribed manner of dress (niqab)?  Isn’t respecting the laws and culture of the country you go to a basic courtesy, even when simply visiting?  What more, for an immigrant that has been granted the right to live in another country?  To me, it simply feels arrogant to expect a country to realign its culture and values to suit the sensitivities of an immigrant population.  Within the sovereign borders of the country of France, why should the native citizens strive to protect any culture, any heritage, but their own?  If the culture and society don’t align with that of the immigrant’s, then wouldn’t it be easier for the immigrant to have not immigrated there in the first place?  Or to re-immigrate?
I also wondered why this problem is being argued as both one of religion and one of culture.  There are people who say the wearing of the niqab is a cultural development in certain Arabic cultures, and that Islam has been twisted and used as a weapon to enforce this method of dress on women.  A Pakistani Muslim woman I go to class with here in New York affirmed that the niqab is a cultural development.  She wears a head scarf, but no face covering, and I doubt she would ever put on a niqab.  I’ve met plenty of Muslims while traveling and living in Southeast Asia, and they don’t wear niqabs.  Does that mean they’re all ‘bad’ Muslims?  Of course not, because the niqab isn’t a religious requirement for Muslims any more than wearing an ankle-length dress is a Christian requirement for Western women.  Wearing the niqab is a choice, based on cultural traditions.  That being the case, the French ban on niqabs is not an attack on the Islamic religion.  It’s an attack on the cultural practices of a segment of the Arab immigrant population.
I also couldn’t help but wonder how these women immigrated to France in the first place.  At some point, they would have had to have provided travel documents and immigration documents with photos, and to verify that they are in fact the person in the photo.  If they were willing to remove the niqab for immigration, why are they not willing to keep it off, or transition to a head scarf (like the majority of Muslim women wear) to better assimilate into their new society?  I’m not saying they should, I’m just asking why there’s a contradiction.  Also, how can a person expect to get a driver’s license without having their photo on it, and without verifying their face on request by a police officer?
From an American perspective, I think these women have a right to dress however they want to, so long as it does not create a safety hazard for themselves or others.  So, where is a good middle ground?  Perhaps the better course of action would have been to require the removal of the niqab only upon entrance to public buildings (schools, hospitals, courts, welfare offices, etc.), while entering public transportation that requires photo identification, while driving since it limits the field of vision, and the upon the reasonable request of a police officer or other official when required for identification purposes.  Isn’t that the main problem here?  That wearing the niqab prevents proper identification?  Take it a step further.  When proper identification requires removal of the niqab, remove the woman to a private room and have her identity verified by a single female officer/official.  Simple right?  I understand that this can cause some logistical problems in providing female employees at all of these locations, but this is just a suggestion that I’m sure would be better received than a blanket ban.
The blanket ban, whether people consider the niqab religious or simply a cultural development, seems like an extreme measure that suppresses a person’s right to self expression.  Like any immigrant, a Muslim immigrant will import their culture along with themselves, and while it’s important to define what isn’t acceptable, like outlawing shariah law in a secular nation, it’s also important to allow people to express themselves, since it is a foundational value of any Western democratic nation.  I’m all for passing laws to protect people, but only when those laws are reasonable, and this French burqa ban, to me, seems like overkill.

flattr this!

The Problem With The 72 Virgins Theory

6 Replies

I was thinking about this theory of Islamic martyrs receiving 72 virgins and it doesn’t seem to add up.  This doesn’t really have anything to do with Singapore, but I’m an American who previously served in the Army and spent time in the Middle East, so it’s an issue that I have some interest in.  Extremists are constantly attacking Americans both in the US and abroad using suicide bombing tactics, presumably with this concept of martyrdom and rewards in mind.

So, I did some research and this is what I found:

The theory itself  has no basis in the Koran.  It is instead based on a supposed saying of Muhammad, but Muslim scholars have agreed that the chain of referrers for the supposed saying is fairly weak and that one of the people in the chain is known to have produced unauthentic ‘sayings’ before.  That’s from Wikipedia, so it may not be 100% spot on, but the information is usually pretty reliable.

What Muhammad supposedly said was:

‘The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and seventy-two houri, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San’a.’

http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=talovecof-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1931930252&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrThere is also some debate that if this were in fact said, the current translation is a misinterpretation and that what was meant was white raisins, rather than 72 virgin maidens.  White raisins were considered a delicacy at the time.  Also, Margaret Nydell, who wrote Understanding Arabs: A Guide for Modern Times, stated that many mainstream Muslims view the 72 virgin theory the way many Christians view the idea of getting wings and a harp and walking on clouds in Heaven.  It’s just a bit of myth and fluff, not really what you experience.  Unfortunately, the idea is being twisted and used by extremists to turn young men to a path of violence.

From the perspective of people who are far more knowledgeable in the subject, the idea of getting 72 virgins after martyrdom is a fantasy, rather than a reality.  I have to agree.  I tried to rationalize the whole thing, if it were true, but I couldn’t see how it would work.

