Is Islam just the Catholicism we got rid of?

Schuhart

Alternatively, ‘Oh, no. Not another thread about Islam’. But a post by InFront in the ‘Halloween’ thread set me thinking in a direction that goes beyond its scope.

InFront wrote:

Im so tired of hearing this "Islam is the new Catholicism that we got rid of" notion. It isn't. To compare the two is not comparing like with like.

There are actually quite striking parallels between present day Islam and Irish Catholicism of 50-70 years ago. To be honest, I think you are expressing the disquiet that comes from seeing Catholicism today and wondering if that’s where its all headed.

InFront wrote:

Islam is a very intense religion. This is just my personal opinion but I think it envelopes a person lot more that Christianity, that is the difference.

I think you’ve answered this point yourself. Its not so much that Islam envelopes, and more that it personally envelopes you. The previous generation of Irish Catholics would have been much the same.

InFront wrote:

A punter sees woman observing hijab and thinks 'prisoner', or he sees a man in a beard that is a few inches long and he thinks 'nutter'.

I would not go so far as saying ‘prisoner’ and ‘nutter’. But I would feel someone is deluded if they think that covering their head or growing a beard has any cosmic significance in the scheme of things. To be honest, I think that’s self evident.

InFront wrote:

The notion of Islam being a strong force in someone's life is seen by them as something that must be combatted in the name of personal freedom. Dont you see a ridiculous irony there?

If you reflect on this, I think you’ll see that you haven’t considered the full picture. Islam, like many faiths, see itself as having an obligation to spread its word. I see it as a delusion. Why should I not spread that word.

Nevyn

I think that we stand at the edge of becoming a secular society and people are worried that things will revert.

If I see someone dressing in a way that denotes thier religion then I consider them to be devote, be it a mormon in thier long johns or a hindu with thier legs covered, a shik with thier turban ect.
I would have more respect for them for not conforming and being tur to themsleves and thier faith.

I don't think Islam is the new catholism and believe that mos peoples fears are unfounded, are we going to see suddenly 90% of of all primary schools on
the same land as the local mosque ?
Are we going to see the diet of the nation suddenly not including bacon and cabbage for anyone ?

It is fear mongering.

Personally it is the new wave of americanise evangleical christian faiths that I would be more concerned about.

Schuhart

Thaedydal wrote:

I don't think Islam is the new catholism and believe that mos peoples fears are unfounded, are we going to see suddenly 90% of of all primary schools on the same land as the local mosque ?

To be clear, I’m not suggesting ‘new Catholicism’ in the sense of taking us over. I’m suggesting ‘new Catholicism’ in the sense that the doctrine and practice might differ in detail, but it’s essentially the same old stuff.

I’m coming at it from a very different perspective than any Byzantine Emperor. At the same time, I’m similarly asking what’s new about Islam.

Thaedydal wrote:

Personally it is the new wave of americanise evangleical christian faiths that I would be more concerned about.

And everybody hates the Jews.

Nevyn

Funny you should but it that way,

The most orthodox strains of the 3 abrahamic faiths have a lot of the same restrictions from modest of dress and behaviour and how to treat and respect other people; surely this is not surprising ?

Jackie laughlin

Stop being silly. No one is in fear of an Islamic Ireland anytime soon. This is about a clash of values. Islam holds inegalitarian, authoritarian views that are the same as those of other religions. Until relatively recently the Catholic church had the power to enforce those views.

There is nothing paradoxical about liberals arguing for and defending freedom from authoritarianism. It is quite right too the Irish should protect Irish children from being taught the same "values" from which we've recently escaped. Rather I should say, the same values and quite a few that are worse.

Schuhart

Thaedydal wrote:

The most orthodox strains of the 3 abrahamic faiths have a lot of the same restrictions from modest of dress and behaviour and how to treat and respect other people; surely this is not surprising ?

Indeed. It reminds me a little of the passage in Joseph Heller's 'God Knows' where King David (the guy who killed Goliath) is pressured by his general to invade Europe while Israel is still the global superpower saying 'they'll take our religion and forget where they got it'.

Jackie laughlin(from the other thread) wrote:

Islam is quite unlike Christianity. It does, however, share common illiberal values.

But it just struck me through a few discussions that for pretty much any phenomenon relating to Islam, it was possible to think of a Catholic or Christian equivalent.

There are differences, and in particular a striking contrast in the myths depicting the respective central figures of Mohammed and Jesus. Mohammed holds his own and ultimately triumphs in tribal warfare, whereas Christianity makes a virtue out of Christ’s humiliation and death.

But there’s an amount of commonality in approach. When you read through the bookish earnestness of some Islamic scholar trying to wring meaning out of religious text, it’s clearly the same mindset as a pastoral letter.

When you see the elevation of form over substance in the design of Sharia compliant mortgages, where interest is effectively still present but cloaked to simulate compliance with the word and not the sense, there’s that same apparent hope that ritualistic conformity matters to the cosmos.

There’s a lot of common ground, which is what leaves me and Emperor Manuel II Paleologus wondering what’s new.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

There are actually quite striking parallels between present day Islam and Irish Catholicism of 50-70 years ago...
Its not so much that Islam envelopes, and more that it personally envelopes you. The previous generation of Irish Catholics would have been much the same.

I find the thinking behind the ideas you discuss in this thread very strange and irrational.
Are there parallells between 1930's Ireland and present day Islam like you suggest? I don't know, what do you mean by present day Islam? Personally I find it more than a little patronising to be on the receiving end of the view that just by my own relatively meagre religious observances such as prayer and abstinence and a few other contributions to God, that I am some sort of prisoner to a primitive cult.
I find it incredibly rude that people with, and no offense intended, with absoltely no idea about real Irish Islam, and without any real "exposure" to Muslims, would suggest that my quite traditional, well educated and informed, Irish parents are somehow akin to some rosary gripping, statue-adoring housewife with no education in some Dublin slum circa 1935. Simply because they are Muslims, they must be underdeveloped??

Schuhart you suggest the possibility that the number of devout religious people in a region tends to be inversely proportionate to their educational opportunities. While I agree that this can sometimes be true, I'm sure you can appreciate it can be put down to much more than edcuation. It doesn't take a Harvard PhD to realize that a parallell universe called heaven or Jannah poses many physical and mathematical logistical difficulties for us humans. I don't think it is education that takes people away from religion, rather the trappings of the improved standards of life that are attached to those educational advantages.

Having said that, I have to say that this relationship between high educational opportunities/ personal wealth and low religious dedication is not something which i personally have observed here in ireland. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Most of my Muslim friends are (awful term) middle class students and tend to be more "dedicated" than those who would not have had the same educational opportunities in life.

Islam is not like Irish catholicism of fifty years ago. When I wake up in the morning I can decide, quite freely, whether I want to pray or whether I want to head across to the 24 hour tesco in Dundrum and wait until the regulations stipulate I can purchase their alcohol. I can then bring it home, have sexual relations with my girlfriend, cook a full Irish breakfast, go out that night and get drunk, stagger home and never even utter Allah's name. Nobody on my street would bat an eyelid.

The difference is that Muslims in Ireland today choose to live the way we do. We go to mainstream schools, we work alongside Irish atheists, we shop in Marks and Spencer, we see pornography on TV and in the media, we are exposed to all the normal facets of a western lifestyle and still reject it. An Irish Catholic in the early 20th century really didnt have much other choice.

I would not go so far as saying ‘prisoner’ and ‘nutter’. But I would feel someone is deluded if they think that covering their head or growing a beard has any cosmic significance in the scheme of things.

Okay, that is your opinion. What would you suggest we do to obtain effects of cosmic proportions for Allah? We are all only human with our own lives to live. If someone feels that observing the Hijab is their own valid way of praising Allah, with respect, who are you to argue with that? It is their own very personal relationship with God and nobody elses. If hijab makes someone feel uncomfortable (as admittedly the more conservative niqāb used to make me feel) then that is their own issue they need to deal with. If I freak out when a veiled nun starts talking to me on a bus, that is my own personal issue I need to deal with, not hers.

At the centre of all of this there is the issue of subservience. Who says that my take on society is any more or less valid than yours? I would like to see Islam grow here and presumably you would like to see your own personal philosophies flourish.
Human beings are creatures of habit, often it makes us uncomfortable to venture outside of our own mindsets and consider that something, while not what we want for ourselves, may be perfectly reasonable and most correct for a fellow citizen, even our next door neighbour. That is the very corner stone of multiculturalism.

Who are we then to impose our own narrow ambitions and outlooks on our neighbours? If I want to walk down the street in a shalwar-qamiz as a Muslim who observes all the regular religious practices of my community, why should I be thought of as a prisoner of some strange authority, just because I do not commit myself as a prisoner to your strange authoirity?

I am reminded of the Bob Dylan song "Gotta Serve Somebody". No matter what faith, or economic principle, or philosophy, or sexuality or gender or nationality that you conform to, you must conform and surrender to something. You in a late night bar with your arm around a woman are just as much a prisoner to your world as I am to mine. The only catch is we both think we are the freer ones. And what is wrong with that, anyway?

Islam, like many faiths, see itself as having an obligation to spread its word. I see it as a delusion. Why should I not spread that word.

Talk all you want, thats not an issue, just so long as you speak the truth. You simply wont be tricked into becoming a Muslim, so we dont expect that people should be tricked into beliving falseness about Islam.

To be honest, I think you are expressing the disquiet that comes from seeing Catholicism today and wondering if that’s where its all headed.
Quote:

And to be honest, I think that many Irish people are so hung up about the recent irish history with regard to its servitude to Catholicism that they have developed a complex about religious influence.
It is just my opinion, but i feel that Islam, with is diffuse, non-centralised leadership is akin to a series of personal choices, beliefs and observances unique to every individual. It is not comparable to the very centralised, authoritarian, oneness of uniformity of the Catholic Church, and as such is not really in danger of producing any sort of significant unified influential religious movement here.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I find it incredibly rude that people with, and no offense intended, with absoltely no idea about real Irish Islam, and without any real "exposure" to Muslims, would suggest that my quite traditional, well educated and informed, Irish parents are somehow akin to some rosary gripping, statue-adoring housewife with no education in some Dublin slum circa 1935. Simply because they are Muslims, they must be underdeveloped??

I can sense your frustration, and I can understand that you’d feel the simple fact of choosing not to indulge in things freely available to you make a difference to 1930’s Catholicism. But I think you have to contrast your experience practicing a minority religion to the position of a majority and, in the Republic’s case, overwhelming majority religion.

Your personal experience might better be compared to devout Catholics in England, who would similarly have said ‘we can divorce, but we don’t, we can get contraception, but we don’t.’ Again, no enormous difference in outlook that suggests Islam is something new.

Ireland might then be compared to Pakistan. I can recall your expression of admiration for the devout practice of Islam by people there. Yes, I’ve never been in the place. But the statement reminded me of an old theology book written by an English Catholic in the 1940’s who made a similar statement admiring the devout faith of plain old Irish men saying a rosary, which similarly gave him some inspiration in following his faith, and a feeling he had witnessed the ‘pure drop’.

I’m not sure the lack of a monolithic structure means it’s really less of a monolithic faith - even allowing for all the usual schisms that no major religion can do without. There is a scholar class, and they do seem to effectively determine what the faith consists of.

It would take a bit of space, but I’d love to post up some of the stuff that scholars contribute to islamonline.net and compare it to a pamphlet in my proud possession written by an extremist Roman Catholic priest in the 1940s about the conspiracy of Jews and atheists to undermine and destroy the Kingdom of Christ.

In fact, if I’ve time over the next few weeks I might dig out a few of my favourite quotes from each and hold a competition to see who can guess which are the deranged rantings of Fr Fahy, and which are from Sheik such-and-such. It would be a sort of Turing test for religions – if you can’t tell the difference, there isn’t one.

The parallels are there, if you want to see them. On the other hand, I might be missing something. But if there really is more to Islam than 1930s Catholicism part 2, can you point me in the direction of the Islamic equivalent of Hans Kung.

InFront wrote:

What would you suggest we do to obtain effects of cosmic proportions for Allah?