Let’s just say that there are indeed 72 virgins waiting for martyrs in Heaven.  Where do they come from? That’s the question that I couldn’t get past.

At first, I thought that perhaps these 72 virgins are unbelievers or sinners who are serving in this position for eternity as some sort of punishment for their Earthly deeds.  However, that doesn’t stand to reason.  How many virgins do you know who’ve committed sins grave enough to be sentenced to an eternity of bodily servitude?  Besides that, how could they be serving their sentence in Heaven?  If these 72 virgins are waiting in Heaven, then they too have to be believers, or how else could they be admitted to Heaven in the first place?  And if they were believers and they were admitted to Heaven then wouldn’t they be in a position of reward?  How many women out there believe a reward in Heaven to be spending an eternity servicing a man you’ve never met along with 71 other women?  And of you who say this might be appealing to you, how many are virgins?  It could be possible that these women would be created out of thin air for this very purpose, but what just creator would construct sentient life and then sentence it to an eternity of servitude?

Perhaps I’m mixing my beliefs into this but I just don’t see it as feasible.  If these 72 virgins are live souls then there’s no way they could find themselves in that position.  If they’re created for the purpose of slavery then it’s unjust, and that doesn’t fit the description of anyone’s higher power that I’m aware of.

Keep in mind that this post isn’t meant to tear down Islam as a religion.  How could it?  I don’t understand Islam well enough to launch that kind of argument against it.  This is just my attempt to tackle a theory with common sense, and the series of thoughts I had regarding it.  Perhaps there’s a way to rationalize the existence of these virgins, but I don’t see it.

Having reached the conclusion I did, I wonder how it is that people allow themselves to be tricked into throwing their lives away?

flattr this!

Malaysia’s Church Bombings A Disappointment

Leave a reply

“I think Singaporeans must have a care not to bring problems like this to themselves,” said DPM Wong at a community event in Singapore on Sunday.

“We live in an inter—connected world, we cannot be divorced from what happens in other countries. But at the same time we must be rational, and examine: when we bring such problems to our shores, what are we trying to do? Are we trying to express sympathy only, or will doing so result in more problems for our own community?”

Race and religion have always been seen as a potential minefield in Singapore.

via Yahoo! News

I’ve been following the news about the church bombings in Malaysia off and on and I think this guy’s message is pretty important.  It’s good to understand what’s going on in the world around us, as long as we don’t let it affect us so deeply that we begin to act on other people’s problems.  For all its ethnic and religious diversity, Singapore is probably the most peaceful country in the world.  It should stay that way.

This issue in Malaysia is one that boggles my mind.  Who knew that some people could be so deeply offended by such a small thing?  The universe is large, and God, or Allah, created all of it.  Do we really think that he would be so concerned over such a petty thing as non-believers using the name typically reserved for himself (in Malaysia)?  And even if Allah’s anger was piqued by non-believers using his name to refer to another idealization of God, isn’t it up to him to mete out Justice?

From my limited understanding of the use of Allah, it is typically used by Muslims when they reference God.  However, “Allah” is not a Muslim word.  It is an Arabic word, and as such is not subject to a monopoly by any certain group of people just as “God” isn’t subject to monopoly by Christians.

“The Allah ban is unusual in the Muslim world. The Arabic word is commonly used by Christians to describe God in such countries as Egypt, Syria and Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim nation.”

via cnews WorldWatch

I also read that one argument against allowing the Catholic publication to use the word Allah is that it may confuse Muslims and lead to unwitting conversions.  That seems really weak to me though.  Do they have so little faith in people’s intelligence?  Or in their convictions?

The most disappointing part of this incident is that it has led to violent reactions allegedly on the part of Muslims.  Violence isn’t an answer.  It’s not going to make anyone change their mind.  Not in this day and age and especially not with petty acts of arson.  If anything, these actions have galvanized public opinion against extremist Muslims and painted Christians as the victims, lending public and international  favor to the court’s ruling to allow them the use of the word Allah.

On the other hand, this does is cast Malay Muslims in a poor light, even to other Muslims, since Islam as a religion is struggling to overcome international bias as a religion of war, terror and extremism.  There have been statements from the Malaysian government stressing that these actions are not condoned by the majority of Muslims in Malaysia.  There are also many Malay Muslims who have made contributions to have fire-bombed churches repaired, in a show of national solidarity against extremist attacks.

The controversy has pushed locals to turn to the Web in a bid to rally support for the affected buildings. A blogger who started an Internet fundraising campaign for the Metro Tabernacle Church, which was attacked by arsonists, raised 8,467 ringgit (US$2,493) in four days.