I will insist on answering this, even if it is meant rhetorically. I’d suggest doing something that suggests the commitment is to the substance and significance of divine revelation rather than ritual observances. Also, slapping anyone who bangs on about scientific miracles in the Quran with a big wet fish until they reflect on what those texts are really trying to tell them. I think Allah would like that big time, because if the Quran was divinely inspired I doubt if it was intended to be an exhibit in Ripley’s Believe-It-Or-Not Odditorium.

Jackie laughlin

InFront,
You are entirely missing the point. Your freedom to worship and do as you wish lasts only as long as the liberal, tolerant, open society upon which it depends.

No one much cares about lines of people touching their foredheads to the floor in prayer or indeed fingering their rosary beads. These practices don't hurt anyone. However, when ANYONE treats women, homosexuals, a race, a religious minority etc. in any significant way differently and then argues that it is right - especially if the "argument" amounts to no more than reference to a text claimed to be divinely inspired - then those who realise the importance of the open society must react, must argue, must try to prevent this type of stuff being imposed on children.

A spokeperson from the Islamic Centre in Clonskeagh said on radio that there was no question of the implementation of Sharia Law in a country which did not have an Islamic majority. There should be no question of the implementation of such law ANYWHERE under ANY circumstances.

fly_agaric

Schuhart wrote:

It would take a bit of space, but I’d love to post up some of the stuff that scholars contribute to islamonline.net and compare it to a pamphlet in my proud possession written by an extremist Roman Catholic priest in the 1940s about the conspiracy of Jews and atheists to undermine and destroy the Kingdom of Christ.

One of my elderly relations told me that the priests (from the pulpit I suppose??) and nuns (in schools??) would denounce the "Godless Reds" on occasion (in the 40's - 50's this would have been). I didn't know they demonised the Jews too...

Schuhart

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There should be no question of the implementation of such law ANYWHERE under ANY circumstances.

I think this statement is too dogmatic, to an extent that the view risks advocating the suppression of freedom to enquire. (In fairness, it may be just how I reading it rather than what you mean to say.)

I take the kernel of InFront’s point to be that the right of people to go about unveiled necessarily includes the right to wear a veil. That is simply true, IMNSHO. Similarly, people have the right to argue that Sharia is brilliant and we’re so much the poorer for not having it. But that means any of us so inclined have the right to dissect and publish why we think this is bunkum. You are right that a universal application of the Sharia would be a one way street, thought, as free enquiry into the roots of Islam would be impossible. But, as I think is frequently said, that’s just not a practical possibility.

That said, I’d reckon Jackie and myself would probably agree that equating religious belief as being just as intellectually valid as unbelief doesn’t work. If we’re both standing bullock naked somewhere on the planet, and I say ‘I found this book under a tree. God wants us all to read it’ then I have a squad of explaining to do. People responding that the book was just written by some people and left there don’t.

But I think its important to keep in mind that Islam is not essentially different from Catholicism. It even has an equivalent to infallibility in that notion that by the 10th century all the main doctrinal issues were settled leaving no space for any independent reasoning in religious law or ‘ijtihad’. Comparing that situation to the Pope’s current, limited and rarely used power of ijtihad leaves ordinary adherents of both religions in much the same situation. Calls within Islam to reopen the ‘doors of ijtihad’ are not so much different to the calls with Christianity for the Catholic church to give up papal infallibility.

If democracy survived Catholicism, I think it can also ultimately digest Islam.

fly_agaric wrote:

I didn't know they demonised the Jews too...

The book I have is ‘The Kingship of Christ and Organised Naturalism’, by Father Denis Fahey published in Dublin in 1943. A sample quote is:

Satan aims at preventing the acknowledgement by States and Nations of the Catholic Church as the One Way established by God for ordered return to him. ……… The first step towards this is to get all religions, including the Jewish religion, put on the same level as the Catholic Church. The granting of full citizenship to the Jews, who, as a nation, are engaged in preparing for the natural Messias, tends in the same direction.

While he does try to distinguish what he’s saying from Anti-Semitism, his essential message is clear. Them Jews is doing Satan’s work. (Incidently, my copy of the book was printed in 1949 – into a world where the memory of the Holocaust was fresh.)

I believe he was regarded as an extremist in his own time, so I’m not suggesting his views are typical. But the book bears the usual imprimatur of a Bishop meaning these views were regarded as permissible within Catholicism.

lostexpectation

its all depends where you talking about and here now in Ireland, no it is not, I get what the OP is saying infront the fact you are living here, now rather then say in some small town in pakistan where everybody knows who you are and the eldery religions people are sitting outside watching and commenting on everything it would be different. I guess it shows Islam has the potential to be as relaxed as we see most chrisitians are now but once weren't.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

you have to contrast your experience practicing a minority religion to the position of a majority and, in the Republic’s case, overwhelming majority religion.

Of course, and as a minority religion, in a state where the Sharia is not implemented, how, exactly, could Islam be the new Catholicism?
Whatever about how society operates in other countries, and despite the fact that it should be like this everywhere, there is no compulsion in Irish Islam (which is presumably the subfamily of Islam under discussion in this thread)
What are very much a free community, with extremly varying degrees of adherence and dedication to the faith as well as diverse opinions on matters such as politics and social policy.

So, why is there a constant need to compare Islam to some dead religious practices of a bygone era? Islam is not a dead thing. It will outlive us all.

I can't help but get the feeling people are looking at it and thinking "how does one overcome/ demolish its presence in society". I find that a very bizarre approach to a world religion with such a steep history, such a history of anchoring its boat in far-flung-places and gaining converts, and such a more recent history (history?) of politically fuelled violence and antagonism.

That is the completely wrong way to look at this religion in my opinion. I think people would be better served not trying to see their way of thinking 'supercede' Islam here (that really is your own kind of (misinterpreted) "Jihad") but actually engage with the real, living Islam.
In my opinion, all of this 'Islam is the old Catholicism' thinking, and talk of 'overcoming Islam' is nothing more than scaremongering, by awakening in people an all-too-familiar vulnerability i.e. authoritarian Catholicism in the recent history of the state.

I’m not sure the lack of a monolithic structure means it’s really less of a monolithic faith - even allowing for all the usual schisms that no major religion can do without. There is a scholar class, and they do seem to effectively determine what the faith consists of.

When you're a Muslim in Athlone, or Cork, or Donegal or actually even in Dublin, I don't know how much attention you would actually be paying to this to any significant degree. It would be fair to say that most Irish Muslims seem to be significantly detatched from this aspect of Islam, in my opinion.

It would take a bit of space, but I’d love to post up some of the stuff that scholars contribute to islamonline.net and compare it to a pamphlet in my proud possession written by an extremist Roman Catholic priest in the 1940s about the conspiracy of Jews and atheists to undermine and destroy the Kingdom of Christ.

With respect, as far as I understand it, authoritarian Christainity in Ireland in the 20th century did not begin and end with a single odd Priest. It was the engagement of their whole community with some very questionable theories. Show me that with Irish Islam

I’d suggest doing something that suggests the commitment is to the substance and significance of divine revelation rather than ritual observances

.

I would have thought that observing hijab is a pretty good way of going about this. Surrendering our physical selves - our appearance - to Allah, being the one who owns our bodies - is a fairly substantial level of commitment, and is a wonderful way for an everyday Muslim with a job and a life to lead to praise Allah in his - or her - daily life.

Originally posted by Jackie laughlin
InFront,
You are entirely missing the point. Your freedom to worship and do as you wish lasts only as long as the liberal, tolerant, open society upon which it depends.

I dont think Im missing the point at all. You spoke of combatting Islam in the name of personal freedom, my point is that you can't combat a religion in the name of personal freedom so long as there are free people who take up that religion and believe in it. If that happens, our society is just as bad as the over-authoritarian leaderships we westerners apparently seek to destroy.

If we’re both standing bullock naked somewhere on the planet, and I say ‘I found this book under a tree. God wants us all to read it’ then I have a squad of explaining to do. People responding that the book was just written by some people and left there don’t.

That's an interesting way of putting it and I suppose it belongs in another thread really. It would be foolish to believe in things without questioning them at some point. I'm sure that the most noble scholars questioned aspects of their faith - of course they must have.
The substance of your taught faith comes about in the physical manifestation (proof) you see of it in your daily life, which goes beyoned even the obvious scientific miracles of the Qur'an you referred to earlier. Islam is so much more than a book of pretty stories and frightening characters and holy men.
It is a huge array of lessons to create in the student a mindset which shall provide for him an inspiration of ideals and a moral code by which to live his life.
It is the real application of Islam in life that is where "the explaining" is done. I think there was a thread about this somewhere here before...

lostexpectation

InFront wrote:

Of course, and as a minority religion, in a state where the Sharia is not implemented, how, exactly, could Islam be the new Catholicism?
Whatever about how society operates in other countries, and despite the fact that it should be like this everywhere, there is no compulsion in Irish Islam (which is presumably the subfamily of Islam under discussion in this thread)
What are very much a free community, with extremly varying degrees of adherence and dedication to the faith as well as diverse opinions on matters such as politics and social policy.

So, why is there a constant need to compare Islam to some dead religious practices of a bygone era? Islam is not a dead thing. It will outlive us all.

I can't help but get the feeling people are looking at it and thinking "how does one overcome/ demolish its presence in society". I find that a very bizarre approach to a world religion with such a steep history, such a history of anchoring its boat in far-flung-places and gaining converts, and such a more recent history (history?) of politically fuelled violence and antagonism.

That is the completely wrong way to look at this religion in my opinion. I think people would be better served not trying to see their way of thinking 'supercede' Islam here (that really is your own kind of (misinterpreted) "Jihad") but actually engage with the real, living Islam.
In my opinion, all of this 'Islam is the old Catholicism' thinking, and talk of 'overcoming Islam' is nothing more than scaremongering, by awakening in people an all-too-familiar vulnerability i.e. authoritarian Catholicism in the recent history of the state.

but isn't the biggest problem (if take the idea that there are any) with Islam in Islamic countries is authoritarianism?

nesf

Thaedydal wrote:

Personally it is the new wave of americanise evangleical christian faiths that I would be more concerned about.

Tbh I agree but only from their opposition to a secular state (from the ones I've spoken to anyways, I'm not making a generalisation from this but only stating my own limited perspective). I do think that the whole secular issue is a problem in this country at times. We're not quite there, did anyone else see the "debate" on gay marriage on questions and answers last week? I think that it isn't so much that the catholic church is trying to assert itself in the state, it's more, I believe, that we are still have a hangover from earlier times and that a some parts of the faith are still mooted as truth and are still resistant to public discussion and analysis.


As for Islam and Christianity, I think there are a lot of parallels that can be drawn between the two religions, but considering how closely "related" they are I don't find it in the slightest bit suprising.

Jackie laughlin

InFront,
I'll try the direct approach. Do you agree with the following proposition? Your freedom to worship and do as you wish lasts only as long as the liberal, tolerant, open society upon which it depends.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

Of course, and as a minority religion, in a state where the Sharia is not implemented, how, exactly, could Islam be the new Catholicism?

I’m sure many Irish Muslims do have healthy scepticism about what scholars think they should believe, in the same way as many Roman Catholics ignore the ban on contraception. I utterly accept that if an individual Muslim was asked on a particular day why she is wearing a Hijab, the answer could very well be ‘I didn’t have time to wash my hair last night, and I look a fright’.

But all of that really just fits in with what I’m saying – Islam is much the same as Catholicism. They are not identical – if they were, then all Catholics would be facing Mecca to pray and all Muslims would be recognising the Pope’s right of ijtihad. But for anything that you say about Islam, there is some parallel in Catholicism and vice versa.

All of which brings me back to that question. If you just look at Islam as a doctrine – such as all that stuff you find on islamonline.net – what does it amount to? In this I am not looking at the Muslim using the Hijab to cover her mussed hair. I’m looking at what those charged with explaining the doctrine of the faith say is the reason to wear it. Take what those guys say, and you see parallels to the kind of thing Catholic clergy would have said in the past.

I’ve no problem with someone saying ‘Islam is much the same as any religion.’ But that raises the question of ‘what is new’.

InFront wrote:

It was the engagement of their whole community with some very questionable theories. Show me that with Irish Islam …. the obvious scientific miracles of the Qur'an

These two statements don’t sit well together. What’s obvious about the ‘scientific miracles’ in the Quran is they aren’t miracles. Stone age people understanding the cosmos well enough to build Newgrange does strike me as a bit of a miracle. Maybe we should take the hint, paint ourselves blue and worship the Sun.

I’d also wonder what you have in mind when you say the ‘questionable theories’ that Irish Catholics were engaged with, to see if we can see a parallel in Islam. What on my mind, for example, is kind of criticism many Muslims make of the notion of a Trinity. This amounts to them saying ‘It’s utterly crazy to think God had a son. Why can’t those Christian’s stick to credible beliefs, like the idea a virgin can have a child?’

InFront wrote:

there is no compulsion in Irish Islam (which is presumably the subfamily of Islam under discussion in this thread) …… I find that a very bizarre approach to a world religion with such a steep history

This is really just a technical point, but you might want to think about how you reconcile this. On the one hand, you are saying your focus is on Irish Islam, with the defence that all the looney tune stuff belongs to people in Islamic countries where they take all that God stuff seriously and don’t realise it only a bit of a laugh. On the other hand, you are saying Islam has to be taken seriously as a global religion – which brings all the looney tune stuff back into the picture. In this context I don’t mean ‘looney tune stuff’ to mean people who think God wants them to crash a plane into a tower block. I simply mean things like the kind of stuff I could dig out of islamonline.net explaining the evolution can’t have happened because God says, or all that stuff in the Quran about the need to slaughter all the Jews on the day of judgement except for those that hide behind a tree that calls out their name.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

I’m sure many Irish Muslims do have healthy scepticism about what scholars think they should believe, in the same way as many Roman Catholics ignore the ban on contraception. I utterly accept that if an individual Muslim was asked on a particular day why she is wearing a Hijab, the answer could very well be ‘I didn’t have time to wash my hair last night, and I look a fright’.

But all of that really just fits in with what I’m saying – Islam is much the same as Catholicism.

Similiar to the Catholicism that we have in ireland now? In a sample of 100 catholcis and 100 Muslims, I'd bet you would have an awful many more lapsed Catholics than you would lapsed Muslims. As such, the face of Islam isnt really comparable to modern Catholicism in Ireland.
Given that you seem to have established your own self in the above statement that Islam really isnt 'the old Catholicism' as we know it either, then I think the answer to the question posed in the title to this thread is plainly clear.

But for anything that you say about Islam, there is some parallel in Catholicism and vice versa.

I'm not sure what you mean here - certain religious practices such as modesty of physical appearance, and Ramadan, and daily observances have their complementary features in Catholicism. Theologically speaking, there's no argument there (of course Im not a scholar, I'm just presuming here)

It is the comparison between the old-fashioned "state Catholicism" and modern Islam that I have a problem with. The idea that Islam is, or seeks to be, some imposing national figure, or some dominating force of unreasonable authority within the community here just as the Catholic Church acted in the past. That suggestion is completely unacceptable.

If you just look at Islam as a doctrine – such as all that stuff you find on islamonline.net – what does it amount to? In this I am not looking at the Muslim using the Hijab to cover her mussed hair. I’m looking at what those charged with explaining the doctrine of the faith say is the reason to wear it. Take what those guys say, and you see parallels to the kind of thing Catholic clergy would have said in the past.

If you mean upholding their modesty, and the various other reasons given for the duty to obeserve hijab, then yes, i'm sure that in reminiscent of something a Catholic priest might have spoken about. What is the problem with that?
Why is it okay for women to walk around with very little and very revealing clothing without anybody passing comment for fear of being branded a religious nutter, and yet a woman wearing modest clothing on the opposite end of the scale, such as a headscarf, becomes the target for debate and criticism. It's a very unfair rebuttal to those who take up commitment to the hijab in place of what the western media (and sometimes western society) demands of a woman. Particularly here in Ireland, the hijab tends to be extremely optional. The only women who I feel are pressurised into an imprisoning dress code, in my opinion, are the young Irish women.
Really, the dominating forces of money and western propaganda are the 'the new Catholicism', the authority we just got rid of.

I’ve no problem with someone saying ‘Islam is much the same as any religion.’ But that raises the question of ‘what is new’.

It is much the same in that there are certain parallells. It's a bit like having a wife. Were I married, I might say that my Muslim wife is much the same as some man's Christian wife. They may both work in an office, they may both look like alike, they might be sisters. It doesn't necessarily mean I could marry the other.

These two statements don’t sit well together. What’s obvious about the ‘scientific miracles’ in the Quran is they aren’t miracles. Stone age people understanding the cosmos well enough to build Newgrange does strike me as a bit of a miracle.

Why, because they are not Muslim? Read this article and notice how it is not much different to what the people in Newgrange did. Or how the layers of the atmosphere were revealed in the Qur'an. There are so many miracles outlined on this page, how can one realistically argue them all as coincidences??? That may be a rehetorical question, if you don't believe them, or dont believe physics mayhaps, then it doesn't really matter in the context of this debate.


I’d also wonder what you have in mind when you say the ‘questionable theories’ that Irish Catholics were engaged with, to see if we can see a parallel in Islam.

I wasn't speaking about what a Muslim would consider to be the erroneous biblical interpretations and teachings per se, moreso ideas that the community was engaged with, actual practices: like belief in "indulgences", the idea that a member of their Church alone has some sort of parity in authority to God over the dead. And, related to that, the treatment of a member of the Christian church as almost a figure of idolatry.

What on my mind, for example, is kind of criticism many Muslims make of the notion of a Trinity. This amounts to them saying ‘It’s utterly crazy to think God had a son. Why can’t those Christian’s stick to credible beliefs, like the idea a virgin can have a child?

The idea of the virgin Mary, and her son Jesus as a prophet simply sits easier with Muslims than the idea that God would have a son, based on the evidence we have.

’This is really just a technical point, but you might want to think about how you reconcile this. On the one hand, you are saying your focus is on Irish Islam, with the defence that all the looney tune stuff belongs to people in Islamic countries where they take all that God stuff seriously and don’t realise it only a bit of a laugh.
On the other hand, you are saying Islam has to be taken seriously as a global religion – which brings all the looney tune stuff back into the picture.

I dont know perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Saying "Is islam the Catholicism we just got rid of" I presume you mean "we" in the context of the Irish experience.
If you are asking if Islam is to Saudi Arabia what Catholicism was to ireland, well then yes, obviously it is, and more. How could anyone possibly deny that?
My point about Islam being a world religion was meant in the context that 'overcoming it' as one person suggested, reminds me of attempts to overcome forces such as freedom and justice or the English language etc. This is one, tiny, little country in a corner of Europe, to speak of it "overcoming Islam" or getting rid of it as somone suggested, is a bit like a minnow speaking about eating a trout.

In this context I don’t mean ‘looney tune stuff’ to mean people who think God wants them to crash a plane into a tower block. I simply mean things like the kind of stuff I could dig out of islamonline.net explaining the evolution can’t have happened because God says, or all that stuff in the Quran about the need to slaughter all the Jews on the day of judgement except for those that hide behind a tree that calls out their name.

I'm not familiar with those articles in particular, and remember that the theory of evolution isn't yet set in stone amongst the scientific community, but just in terms of "odd theories" that do not form part of what could be called 'mainstream' Islam: this kind of thing is inevitible.
Show me one organisation or religion or community that doesnt have some questionable characters with abnormal opinions attached to it. Do you want most Muslims to be answerable for those strange opinions on the sidelines?

Originally posted by Jackie Laughlin
Do you agree with the following proposition? Your freedom to worship and do as you wish lasts only as long as the liberal, tolerant, open society upon

Freedom to worship: no
Do as I wish (taken literally): No
Anyway, where is this utopia you speak of?

I was in Pakistan six weeks ago, would you call that a liberal open tolerant society? I wouldn't call it that exactly. Yet I had freedom to worship, and I did pretty much the same stuff as I do here to be honest. Nice place.

The things I depend on this society for, Jackie, quite honestly, are kickass shopping centres, an orderly way of living, good coffee shops, and a hundred mundane etceteras.
People (ie we) need to get over a sense of selfish self-importance, in my opinion. Dublin, or Ireland is neither the be all and end all of civilzation (anyone who socialises soberly in this city will attest to that), nor is it the pinnacle of personal, social, political and religious freedom.

Wibbs

InFront wrote:

Why, because they are not Muslim? Read this article and notice how it is not much different to what the people in Newgrange did. Or how the layers of the atmosphere were revealed in the Qur'an. There are so many miracles outlined on this page, how can one realistically argue them all as coincidences??? That may be a rehetorical question, if you don't believe them, or dont believe physics mayhaps, then it doesn't really matter in the context of this debate.

A bit OT but the so called "miracles" of Islam are a bit of a stretch to say the least. The 7 layers of the atmosphere is a classic case of fitting the text to the facts. In the pre Copernican earth centric world, many of the ancients considered the "heavens" to be made up of seven spheres containing the heavenly bodies they could observe with the naked eye. It has nada to do with the atmosphere. In fact the oft repeated motion of the sun in the Quran reinforces this pre Copernican idea(although many will sqeeeeeze the text even further to wriggle out of that one, galactic spin etc).

In any case the atmosphere is not made up of seven layers. That's just a construct for simplicity's sake. Indeed one could argue for more than seven layers. Also you will notice that the Quran states the earth was created out of "smoke" first then followed by the "heavens", which is plainly wrong, oh yea and that meteors are missiles hurled at Djinns. There are other examples. The fingerprint one is bordering on farce. I suspect one could go through each one of those on that page and find either a case of squeezing the text to fit scientific theory or what is true was well known to the people of the time. A textbook of science it is not and nor would I expect it to be. What does surprise me is that so many well educated types believe in this, often without question.

More to the point is even one of those was found to be in error would the whole faith come crashing down? Hardly, and again nor should it.

InFront

Wibbs wrote:

A bit OT but the so called "miracles" of Islam are a bit of a stretch to say the least. The 7 layers of the atmosphere is a classic case of fitting the text to the facts.

In any case the atmosphere is not made up of seven layers. That's just a construct for simplicity's sake

And I've just got a physics book from down off the shelf over my head, I can count seven. I think you'll find the construct for simplicity's sake, as taught in Leaving Cert Chemistry (atmospheric chapter) is 3 layers.

And a google result would seem to verify this. To be honest, your pre copernican theory of what 'the ancients' believed seems to be the badly constructed explanation here.

It has nada to do with the atmosphere.

You dont think that this has anything to do with the atmosphere?. That this and all of the other Qur'anic miracles are lazy coincidences?

...His attention up to heaven and arranged it into seven regular heavens. He has knowledge of all things. (Qur'an, 2:29)

Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke. In two days He determined them as seven heavens and revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate. (Qur'an, 41:11-12)

What does surprise me is that so many well educated types believe in this, often without question.

Lets not get mixed up with intelligence and religion here. It's a non-issue. Smarter people than I are atheists, and smarter people than you are Muslims. A PhD, or an A in Physics, is not something that automatically strips you of faith. Can people just possibly stop associating those things together????? It makes me want to bang my head off my desk whenever it (inevitably) comes up.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

It is the comparison between the old-fashioned "state Catholicism" and modern Islam that I have a problem with.

I don’t see how it can be unacceptable to have a discussion exploring Islam’s aspiration to convert the world and assumption that the Sharia to be the perfect legal system. That might not be a value that you share, but there most certainly does seem to be a “state Islam” ideology that is still with us.

InFront wrote:

The only women who I feel are pressurised into an imprisoning dress code, in my opinion, are the young Irish women.

Surprising as it may seem, I actually used to have a degree of sympathy for the idea that covering up and displaying should just be seen as equivalents – with no assumptions about anyone being imprisoned.