Mohamed Rafick Khan Abdul Rahman, 45, started the donation drive on his blog after learning about the attack in Kuala Lumpur. He said donations poured in nationwide, and from the U.K. and Europe.

via ZDNet Asia

I don’t pretend to understand Islam, since I’m not Muslim myself, but what I do know is that we as human beings should be able to settle our differences peacefully.  Any religion that purports itself to be a religion of peace can not, by definition, support violence as a mean’s to an end so committing violent acts in the name of Islam or Allah is contradictory.  People shouldn’t be so offended on religious grounds by a practice that’s already widely accepted by Muslims around the world.

In closing, it’s nice to see that while Singaporeans have taken in the news of religious strife in Malaysia, they’ve simply consumed the information for what it is and not let it affect the peaceful prosperity that Singapore is currently enjoying.

flattr this!

Islamic Honor Killings: Tulay Goren

Leave a reply

You know that “hot stories” sidebar thing on the right side of the Facebook newsfeed?  Well, I happened to click through on an article from Mail Online about a father accused of murdering his 15 year old daughter as an ‘honor killing’.  I’d read about another instance where that happened in Canada.

If you’re not familiar with honor killing, here’s a quick definition from Wikipedia:

An honor killing (also called a customary killing) is the murder of a family or clan member by one or more fellow family members, where the murderers (and potentially the wider community) believe the victim to have brought dishonor upon the family, clan, or community. This perceived dishonor is normally the result of (a) utilizing dress codes unacceptable to the family (b) wanting out of an arranged marriage or choosing to marry by own choice or (c) engaging in certain sexual acts. These killings result from the perception that defense of honor justifies killing a person whose behavior dishonors their clan or family.
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that the annual worldwide total of honor-killing victims may be as high as 5,000.[1]

It’s a common relatively occurrence in Arab culture, which is where the majority of Muslims come from. So, it has become one more item on a long list giving Islam a bad reputation in the eyes of the rest of the world.  As if they needed anything else, what with extremists blowing themselves (and the people around them) up left and right.

I understand that there are differences in culture, but I also believe in the priceless value of human life.  It should never be taken for something as ridiculous as a perceived loss of honor.  How can a culture ever hope to mature if it continues to practice such outdated and obviously flawed ideologies?  It’s not ok to kill your daughter just because she wore shorts to school instead of a Hijab.

Article aside, I was more disturbed by the comments being left in Facebook, which seemed to paint all Muslims as being evil terrorists bent on the destruction of the world.  I’m not Muslim myself, but I’ve had the opportunity to know quite a few Muslims and I can say with some assurance that none of them want to blow me up. So, I pointed out in the comments that Christianity has been used as a reason to commit horrible acts, like the Crusades, Inquisition and even the Salem Witch Hunts.

The response was that those weren’t ‘real’ Christians and that Islam is violent, and that it’s evil in general.  I had pointed out that if Christians lived according to some of the stuff that’s in the Old Testament we’d seem pretty odd and scary too.  So, this person lambasted me, saying that Jesus did away with all that Old Testament nonsense.  That being the case I pulled out a bunch of quotes that are less than pleasant about slaying people and burning them that’s in the New Testament.  I also pointed out that you can’t blame the whole for the actions of a few, that there are extremists in both groups.  Another person chimed in that Christ didn’t abolish the law of the Old Testament.  He said that He came to fulfill it.  Christians still observe the 10 Commandments so there must be validity to that statement.  I also threw in some quotes from the Qur’an that I found that support the idea of Islam not advocated wanton murder.

In any case, this person wouldn’t have any of it.  The person is hell bent on believing that Islam “advocates violence and oppression and murder” and that “JESUS never advocated violence, oppression and murder”.

So, I told her this:

“But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.”

Luke 19:27

The message never really got through to her and I don’t believe it will. There are people who are so blinded by popular media, bad personal experience, or a combination of the two that they will refuse to see reason.  From what I’ve seen, different news channels in the US slant things different ways.  It’s a ratings game.  They don’t tell the news.  They cater to their audience.  I’m kinda starting to prefer Al’Jazeera, because it seems more impartial and maybe I just feel comfortable with a 3rd party (usually Brits) reporting on matters.  Of course, Al’Jazeera is funded by Qatar, so who knows?  Maybe there’s no such thing as unbiased reporting anymore.

I’m sure there are violent aspects of the Qur’an, Shari’a, and other Islamic religious texts, but the same can be said of Christianity and Christian religious texts.  Both religious groups have committed travesties over the course of history.  Does that mean that people that belong to particular religious groups are inherently bad?  I don’t think so.

I think we all just need to keep things in perspective.  Just because someone’s Christian doesn’t mean they’re going to drink poisoned Kool Aid and commit mass suicide, and just because someone’s Muslim doesn’t mean they’re going to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up.  Get a grip on reality.

Note: This is not a debate about the validity of either religion. Any comments left on this post bashing either religion, rather than discussing the idea proposed here, will be removed, and depending on what’s said, the commenter will be banned by IP address.  NO hate speech.  Thank you.

flattr this!