Then I read an account of the effect of a delivery of lipstick in rebuilding the humanity of the survivors of a Nazi death camp. You’ll understand that the formation of a belief is not an entirely rational process, so I understand the same story might leave another shrugging nonchalantly in search of the point. But this marked a change in my thinking, which causes me to feel it is not actually sustainable to equate freedom with the suppression of self expression.

That’s not to say that someone cannot choose slavery, so long as they are free to claim their liberty back. But wrapping up women does communicate to me the closure of a field of human expression, and a sense of sadness that the world becomes a smaller and more limited place than it needs to be.

InFront wrote:

The idea of the virgin Mary, and her son Jesus as a prophet simply sits easier with Muslims than the idea that God would have a son, based on the evidence we have.

Ultimately religion is a matter of faith, and cannot be proved or disproved. But can I suggest there is simply no objective evidence that a virgin birth is possible. Can I also suggest that coming out with this statement so soon after decrying the notion of indulgences suggests you’re not really digesting my point. All religions have pretty screwy notions going with them, and Islam is no different.

InFront wrote:

Why, because they are not Muslim? Read this article and notice how it is not much different to what the people in Newgrange did.

Because they are not miracles. You’ll understand that Newgrange was built thousands of years before the Quran was written, so it’s hardly miraculous if Mohammed knew something similar – even assuming that’s what the text means to say. FFS, the Quran is just a repeat of the Bible stories that presumably would have been floating around a region where Jewish tribes lived. Christians were hardly unknown in the area either, or the Quran would hardly provide instruction on how to relate to them. Can we take some kind of reality check here?

InFront wrote:

There are so many miracles outlined on this page, how can one realistically argue them all as coincidences?

There’s already a thread on the scientific miracles on the Islam forum. I cannot say I found that discussion changed my perception of that it was anything more that the kind of retrofitting to facts as Wibbs as illustrated above. The simple fact is that the Quran describes a view of the universe where the Sun orbits the Earth which is possibly even flat. That doesn’t necessarily impact on its spiritual significance. But suggesting it contains knowledge unknown to the time is just bunkum.

InFront wrote:

Do you want most Muslims to be answerable for those strange opinions on the sidelines?

Strange opinions from the sidelines, no. But a quote attributed to Mohammed is hardly a strange opinion from the sidelines. It’s a strange opinion from the centre. (After posting I remembered the business about killing Jews on the day of judgement is a Hadith, not a verse of the Quran. Apologies on the wrong attribution.)

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

InFront wrote:

Dublin, or Ireland is neither the be all and end all of civilzation (anyone who socialises soberly in this city will attest to that), nor is it the pinnacle of personal, social, political and religious freedom.

I certainly agree with that, but in fairness I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Ireland is the centre of the universe. If anything, our problem has been the opposite – seeing ourselves as stupid Paddies who can do nothing.

But you’ll understand that size is not everything. There’s only fifteen millions Jews, and that small community produced scientists and intellectuals who have contributed massively to humanity. I’d suggest we aim for a middle ground, and hopefully accept that an Irish person has as much right as anyone standing to the planet to form an opinion.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

You dont think that this has anything to do with the atmosphere?. That this and all of the other Qur'anic miracles are lazy coincidences?

Not coincidences. Just an idea robbed from Judaism.

According to Jewish mysticism, Heaven is divided into seven realms.

Can I also take this opportunity of scotching the rumours that Wibbs and I were cojoined twins separated at birth.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

I don’t see how it can be unacceptable to have a discussion exploring Islam’s aspiration to convert the world and assumption that the Sharia to be the perfect legal system. That might not be a value that you share, but there most certainly does seem to be a “state Islam” ideology that is still with us.

In Ireland? I've never come across that refusal to discuss Sharia or the issue of conversions. I've never heard of that discussion being banned... anywhere.
Sharia, incorporating as it does the fiqh, can't technically be branded as the perfect legal system, as far as I understand. Sharia law, once it is interpreted and re-explained, or added to by man (fiqh), becomes "spoiled" like an airtight seal being broken, and is no longer the direct word of Allah.

st

Surprising as it may seem, I actually used to have a degree of sympathy for the idea that covering up and displaying should just be seen as equivalents – with no assumptions about anyone being imprisoned.
Then I read an account of the effect of a delivery of lipstick in rebuilding the humanity of the survivors of a Nazi death camp.

No that isnt very surprising at all. Are you saying that it is correct that it would be more acceptable to underdress than it is to overdress??

That's a nice story you posted there (sincerely) but it has absolutely no translation whatsoever onto the plane of modern Irish life. Young girls going to Club 92, literally half naked are not doing so in the name of their individuality, but rather to knit themselves into the blanket of the western model of the pretty, young woman. They are simply corresponding to a demand. Of course, some Muslim women are doing the same, just to a lesser extent. Still, you can't admonish one and pretend that the other is acceptable simply because it's "your" version.

But this marked a change in my thinking, which causes me to feel it is not actually sustainable to equate freedom with the suppression of self expression.

And what is so free about those girls outside 92, or 21, or the old wes in donnybrook? Where is their freedom of self expression?

That’s not to say that someone cannot choose slavery, so long as they are free to claim their liberty back. But wrapping up women does communicate to me the closure of a field of human expression, and a sense of sadness that the world becomes a smaller and more limited place than it needs to be.

I find this hard to understand. Men don't wrap women up. I think you should read this , an article by an Indian lady called Amatullah Abdullah who really gets across the joy of hijab, and why it is important to her. How much of a prisoner does she sound like? How 'opressed' do you think she is, compared to the Dublin girls I spoke about? Maybe she is a fool, you could say that, that might be your opinion. But you can't in the same sentance, argue that those Dublin girls do actually have freedom of expression.

you’re not really digesting my point. All religions have pretty screwy notions going with them, and Islam is no different.

You asked me what I thought questionable theories were in Christianity, I answered. If I ask a Christian, or a Buddhist, what the questionable theories are in my faith, I can't grumble about his response, or claim that his relgion is even weirder.

FFS, the Quran is just a repeat of the Bible stories that presumably would have been floating around a region where Jewish tribes lived.

Really? You better start telling people then. Cos there are about 1 billion people who are goonna be so pissed they didnt cop that until you just said it...
You just said you can't disprove a religion and then you come out with this. It's actually disappointing, to be honest.
In fairness, again, you're the one who brought scientific miracles into this discussion. It's not reasonable to bring it up and rubbish it whilst simply expecting a Muslim to not respond to that. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, simply responding with my own take on it.

But you’ll understand that size is not everything. There’s only fifteen millions Jews, and that small community produced scientists and intellectuals who have contributed massively to humanity. I’d suggest we aim for a middle ground, and hopefully accept that an Irish person has as much right as anyone standing to the planet to form an opinion.

Of course. But I think we need to take a long hard look at life here when considering is this really the model we want the rest of the world - great, unspoilt places with genuine character and real salt-of-the-earth niceness and beauty - is ours really the model we should want them to adapt???

mloc

InFront wrote:

And what is so free about those girls outside 92, or 21, or the old wes in donnybrook? Where is their freedom of self expression?

The difference here is that you automatically assume that these woman are in some way compelled to wear revealing attire to satisfy the demands of some pressures put upon them.

Indeed, most women I know make a personal decision each and everytime they go out as to what clothing and attire they will wear, from glamorously well covered to more revealing ensembles.

You honestly think that when a woman sees herself in a mirror and realises the beauty of her own body that she's in somehow trapped by her society and would rather be wrapped up in a tent? I think your argument is fallacy and that by comparing religious pressures to a free choice made by women you are failing to make any sort of valid point.

You must also remember, hypocracy does not make any point correct or incorrect.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I've never come across that refusal to discuss Sharia or the issue of conversions.

I should have made clearer that my use of the word ‘unacceptable’ was picking up on your statement

InFront wrote:

The idea that Islam is, or seeks to be, some imposing national figure, or some dominating force of unreasonable authority within the community here just as the Catholic Church acted in the past. That suggestion is completely unacceptable.

My point is if Islam’s aspiration is to convert the world and apply the Sharia, then it actually is fair game to explore if that amounts to an imposition of unreasonable authority.

InFront wrote:

Are you saying that it is correct that it would be more acceptable to underdress than it is to overdress??

I would not use the word ‘acceptable’, because I’m not seeking any limitation on people’s right to cover if that’s in their nature. But essentially yes, while also questioning the emphasis all the time on how much skin is shown. I’m suggesting that adornment and display – which may include showing skin – is an expression of something and covering up is suppression of something.

InFront wrote:

Where is their freedom of self expression?

Maybe they’re using it. Maybe they want to attract men and have casual sex. Maybe they’ll regret it later. Maybe they’ll do exactly the same thing next week. All together now:It’s only a Cabaret, old chum.

Men don't wrap women up.

Women are certainty participants in the power structure that delivers this outcome. The same issue crops up in the debate on female circumcision. That said, I’m not doubting the individual sincerity of people who adopt a hijab.

I would also suggest that it’s easier to cover up in a society where adornment and display is accepted than uncover in a society where they are prohibited. I’d also point out that the situation does not amount to women either covering up completely or letting it all hang out. Justification for the hijab as an expression of freedom seems to be based on the false proposition that most women, most of the time, look like extras in a rap video.

InFront wrote:

You asked me what I thought questionable theories were in Christianity, I answered.

Indeed, but I was hoping for some glimmer of acknowledgement of the irony in ridiculing the idea that God would have a son but not batting an eyelid over a virgin birth.

InFront wrote:

Cos there are about 1 billion people who are goonna be so pissed they didnt cop that until you just said it...

Fine, so why the need to create a sense of marvel that no individual man in a cave could have created such a text when so much of it is so obviously taken from elsewhere?

InFront wrote:

It's not reasonable to bring it up and rubbish it whilst simply expecting a Muslim to not respond to that.

But the response doesn’t have to be support for the miracles. Like this Muslim, you could say something like

there cannot be any actual contradiction between the results of scientific investigation and the religious doctrines, provided they are not a complete illusion. However, and precisely for that reason, the connection of the evolving results of science with the symbolic teachings of religion should be more subtle that the “cheap concordism'' which would consist in taking the literal meaning of some Koranic verses as alluding to “scientific facts'', and in interpreting allegorically those whose literal meaning seems to be discrepant.

He seems to be doing his best to reconcile the notion that nothing happens unless Allah wills with the plain fact that if you drop something, down it goes in an utterly predictable manner. But he looks like a voice in the wilderness. I would not be surprised if even as we speak some earnest Islamic scholar is explaining on islamonline.net that Intelligent Falling is no laughing matter. Is there really such an air of fear that letting in any crack of light will bring the whole house down?

InFront wrote:

is ours really the model we should want them to adapt?

I’m not totally clear on what ‘the model’ is in this context, so I may be talking off the point. I have an ultimate belief (which is only a belief) that we’re better off not following things that we know to be wrong. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the best thing would be for us to pretend there is a God who gave an exclusive world franchise on truth to the Catholic Church or whomever. But I’m still holding out for reality.

InFront

mloc wrote:

The difference here is that you automatically assume that these woman are in some way compelled to wear revealing attire to satisfy the demands of some pressures put upon them.

ditto for Muslim women. Why do you say it is different?

Indeed, most women I know make a personal decision each and everytime they go out as to what clothing and attire they will wear

ditto for Muslim women

You honestly think that when a woman sees herself in a mirror and realises the beauty of her own body that she's in somehow trapped by her society and would rather be wrapped up in a tent?

Oh no, I imagine a tent would be terribly uncomfortable. Well maybe a one-man-tent... I dont know. Do you have any photographs we could look at and judge?

Look, I'm not picking this stuff out of the seven layered atmosphere you know. My sister is a 24 year old woman. She wears a headscarf, and yet she is very well educated, she is a very pretty woman, and she enjoys taking care of her appearance, as all women her age do. She doesn't wear a 'tent' as you say, and she is under no comulsion to wear it. I know, and am friends with, Muslim girls here who do not observe the Hijab. That is their own issue, not yours and not mine.
Anyway, I dont know if there are any female Muslims using boards on a regular basis, but they would be better qualified to talk about the female perspective to you.

I think your argument is fallacy and that by comparing religious pressures to a free choice made by women you are failing to make any sort of valid point.

You don't think that Hijab could be a free choice?
And you deny that there is pressure on young irish girls to dress as they do?

You must also remember, hypocracy does not make any point correct or incorrect.

No, and that isn't my aim. My point is that you have to condsider the whole picture and do some lateral thinking. It's all very well for east and west to stand on two cliffpoints shouting allegations at one another, whilst failing to recognize their own inadequacies and failing to accept that the other side may do things better.
I can accept the fact that many Muslim states have awful problems with personal freedoms and freedom of expression, But I'm also awake enough to realise that this is not a problem confined to the Muslim nations, we can see it on our own Irish doorstep.

the_syco

Die-hard Christian
Women should cover up
Women should stay at home
Worship god, or goto hell
Follow what its Priests say, more so than their own goverment

Die-Hard Islam
Women should cover up
Women should stay at home
Worship god, or goto hell
Follow what its Priests say, more so than their own goverment

=-=

Go far enough left, ad you get to your right.

The die-hard nuts in both camps believe in the same value's, but say they oppose the others views. From your 21 virgins, to you being reborn when Jesus comes again, its all pretty much nice looking crap, but crap neitherless.

mloc

InFront wrote:

You don't think that Hijab could be a free choice?

My primary point here is that the wearing of Hijab is something that is habitual and generally not a case of "oh im only going to the shops sure I'll just stick on the Hijab and leave the Burka until later this evening".

It must be noted that the attire worn on nights out etc by young western females is not habitual and changes and varies widely even on an individual's mood and tastes. If a girl went out wearing a longer dress when she usually wore a more revealing skirt, she's not going to feel any serious negative pressures from her decision to use a few more square inches of clothing. I also think it's important to here to make it clear I'm taking about adults (20+) as adolescent females (and males) in any society have thier own unique issues.

You simply can't compare the choice of a Muslim woman deciding to wear a Hajib, with its long term consequences, with that of a young woman heading out who simply decides to show a bit more leg.

InFront

mloc wrote:

My primary point here is that the wearing of Hijab is something that is habitual and generally not a case of "oh im only going to the shops sure I'll just stick on the Hijab and leave the Burka until later this evening".

I'm not sure what you mean here. Of course its a habitual, it's a decision women make as part of their faith. If you can accept that women decide what to wear themselves like you seem to, what exactly is your problem with a woman wearing a headscarf? Isn't that her choice and not yours? Why should she wear less if she simply doesnt want to? Why do you think all women would want want to dress in the western tradition?

You simply can't compare the choice of a Muslim woman deciding to wear a Hajib, with its long term consequences, with that of a young woman heading out who simply decides to show a bit more leg.

What long term consequences?

mloc

InFront wrote:

Of course its a habitual, it's a decision women make as part of their faith...

...What long term consequences?

Firstly, my argument in this case is only that you cannot compare the wearing of religious dress to the attire worn by young western women. I am not arguing for nor against the wearing of religious attire in this instance.

The answer to your question is answered in the first sentence there. I do not mean "consequences" in the morbid sense. I merely am stating that the decision to wear a garment as part of a belief or religion is a decision that carries more weight behind it than the decision to dress a certain way on an evening on the town. Even on a personal level, a reversal of the decision to wear a Hajib or similar habitually worn religious garment carries with it more implications both socially and personally than simply changing the length of ones skirt or covering ones midriff.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

My point is if Islam’s aspiration is to convert the world and apply the Sharia, then it actually is fair game to explore if that amounts to an imposition of unreasonable authority.

Well when somebody here forces Sharia down your throat, let us know. And how would the issue of wishing to see Irish conversions to islam amount to unreasonable authority?

I would not use the word ‘acceptable’, because I’m not seeking any limitation on people’s right to cover if that’s in their nature. But essentially yes, while also questioning the emphasis all the time on how much skin is shown. I’m suggesting that adornment and display – which may include showing skin – is an expression of something and covering up is suppression of something.

Why? This is what Muslim clothing says to me: it says that the wearer is a Muslim who observes the hijab for Allah, and is in love with Allah, and particularly here in Dublin, it shows a real strength of character and of conviction, and probably perseverence. In the Irish context, it demonstrates individuality and confidence. I know a lot of female Muslim students, and particularly in light of how non Muslim Irish students sometimes behave, i think it's great that they carry on and observe Hijab, and that is a particularly strong expression of charcter.
If you want to argue that the woman (or man) wearing what would be pretty standard clothes for socialising in some places in the city is making some sort of equal contribution of self expression or strength of character, that is fair enough. I just dont think I could agree.

I would also suggest that it’s easier to cover up in a society where adornment and display is accepted than uncover in a society where they are prohibited.

I don't know. It wouldnt be unusual to see female tourists in parts of the ME going around in tshirts and shorts. Of course the response would be less than welcoming, and even hostile, but maybe you should ask any given Muslim woman what kind of responses she gets to observing Hijab here and see what she tells you about hostility.
I think you're unfairly taking away from the real effort that Muslim women here make to be faithful to themselves and to God.

Justification for the hijab as an expression of freedom seems to be based on the false proposition that most women, most of the time, look like extras in a rap video.

Not necessarily, it could also simply be seen as a rejection of the material world, however apparently modest. It's a myriad of things depending on who you speak to and what their beliefs are.

Fine, so why the need to create a sense of marvel that no individual man in a cave could have created such a text when so much of it is so obviously taken from elsewhere?

What do you mean "obviously taken from elsewhere"?
For example the stories about Jesus: you might say they are "taken" from the bible. Well, some of the bible has truths to it. There are aspects of the bible that would seem to be a valid account of certain events, such as the birth of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, to a Virgin mother Mary, who was a prophet of Allah. You didnt just expect Allah to forget about that and not mention it to Muhammad pbuh, did you? Or not discuss it because the Christians are using him in their religion?

Like this Muslim[/url], you could say something like...

I could but I dont particularly agree with him.

But he looks like a voice in the wilderness.

Honestly, after reading that article, I wouldnt be surprised.

I have an ultimate belief (which is only a belief) that we’re better off not following things that we know to be wrong. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the best thing would be for us to pretend there is a God who gave an exclusive world franchise on truth to the Catholic Church or whomever.

You know it to be wrong, do you? So what do you know that billions of others dont?

Wibbs

InFront wrote:

And I've just got a physics book from down off the shelf over my head, I can count seven. I think you'll find the construct for simplicity's sake, as taught in Leaving Cert Chemistry (atmospheric chapter) is 3 layers.

Here's one that says five; http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Atmosphere/layers.html
Here's another two that say four;
http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Images/profile.gif
http://okfirst.ocs.ou.edu/train/meteorology/VertStructure.htmlHey I've a book here that suggests further delineation into nine layers. I'm sure one could refine it further.

To be honest, your pre copernican theory of what 'the ancients' believed seems to be the badly constructed explanation here.

Not really; Here's a graphical representation of same; http://www.highdown.reading.sch.uk/highdown/pupil/time/calendars/patrick.html
You'll also notice the link about where the seven days of the week comes from. http://www.highdown.reading.sch.uk/highdown/pupil/time/calendars/origin.html
It's one of the reasons that the number seven has this lucky/special significance.

You dont think that this has anything to do with the atmosphere?. That this and all of the other Qur'anic miracles are lazy coincidences?

No and yes, though I wouldn't describe it as lazy per se, just what one would expect for the time. Compare and contrast the two explanations and what is the more likely given the time when the Quran appeared?

Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke. In two days He determined them as seven heavens and revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate. (Qur'an, 41:11-12)

Here we see the idea of each "heaven"(or planet) having a purpose and path. Again a common idea at the time(similar to astrology)

Lets not get mixed up with intelligence and religion here. It's a non-issue.

True enough.

smarter people than you are Muslims.

TBH that's not too hard and I wouldn't just restrict it to those of the Muslim faith.

A PhD, or an A in Physics, is not something that automatically strips you of faith.

True although when compared to the general population scientist types tend towards the more agnostic, but I get your point here.

Wibbs

Schuhart wrote:

Can I also take this opportunity of scotching the rumours that Wibbs and I were cojoined twins separated at birth.

You see he's trying to disinherit me again. It's not enough that he got the looks and the brains..

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

Well when somebody here forces Sharia down your throat, let us know. And how would the issue of wishing to see Irish conversions to islam amount to unreasonable authority?

I would have thought the issue is how a Sharia based society deals with dissent. Like Communism, it’s a bit of a one way street because there’s no clear way of backing out of it once adopted. Wishing for conversions is not unreasonable authority. Using a majority position to impose restrictions on others might be – or might not be. I think that’s the space the concern belongs in.

InFront wrote:

In the Irish context, it demonstrates individuality and confidence.

I’m not particularly questioning individual commitment here. It’s more the structure that sees this as in some way necessary. And, again, it’s a false case to take the typical opposite to wearing the hijab as young women out clubbing - which is not to say that I'm advocating locking up your daughters. Look around you on the street, or even generally out at night. By and large, it looks like women are simply wearing clothes they choose because they like them. In a previous online discussion like this with another Muslim similarly building a case on this ‘short skirt’ argument, I found myself on the train home idly counting how many women were actually wearing any kind of skirt. On my straw poll it was less than 10%. I’m not regarding this as scientific – just a call for balance to realise this “hijab versus enormous social pressure to look like a tart” argument is not grounded in the reality of human experience. If you’re telling me a hijab gives a woman a freedom that can’t be found in wearing trousers, I really think you’re on a hiding to nothing.

InFront wrote:

I think you're unfairly taking away from the real effort that Muslim women here make to be faithful to themselves and to God.

I don’t know if I can make this point coherently, but I don’t actually see the point in telling someone they don’t feel what they feel. If someone says ‘I sense God when I pray’ or ‘I feel wearing this symbol communicates my faith to God and he answers me’, its silly to say ‘oh no you don’t’. All that can be said is people of all faiths report such feelings – Buddhists seem to manage it without a God. But a published doctrine that this or that symbol is wanted by God for some reason simply is proper to debate.

InFront wrote:

What do you mean "obviously taken from elsewhere"?

You’re right to point out this is an overstatement. Its not as if I can point to a waste paper bin full of Jewish and Christian scriptures with bits cut out of the pages. But I think the central point holds. The sources of the stories that make up the Quran are hardly a mystery. Contrast this with the aura of ‘how could one man have written this book’ that you come across. Of course, maybe one man didn’t, but even that’s not the point.

For example, I can recall some commentator expressing wonder at how Mohammed was able to describe the sea even though there’s no evidence he had ever been close to one. He grew up in a centre of pilgrimage and trade, where presumably people were travelling to and fro from miles around. “How would someone like that have ever heard about sea, Ted? It’s a miracle.”

InFront wrote:

I could but I dont particularly agree with him

Indeed, but hopefully this illustrates that someone can profess to be a Muslim without feeling a need to defend the alleged ‘miracles'. You seemed to be suggesting otherwise.

InFront wrote:

Honestly, after reading that article, I wouldnt be surprised

IM(very rarely)HO he’s got his finger on what’s wrong with his religion.

InFront wrote:

You know it to be wrong, do you? So what do you know that billions of others dont?

I’ve already covered that. I’m just saying some people wrote that book and left it under a tree. What are the billions saying that shows otherwise?

InFront

Wibbs wrote:

Here's one that says five;

So, we both have contrasting sources. If you want to talk about the physics, I don't mind, I like a bit of physics. I just don't think it will get us anywhere here. I choose to accept the scientific theory of 7 "atmospheres" because it sits easy with my beliefs. You choose to make yours sit easy with your beliefs. Dead-lock.

Originally posted by Schuhart
I would have thought the issue is how a Sharia based society deals with dissent. Like Communism, it’s a bit of a one way street because there’s no clear way of backing out of it once adopted.

There's no backing out of it? Turkey has abandoned Sharia completely, and is now a secular state. And, plainly speaking, they've done a pretty good job of that. Turkey has a grim domestic identity, in my opinion, but Sharia is has not. Anyway, I'm not sure what this point enlightens us to... In terms of exploring whether Islam is our new Catholcism, I still don't see where Sharia is relevant to the debate.
If youre trying to draw a parallell between world Islam and world Catholicism then of course our respective religious-legal systems are parallells. There's nothing surprising or wonderous about that.

Wishing for conversions is not unreasonable authority. Using a majority position to impose restrictions on others might be – or might not be. I think that’s the space the concern belongs in.

That depends on the nature of the restriction, and what personal freedoms it curtails. And of course, what the aims of such impositions are. There is no "all restrictions = good" or "all restrictions = bad" equation.

hijab versus enormous social pressure to look like a tart

No. As already said, there are a variety of reasons for Hijab, depending on who you speak to.
One reason would be personal modesty, dressing with very little clothing is an extreme example, of course. Most women don't engage in this. But as far as I understand, it is the total seperation of herself from that entire mixup of unconsciously alternating between 'comfortable' and 'suggestive' clothing that women who take on Hijab have decided for themselves, a very definite seperation from their undesire to portray themselves in a merely sexual light.

Of course there are other reasons, this is just my interpretation of why some women choose the Hijab.
Let me ask you, do you think you have a say over a woman's decision to ovserve Hijab, being as it is an issue between herself and Allah, and not even her husband or her family?
Secondly, why does the inspiration of religion (probably a genuinely wonderful, joyous, force in her life) to adapt Hijab bother you?
And yet if it was empty fashion that instigated it, would you honestly have a problem with it.
I mentioned before, it was maybe 2 years ago now I saw this, women in this city wearing the Muslim dupatta for fashion reasons. In that context, most certainly, this garment was seen as harmless chic, a cute fashion accessory. Yet attatch a bit of Islam to it, and, for some people, it takes on a more questionable role.
So if a woman can quite easily observe commercial "Hijab", why can she not observe valid Muslim Hijab without questioning or preaching. You say it is because it is the published doctrine of God, not the woman, and so it warrants debate.
So ought there be similarly intensive questioning about the freedom of womanhood when Stella Mccartney writes an article on shoes?

I can recall some commentator expressing wonder at how Mohammed was able to describe the sea even though there’s no evidence he had ever been close to one. He grew up in a centre of pilgrimage and trade, where presumably people were travelling to and fro from miles around. “How would someone like that have ever heard about sea, Ted? It’s a miracle.”

Every man, and woman, of appropriate age, at some point will struggle with religion. Have you ever considered that Allah, while putting the facts there for us, and allowing us the option of expressing wonderment at them, and the option of believing them or leaving them, doesnt actually want to be sitting on our left shoulder telling us the answers and the facts and proving Himself to His people. Ultimately, life is a journey that one makes with a startling identity of alone-ness. I dont believe we are supposed to know it all.

someone can profess to be a Muslim without feeling a need to defend the alleged ‘miracles'. You seemed to be suggesting otherwise.

I'm certainly not saying otherwise. It doesn't fit in well with my interpretaion of the truth, and thus with my interpretation of the Islam I understand to be true. It is not the Muslim faith as I know it.
From his perspective his interpretation sits easy with his identity that he names as 'Muslim', and I can't deny him that, nor would I attempt to.

In his book "A Brief History of the Universe", Stephen Hawking makes a reference to a lecture Bertrand Russell once gave on the nature of the universe...

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
"At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."
"The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

As Hawking goes on to say, physics really cannot disprove this woman. And if she should call herself a physicist, albeit an incredibly theoretical one (theoretical physicists aren't real anyway har har), then nobody can really strip her of either her theory nor her title. We certainly dont have to agree with it, but we can't take anything away from her.

I’m just saying some people wrote that book and left it under a tree. What are the billions saying that shows otherwise?

What I was referring to was your "knowledge" that these people are wrong. I am just curious about your use of the word knowledge.
Now I feel adequately confident in my Islam to feel I know it is the path I want to followm in my life, I know it works for me, and I know that there is no other theory or idea that similarly rings true for me.
For all I know, this universe could be sitting atop a stack of shiny green tortoises stretching down to infinity, with Homer Simpson instead of Allah at the controls. it is my faith, and not naked knowledge, that convinces me otherwise.

lostexpectation

InFront wrote:

There's no backing out of it? Turkey has abandoned Sharia completely, and is now a secular state. And, plainly speaking, they've done a pretty good job of that. Turkey has a grim domestic identity, in my opinion, but Sharia is has not. Anyway, I'm not sure what this point enlightens us to... In terms of exploring whether Islam is our new Catholcism, I still don't see where Sharia is relevant to the debate.
If youre trying to draw a parallell between world Islam and world Catholicism then of course our respective religious-legal systems are parallells. There's nothing surprising or wonderous about that.

my impression was that th reason sharia law ain't turkish law is because of the secular military, and it needed a military to keep it that way.

I reckon Ireland used to have an unofficial canon law described through the courts/judges.

InFront

lostexpectation wrote:

my impression was that th reason sharia law ain't turkish law is because of the secular military, and it needed a military to keep it that way.

The point I'm making is unrelated to why Turkey has a secular system of administration but simply refuting the idea that sharia is a one way street, as Schuhart says.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I choose to accept the scientific theory of 7 "atmospheres" because it sits easy with my beliefs. You choose to make yours sit easy with your beliefs. Dead-lock.

Deadlock does not describe a situation where you simply ignore how the Quranic reference can be demonstrated to be a repetition of earlier mythologies.

InFront wrote:

The point I'm making is unrelated to why Turkey has a secular system of administration but simply refuting the idea that sharia is a one way street, as Schuhart says.

No easy backing out of it, as lostexpectation points out. Communism has also been abandoned. Similarly, I’m not aware of it having a built in ejection mechanism.

InFront wrote:

I still don't see where Sharia is relevant to the debate

Because of the suggestion of some that their long term aspiration would be to convert the world and introduce Sharia. Its clearly not that such an event is likely in the near future, although it does beg to be answered by a similarly long term aspiration to see the Kaaba converted into a museum.

InFront wrote:

of course our respective religious-legal systems are parallells.

Which presumably moves us closer to seeing the two as, in some sense, equivalents. So, again, getting all Papally Byzantine about it, it isn’t really something new.

InFront wrote:

do you think you have a say over a woman's decision to ovserve Hijab

No.

InFront wrote:

why does the inspiration of religion (probably a genuinely wonderful, joyous, force in her life) to adapt Hijab bother you?

There’s various layers to it. I’d say chiefly because I don’t see religion as a wonderful, joyous, force. Picture that lab rat running around on its threadmill, convinced its getting somewhere. That’s what I see in religion. Also, consider in this context fetishists like Koatians who seem to act out a lifestyle depicted in some science fiction novels. That could, apparently, involve being walked about in public on the end of a leash. That, I’m sure you’ll agree, takes a higher level of personal commitment that wearing a religious symbol of a mainstream faith. Yet it brings no particular benefit other than scratching an itch. In that context, hopefully you’ll appreciate why I’m not stunned into silence by the level of commitment required to engage in a practice regarded as something that God likes, to a greater or lesser extent, by a billion people.

InFront wrote:

So ought there be similarly intensive questioning about the freedom of womanhood when Stella Mccartney writes an article on shoes?

Do you mean the kind of questioning you might find in Billy Bragg’s ‘The busy girl buys beauty’, for example.

InFront wrote:

I dont believe we are supposed to know it all.

Indeed, but then you hardly need to bolster your faith with dodgy ‘miracles’. FWIW, I don’t feel threatened or saddened by Bruno Guiderdoni’s religion, or Hans Kung’s for that matter. If they were typical of Muslims and Catholics I could actually show those faiths some regard because they’d be standing in the same reality as me.

InFront wrote:

We certainly don’t have to agree with it, but we can't take anything away from her.

I’m having a Samuel Johnson “I refute it thus”moment. There’s no turtles. She’s just wrong. She might have a constitutional right to be deluded. But she is just wrong.

InFront wrote:

What I was referring to was your "knowledge" that these people are wrong. I am just curious about your use of the word knowledge.

Continuing the ‘I refute it thus’ stuff, people found these book under a tree. I don’t need turtles to demonstrate that. Evoking faith clearly puts the idea beyond scrutiny. But that puts it in the same bag as the turtles.

PoleStar

InFront wrote:

So, we both have contrasting sources. If you want to talk about the physics, I don't mind, I like a bit of physics. I just don't think it will get us anywhere here. I choose to accept the scientific theory of 7 "atmospheres" because it sits easy with my beliefs. You choose to make yours sit easy with your beliefs. Dead-lock.

People who are arguing with InFront, this above statement sums up many religious peoples attitudes: if science agrees with us, then great, if not, then who cares, our religion is right anyway and science is wrong.

Most physicists will say there are 5 layers in the earths atmosphere, however because some divide it into 7, then this must be right and whoopee because this is what my religions says. Might I just add in that a division of 7 is no surprise because humans have affinities for certain numbers throughout history, especially the numbers 3 and 7 and thats why you find many things divided into 3's and 7's.

My personal belief is that whether religion is right or wrong, its wrong to use science to back it up because religious scholars will choose the science that suits them and ignore the rest, and then have the strange insight to promote how great their particular religion is because wow look modern science has proven it too. If this really was the case that modern science is used as proof then those parts that science does not agree with should be taken as wrong.

I think someone mentioned evolution earlier in the context that although Islam rejects it, so do some scientists so its not entirely accepted and so thats ok. However I might highlight that the majority of those who don't agree with evolution are usually the "creationists" who fear that evolution might make their religion redundant, and indeed if we look at the United States, there are religious organisations who actually fund research into proving why evolution is wrong!

Anyway to summarise: you can't use sciene to prove religion or indeed vice versa. Please note, I am not stating that religion is wrong or Islam is wrong, just that I think it is bad to use scientific miracles to prove religion.

lostexpectation

InFront wrote:

The point I'm making is unrelated to why Turkey has a secular system of administration but simply refuting the idea that sharia is a one way street, as Schuhart says.

I think its exactly the point, only the power of the military could challenge it, thats one hell of difficult street, we're talking about systems that dominate every part of life like we see in the worst of some fully muslim countries and old catholic ireland.

Schuhart

PoleStar wrote:

you can't use sciene to prove religion or indeed vice versa. Please note, I am not stating that religion is wrong or Islam is wrong, just that I think it is bad to use scientific miracles to prove religion.

A very coherent post by Polestar. I’d just raise a few points.

People in the past would have no reason to explain why the Sun moved in a regular course other than that some superior being must be guiding it. Today, people may still believe in God, but the concept is no longer a material necessity in the same way. Nothing can prove or disprove God. But the goalposts have moved considerably.

I think this point is well made by Guiderdoni in the article I posted above when he comments on astronomers in a bygone age calculating that God’s throne was 120 million miles from Earth. We now know that the universe is much larger than that, and its generation is explicable back to the fraction of a second immediately following the big bang. Do we now put God sitting on a chair 15 billion years ago calling a speck of dust out of nothing? Or do we just accept it’s facile to see God in those material terms, and think the Universe functions by divine whim?

I think it’s also important to consider that some people may argue against evolution simply because they fear that a Godless society will eat itself. If you believe that, you would argue for creationism even if you are an atheist.
But there are clear dangers with that kind of outlook, well examined from a theist perspective in an article with the wonderful title ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’. (I’m in the mood for clear statements saying reasonable things). The problems religion causes for itself by getting in over its head where it has no need to be is well illustrated by the opening paragraphs

As recently as 1966, sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz asked the king of Saudi Arabia to suppress a heresy that was spreading in his land. Wrote the sheik:
"The Holy Koran, the Prophet’s teachings, the majority of Islamic scientists, and the actual facts all prove that the sun is running in its orbit . . . and that the earth is fixed and stable, spread out by God for his mankind. . . . Anyone who professed otherwise would utter a charge of falsehood toward God, the Koran, and the Prophet."

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

Deadlock does not describe a situation where you simply ignore how the Quranic reference can be demonstrated to be a repetition of earlier mythologies.

Firstly: truth does not begin with the Qur'an, and neither did Islam begin with the Qur'an.
Lets imagine that the planetary model that had been known since Aristotlean times, about 340 BC, was common knowledge, the dogs in the streets of Greece knew it. It was the established science of the time. So why does the Qur'an not mention the planets if that is what it was referring to? The moons of the planets? Surely that would be a pretty obvious thing to mention? Instead

It is He Who created everything on the earth for you and then directed His attention up to heaven and arranged it into seven regular heavens. He has knowledge of all things. (Qur'an, 2:29)

Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke. In two days He determined them as seven heavens and revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate. (Qur'an, 41:11-12)

Now nowhere in this entire debate have I referred to this particular, or any, miracle as downright evidence of the truth. The topic was brought up by Schuhart that the references were rubbish, I responded and there were various subsequent contributions by others that it is unfair that we should put forward the miracles as trying to prove our faith with Science.

Nobody has done that! All we have seen is people trying do disprove Islam with science in this thread. I already said that i think that believeing the miracles of the Quran is a personal option for us all, not that I think it is a universal truth that people must all accept "or else".

No easy backing out of it, as lostexpectation points out.

That's not exactly the same as saying it's a one way street. No easy backing out of it? Obviously!, there's no easy backing out of any government system, be it democracy, capitalism, communism, fascism, etc...

Because of the suggestion of some that their long term aspiration would be to convert the world and introduce Sharia. Its clearly not that such an event is likely in the near future, although it does beg to be answered by a similarly long term aspiration to see the Kaaba converted into a museum.

I find it extremely difficult to imagine your surprise that there might be a faith that seeks to have its theories and beliefs become widespread and have its prinicples and beliefs incorporated into society. To my knowledge, that is the aim of most faiths.

Which presumably moves us closer to seeing the two as, in some sense, equivalents.

I'm not sure I understand either the logic in trying to equalize world catholicism to world Islam (in either social or theological contexts) or Irish Islam to Irish Catholicism.
Everybody knows all religions have things in common with one another, what is your point?? Is it:

So, again, getting all Papally Byzantine about it, it isn’t really something new.

Because if it is your point that Islam is no different to Christianity, I think anyone would be wasting their time arguing with you here.

There’s various layers to it. I’d say chiefly because I don’t see religion as a wonderful, joyous, force. Picture that lab rat running around on its threadmill, convinced its getting somewhere. That’s what I see in religion.

Okay, so you don't see religion as those things, that's fine. What is your issue with people who do feel so and choose to act their life accordingly. Why is it so upsetting that they dont think otherwise? Because if you can't handle that, and need to question their informed decisions, and expect people to explain themselves to you for that reason, you're as bad as any Muslim who can't handle another's Christianity, or Judaism, or agnosticism, etc.

Also, consider in this context fetishists like Koatians who seem to act out a lifestyle depicted in some science fiction novels. That could, apparently, involve being walked about in public on the end of a leash. That, I’m sure you’ll agree, takes a higher level of personal commitment that wearing a religious symbol of a mainstream faith. Yet it brings no particular benefit other than scratching an itch.

No particular benefit to whom, you or them? If some guy is happy to sit in his room all day and create some of the most absurd, financially worthless art one could imagine, it really isn't your position to admonish that, or to say that it is "of no benefit".

I don’t feel threatened or saddened by Bruno Guiderdoni’s religion, or Hans Kung’s for that matter. If they were typical of Muslims and Catholics I could actually show those faiths some regard because they’d be standing in the same reality as me.

And why is that important, to have everybody on your wavelength? I mean it's alright to aspire to that in a polite way per se, but to say you simply can't show others regard, who are of different, and quite honestly harmless opinions, smells of very unworthy arrogance if you ask me.

There’s no turtles. She’s just wrong. She might have a constitutional right to be deluded. But she is just wrong.

You believe that, however firmly. So do I. Neither of us can prove it. Eight thousand million light years away, there could very well be a big fat gigantic turtle laughing at us all. Whatever you believe, like it or not, you just don't know.

people found these book under a tree. I don’t need turtles to demonstrate that. Evoking faith clearly puts the idea beyond scrutiny. But that puts it in the same bag as the turtles.

Of course it does. But, objectively speaking, to say there is nothing at all ninety thousand million light years away in space, carries exactly the same weight as saying there are turtles at the same event in space: Zero. If we dont know what is there, we don't know what isn't there either.
If you don't know there is nothing, then you don't know there aren't turtles.

PoleStar wrote:

Anyway to summarise: you can't use sciene to prove religion or indeed vice versa. Please note, I am not stating that religion is wrong or Islam is wrong, just that I think it is bad to use scientific miracles to prove religion.

Just to clarify again, the person who brought up the scientific miracles was not any Muslim on this board, and the responses you read were to the rubbishing of that aspect of the Qur'an. What I've written above, as I made clear in earlier posts, isn't an attempt at proving Islam through science, simply replying to someone who seemed to be discrediting the Qur'an, which contains these miracles.

Oroginally posted by Schuhart:
important to consider that some people may argue against evolution simply because they fear that a Godless society will eat itself.

Come on Schuhart, is that really "important" to consider, as you put it? You keep constantly referring back to these minority ideas from the sidelines to ridicule religion, it doesn't do anything for your argument in my opinion. I mean who exactly have you come across with that opinion?
The same with that 1973 article about nothing in biology making sense becuase od the theory of evolution. What relevance has that got to anything under discussion here??

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I already said that i think that believeing the miracles of the Quran is a personal option for us all, not that I think it is a universal truth that people must all accept "or else".

It is simply a fact that these scientific miracles are presented by many as evidence that the Quran is divinely inspired on grounds that there is no other explanation for them. It features enough for Bruno Guiderdoni to waste a portion of his life trying to suggest to his co-religionists that they are just barking up the wrong tree with this kind of stuff. That, I thought, was why the miracles were occupying a portion of our time – not whether you personally regard them as crucial.

On the whole ‘seventh heaven’ business, I really can’t see the significance of what you are trying to say. On the one hand, you seem to acknowledge that pre Quranic sources would have said much the same – in which case if there is a miracle it belongs to those sources. On the other, you seem to be drawing some significance to the word ‘planets’ not being used explicitly. I would point out that the full translation of this verse 41:12 reads:
Yusuf Ali's Translation

So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

Can you account for the business about adorning the lower heaven with lights (translated by others as ‘stars’ and ‘lamps’)? Hardly seems consistent with a description of the atmosphere, does it?

InFront wrote:

there's no easy backing out of any government system, be it democracy, capitalism, communism, fascism, etc...

Firstly, my original comment was ‘Like Communism, it’s a bit of a one way street because there’s no clear way of backing out of it once adopted.’ Secondly, like most written constitutions in liberal democracies, Bunreacht Na hEireann can be amended by popular vote which pretty much does provide a system through which the system can be fundamentally altered if that’s what the people choose. If a majority ever wants to adopt the Sharia, the procedure is there to do it. Once adopted, I’m not clear that the Sharia would allow an opposition to organise and publically state that they thought Islam was a load of pants.

InFront wrote:

To my knowledge, that is the aim of most faiths.

Except Buddhism, in fairness. Quakers also don’t actively seek converts, as I understand it. The rest do indeed preach away. You’ll understand I’ve no problem with them preaching, so long as they understand that makes them game for a laugh.

InFront wrote:

if it is your point that Islam is no different to Christianity, I think anyone would be wasting their time arguing with you here.

I think that is the essential point. Someone trying to sell Islam to former Catholics is, essentially, selling them a formula that will be familiar.

InFront wrote:

Because if you can't handle that, and need to question their informed decisions, and expect people to explain themselves to you for that reason, you're as bad as any Muslim who can't handle another's Christianity, or Judaism, or agnosticism, etc.

People are either open to debating these things or they are not. If someone is quietly praying in a corner, I’m leaving them to it. If, on the other hand, they are open to discuss these things I’m game too. Nobody – absolutely nobody – has any obligation to justify anything to me at all.

InFront wrote:

No particular benefit to whom, you or them?

What I mean to communicate by “no particular benefit other than scratching an itch” is that Koatians would not purport that their practices will bring them eternal paradise. A theist wearing a religious symbol because they think God wants them to presumably does. I accept that value can be subjective. But I don’t think I’m making a heroic assumption in suggesting the promise of eternal bliss has a higher potential benefit to exploration of master slave roles. Maybe I’m wrong. Two years as a slave might be worth an eternity in heaven, particularly if you have to listen to Free Presbyterians telling you they were right all along.

InFront wrote:

And why is that important, to have everybody on your wavelength?

If it was only about being on my wavelength, then it wouldn’t be important at all. It simply has to do with humans dealing with the reality of their situation. We found those books under a tree. Billions of us agreeing to pretend otherwise doesn’t help, any more than suggesting that its arrogant to point out ‘they were just under a tree, that tree right there.’

InFront wrote:

Neither of us can prove it.

I’m still with Johnson on this. Alternatively, you can take the ‘prove there isn’t a china teapot orbiting the Sun’ line. Either way, these considerations are just irrelevant and don’t need to be entertained.

InFront wrote:

I mean who exactly have you come across with that opinion?

A Professor of Biology called Ken Miller who has appeared as an expert witness in court cases relating to Intelligent Design being taught in US schools as science. He makes this speculation in reply to a question at the end of a lecture here, if you’ve two hours of your life to give up. What’s the particular problem with making this point? It struck me as a speculation worth airing. I’m not saying its central to the concern of the thread, but it does grow naturally out of the dialogue.

InFront wrote:

What relevance has that got to anything under discussion here??

I think the relevance if fairly obvious in the context of reaction to Polestar’s useful post. Again, I’m not really following your problem with it. If you think its irrelevant to your interest in the discussion, ignore it.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

It is simply a fact that these scientific miracles are presented by many as evidence that the Quran is divinely inspired on grounds that there is no other explanation for them. It features enough for Bruno Guiderdoni to waste a portion of his life trying to suggest to his co-religionists that they are just barking up the wrong tree with this kind of stuff. That, I thought, was why the miracles were occupying a portion of our time – not whether you personally regard them as crucial.

Look, my point is that the idea of the scientific miracles being introduced to this debate amounts to more 'mud flinging' than bringing anything worthwhile to the argument.
It would be exactly like me approaching a thread about the social role of Christianity in Turkey and then lambasting the Christian belief in the Trinity is a load of rubbish and something they should just cop on about.

Do you not see the futility and the irrelevance of such a subtopic to an already adequately complicated matter?

I really can’t see the significance of what you are trying to say. On the one hand, you seem to acknowledge that pre Quranic sources would have said much the same

I'd be happy to discuss this in another context, but given my opinion on the miracles and on the way this thread is going, I think you'd be better of discsusing it with someone who agrees with you on it.

Bunreacht Na hEireann can be amended by popular vote which pretty much does provide a system through which the system can be fundamentally altered if that’s what the people choose. If a majority ever wants to adopt the Sharia, the procedure is there to do it.

Once adopted, I’m not clear that the Sharia would allow an opposition to organise and publically state that they thought Islam was a load of pants.

Firstly, the literal transition is quite different to the social transition in terms of a change of administration. A capitalist democracy, given its power centres, would be an incredibly difficult thing to overcome, despite the will of the majority of the people in it.

Secondly, by your problem with a non-democracy seems to be that it is a non-democracy. It reminds me of the phrase "any colour so long as it's black"

The rest do indeed preach away. You’ll understand I’ve no problem with them preaching, so long as they understand that makes them game for a laugh.

While I think that some Muslims ought to try and grow thicker skin in terms of religious offense in some circumstances, I don't agree that one should just put up with being subjected to being made a laughing stock because of his or her Islam. That said, of course another has the right to do laugh at you, but common courtesy and social intelligence would typically avert such ill taste.
I don't know any people for whom Muslims or Christians or Jews tend to be the butt of their jokes, and I see neither the point nor the humour in such a habit. It's not illegal, nor should it be I suppose, just plain rude.

I think that is the essential point. Someone trying to sell Islam to former Catholics is, essentially, selling them a formula that will be familiar.

Well they are like bottles of medicine or some such thing. They are similar in packaging, but are made up of very different substance. Many Christian ideas would sit very easily with my faith, and vice versa I'm sure for a Christian. We are both of the Ibrihimic family. Yet so many of our principles are very contrasting, and totally alien to the other religion.
I mean, I'm not saying anything that a child in primary school doesnt know here, perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about or you are trying to reach a higher intellectual plateau. The simple, inalienable fact is that Catholicism and Islam have their many parallells and are also, being different faiths, full of principles and guidelines that makes them just unable to reconcile with one another.
The Muslim structure has a very different approach to the faith than the Christian counterpart. There is a wonderful intensity in islam that you just don't see in the other faiths, in my opinion. There is unity in islam, Islam directs a positive way of living from sunrise to sunset, it can be the foundation of all that one does, and as such affords a more sustainable happiness. Well, that's just an opinion, but you must understand that most people, even atheists I'm sure, would agree the suggestion that Islam and Christianity, apart from their obvious likenesses, are basically the same thing is utterly bizarre.

If it was only about being on my wavelength, then it wouldn’t be important at all. It simply has to do with humans dealing with the reality of their situation.

What makes you think theyre not? Muslim (women in particular) are obviously doing what is right for them. Not you or I. Or do you want everyone to agree on a universal code of dress?
I never cease to be surprised why anoyone except for the individual observing hijab feels they have a say in the matter, or have a genuine interests and in it, or that it has a real consequence for them.
Whether a Muslim girl is walking down the street in a headscarf and jeans, or no headscarf and jeans will be totally irrelevent to your day and to your life. It does have a relevence to her day and to her life.

We found those books under a tree. Billions of us agreeing to pretend otherwise doesn’t help, any more than suggesting that its arrogant to point out ‘they were just under a tree, that tree right there.’

So the only helpful thing would be what, exactly, to agree with you?
That is an arrogant statement, Schuhart, as arrogant as it would be for me to state that the scientific miracles of the Qur'an prove me correct to be true without question and that all atheists, or anyone who disagrees with me, are hereby factually wrong.

Either way, these considerations are just irrelevant and don’t need to be entertained.

They're more a lot more relevent that someone who argues evolution because they are afraid of the consequnces of a Godless society.
Surely a central question is how does one prove, or disprove the existance of the unseen. How does one prove or disprove God? You simply can't. people have been at it for centuries and they still haven't done it, I don't expect the Eureka moment to happen on boards.ie. Saying you know there is no such thing as God, implying as that does inalienable fact, is quite as foolish as the suggestion that one "knows" there are turtles eighty thousand million light years below us.

PoleStar

InFront wrote:

Look, my point is that the idea of the scientific miracles being introduced to this debate amounts to more 'mud flinging' than bringing anything worthwhile to the argument.
It would be exactly like me approaching a thread about the social role of Christianity in Turkey and then lambasting the Christian belief in the Trinity is a load of rubbish and something they should just cop on about.

Please InFront, comparing the use of scietific miracles in the Qu'ran as "scientific proof" that this book was divinely inspired is nothing like the belief in the Trinity.

The concept of the Trinity is not used as "proof" of Christianity, it is something that is taken on faith and is central to the Christian religion. No Christian has, or ever will attempt to use this as proof that Christianity must be the true path, nor has or will anyone try to use "science" to prove the Trinity.

As it is however, many Muslims, including yourself it appears from your previous replies, uuse quotes from the Qu'ran as scientific evidence that it is the divine word of God, your comparison is completely irrelevant.

Again please let me stress I am not anti-religion, however, the science in the Qu'ran in my opinion is not there, it is just taken selectively by people and matched to the science that agrees with it to use as "proof".

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

Do you not see the futility and the irrelevance of such a subtopic to an already adequately complicated matter?

I’d point out that this grew out of a (possibly rhetorical) question you posed as to what I thought Muslims should be doing to express their faith. We’d both agree that I’m hardly the arbiter of what makes a good Muslim. But I felt it fair to air that point of Guiderdoni about rejecting all that ‘miracles’ stuff and seeking after the substance of the message. Despite what you said about

InFront wrote:

It's not reasonable to bring it up and rubbish it whilst simply expecting a Muslim to not respond to that.

its actually perfectly reasonable to expect at least some Muslims to shrug and say ‘the Miracles are pants. Does every Catholic believe that Mary appeared at Knock?’ I actually (truly) wasn’t expecting that you’d try to mount a defence of the indefensible. I’m comfortable dealing with that here or on the ‘Miracles’ thread that already exists on the Islam forum.

InFront wrote:

A capitalist democracy, given its power centres, would be an incredibly difficult thing to overcome, despite the will of the majority of the people in it.

There are most certainly practical realities like that, and judging how politics works just reading the provisions of the Constitution would be naïve. Yet, for all that, the people cannot be ignored – even if they do get asked twice when they vote the wrong way in an EU referendum.

InFront wrote:

Secondly, by your problem with a non-democracy seems to be that it is a non-democracy. It reminds me of the phrase "any colour so long as it's black".

Can I, for the record, confirm that I do not regard democracy and totalitarianism as equally valid outcomes. If fact, I’d follow up on yesterday’s “I refute it thus” Johnsonism with that assertion from the start of the American Declaration of Independence that some truths are self-evident. I agree with those slave owning plutocrats when they say

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I also tolerate the reference to ‘Creator’ as a poetic flourish.

InFront wrote:

I don't agree that one should just put up with being subjected to being made a laughing stock because of his or her Islam.

Neither do I. But if someone claims they’ve got a message from God and that we’ve all got to listen it, it is utterly fair to respond. That may mean collateral damage. You may find me making comments in response to something I’ve read on islamonline.net that you don’t like. Why not take it up with them?

InFront wrote:

There is a wonderful intensity in islam that you just don't see in the other faiths, in my opinion.

I know you are qualifying it as your opinion, and that fine. I’d only point out again that intensity of belief belongs to the individual rather than the faith.

InFront wrote:

I never cease to be surprised why anoyone except for the individual observing hijab feels they have a say in the matter, or have a genuine interests and in it, or that it has a real consequence for them.

I think the distinction between personal choice and discussing doctrine has already been made. The only crossover I see is the need to debunk the notion that what a young woman might choose to wear on a Saturday night equates to a divine injunction suggesting all women should dress in a particular way every time they appear in public. If we want to conclude that Mohammed’s idea of what’s modest has the same general relevance to the cosmos as Stella McCartney’s thoughts on shoes, I can leave it there. But I don’t think that’s what people are saying.

InFront wrote:

So the only helpful thing would be what, exactly, to agree with you?

Its not through disagreement with me that that they’re wrong. Its through pretending things are other than they are. Bruno Guiderdoni doesn’t agree with me. Nor does Hans Kung, Teilhard de Chardin, Ken Miller or the host of other theologians and scientists who reconcile their religion with reality. All we share is a commitment not to pretend that things are other than what they are, which does not equate to arrogance.

InFront wrote:

Surely a central question is how does one prove, or disprove the existance of the unseen.

A more relevant concern is how to cope with that uncertainty in a context where God is not essential to explaining human existence. Against that background, the ‘you can’t disprove it’ argument is an expression of desperation.

InFront

PoleStar wrote:

Please InFront, comparing the use of scietific miracles in the Qu'ran as "scientific proof" that this book was divinely inspired is nothing like the belief in the Trinity.

I thought my comparison was clear but maybe not. If some people use the scientific miracles ofthe Qur'an as "Proof" of Allah, that is irrelevent for one moment.
My point is that the use of the miracles in this argument, being a theological entity in the Qur'an, has little relevence to the 3 dimensional reality of modern social Islam in the world with respect to how Islam directs and is directed by its followers.
This is not really, to my understanding, a thread about theology and comparative theological worthiness or unworthiness. Using the miracles argument to say "your faith is crap' basically, is for a different debate.
I'm simply pointing out that using extracts from the Bible or from the Qur'an doesn't really have a place in this debate, in my opinion. Presumably this debate has an aim, that is to argue yea or nay to the proposition that islam is the Catholicism that we just got rid of...
What use has the rubbishment of the scientific miracles of the Qur'an, or equally the Trinity, in such a debate?

As it is however, many Muslims, including yourself it appears from your previous replies, uuse quotes from the Qu'ran as scientific evidence that it is the divine word of God,

previous replies?... my previous replies make it clear that, I for one, am not using the scientific miracles as confirming evidence of my religion. So I don't know where you're getting that idea from. I do find others' denials of these miracles intriguing I suppose, but that is down to my own interpretation-based-faith, and not my belief in a universal truth for all.

Originally posted by Schuhart:
If we want to conclude that Mohammed’s idea of what’s modest has the same general relevance to the cosmos as Stella McCartney’s thoughts on shoes, I can leave it there. But I don’t think that’s what people are saying.

Allah's idea, as taught to Muhammad, on modesty, has no relevance to the cosmos per se, the relevance is to the individual. And in that context, Muhammad's teachings on clothing carry just as much weight in the mind of a Muslim as what a fashion house/ community/ media sermonize on, in the mind of your average non-Muslim woman.
So if an atheist can 'suffer' if suffer is really the word, the same degree of servitude to a fashion house, and wear the dupatta, why must a Muslim, who suffers this servitude to Allah instead, endure an inquisition?

Its not through disagreement with me that that they’re wrong. Its through pretending things are other than they are.

This really turns back to the question of how you know things are other than what i, or anybody else, perceives they are.
You praise dissident religious men who sweep closer to your version of events that most of their kindred, like a cricket coach might make a fuss of a boy who plays an unorthodox bowl, and expects the remaining players to abandon their natural method and follow suit. (it is the ashes, i cant help it, hopefully you see my point anyway).
What is 'right'? It is very facile to see it as simply your opinion, or the opinions of others which lie within your comfort zone.

A more relevant concern is how to cope with that uncertainty in a context where God is not essential to explaining human existence...

‘you can’t disprove it’ argument is an expression of desperation.

The inability to disprove most people's religion is not usually their motivation for believing in it. I am simply responding to your argument that it is untrue because it is not, nor will it ever be on Earth, provable. As long as you don't have prrof there will be believers and nonbelievers, not 'knowers and unknowers', despite, with respect, what you may think of your personal knowledge.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

What use has the rubbishment of the scientific miracles of the Qur'an, or equally the Trinity, in such a debate?

I think Polestar’s point was that the scientific ‘miracles’ don’t equate to the Trinity. If you equated the scientific ‘miracles’ to the Knock apparitions and, say, the idea that the Quran is the exact word or God to the Trinity, you would be more relating like to like.

InFront wrote:

Allah's idea, as taught to Muhammad, on modesty, has no relevance to the cosmos per se, the relevance is to the individual.

The very fact that you start this sentence with ‘Allah’s idea’ shows the relevance to be more than to the individual. You are saying its part of God’s plan – cosmically significant. That’s the contention I’m interested in which some, maybe not you, want me to believe.

InFront wrote:

It is very facile to see it as simply your opinion, or the opinions of others which lie within your comfort zone.

Again, it really isn’t down to my opinion, or even the opinion of few others. It’s down to dealing with consequences or choosing to ignore them. The points raised by these ‘dissidents’ are never answered. Only avoided, ignored and, in some places, suppressed and denounced.

InFront wrote:

As long as you don't have prrof there will be believers and nonbelievers, not 'knowers and unknowers', despite, with respect, what you may think of your personal knowledge.

Indeed there will. And within the believers there will be those who face the reality that God is materially optional and those who don’t.

There will be those who face the reality that it was reasonable 1400 years ago for someone see proof for the existence of God ever time the Sun rose, as there was no other mechanism to explain it. That outlook is simply no longer possible. It was possible for someone to picture God fashioning a man out of clay and breathing live into that body as a real event, and for that first man to have a name. That outlook is no longer possible.

That doesn’t mean the end of God. But it alter the basis for belief – that’s the point. Its not my fault that it has this implication – take it up with Allah.