The Modern Manifestations of Islam - Help Please

Zillah

Hello.

I've realised that I don't quite understand Islam and its place in the world today. I'm familiar with the basic beliefs (Muhammed, Koran, Hadiths, Five Pillars etc), but the specifics of the situation are unknown to me. A couple points I'd be grateful if someone could elaborate on:

1 - Islamic law, Islamic nations and core beliefs: I'm gonna show my hand here and say that I think the majority of Islamic countries have horribly oppressive laws, such as Saudi Arabia. I've heard it argued that Islam doesn't neccessarily condone, promote or require these sorts of laws, that these nations have very conservative cultures regardless of their religious beliefs. I wonder what exactly Islam says about what an Islamic State should be?

2 - Schisms and denominations: How diverse and disparate are the various factions of Islam? Comparisons to Christian sects would help here, I'm quite familiar with those. For example, whats the primary difference between Sunni and Shia? What it is about those differences that can justify the sort of inter-Muslim massacres we're seeing in Iraq?

3 - Fatwahs, Jihad, Suicide Bombers, Apostates and intolerance: What is the modern opinion on these sorts of traditions? What do mainstream Muslims think of such violently religious traditions like Fatwahs and Jihad? Is there any room for cultural context (ie, in a more tribal society these have a place, but perhaps not the modern world?)? Just what does the Koran say about unbelievers in terms of rights, friendships, marriages etc? Does the Koran actually promise a special place in Heaven for suicide bombers?

I know thats a lot of questions but I want to make sure I understand Islam before I come to any opinions. Lets not dance around the issue: Islam holds an awful place in the minds of a lot of secular/Christian westerners. The Islamic world has shown itself to be quite reactionary; I wonder is this an element of Islam or is it a natural side effect of the way recent history has played out?

the_new_mr

Hello Zillah. You're welcome to the Islam forum.

Please read the charter. In it, you'll find the following:

8. If you have a number of questions and you expect a lot of answers then you are suggested to break them out into seperate posts. This helps keep threads from quickly going off topic or loosing context.

But I guess we can forget about this time

Zillah wrote:

I've realised that I don't quite understand Islam and its place in the world today.

Kudos to you for taking the steps to try and correct this situation.

Zillah wrote:

1 - Islamic law, Islamic nations and core beliefs: I'm gonna show my hand here and say that I think the majority of Islamic countries have horribly oppressive laws, such as Saudi Arabia. I've heard it argued that Islam doesn't neccessarily condone, promote or require these sorts of laws, that these nations have very conservative cultures regardless of their religious beliefs. I wonder what exactly Islam says about what an Islamic State should be?

Well, that's a very difficult question to answer as I don't have a degree in Islamic law. Maybe it would be best if you asked about the position on some specific laws and I or anyone else here can answer the best they can?

Zillah wrote:

2 - Schisms and denominations: How diverse and disparate are the various factions of Islam? Comparisons to Christian sects would help here, I'm quite familiar with those. For example, whats the primary difference between Sunni and Shia? What it is about those differences that can justify the sort of inter-Muslim massacres we're seeing in Iraq?

Well, some people have made comparisons with Catholicism and Protestantism but that's not really a very good analogy. I would say that Sunni and Shia are closer to each other than those two main Christian sects.

As for the difference, it depends on what branch of Shia you're talking about. I'm sure you know the Islamic testimony of faith? "There is no god except God Himself and Mohamed is His messenger". Any Shia who believes this can be considered a Muslim and these are most Shia. The thing that makes them Shia is who they believe should have succeeded the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) as leader of the Muslim nation. It was Abu-Bakr, one of the Prophet Mohamed's (peace be upon him) closest companions. Shia believe it should have been Ali (the Prophet's cousin). Ali ended up being the fourth leader of the Muslim nation. I see this as a political difference more than a religious difference and most Shia don't differ that much in religious practices to Sunni.

There are a very small group of Shia (and I'm not sure if there are any of these left now) that believe that Ali was supposed to be the prophet but that the Angel Gabriel intentionally gave it to Mohamed instead. I wouldn't want to be brave enough to say that these people aren't Muslims but if any group of Shia could be considered not to be Muslims then these are they.

Personally, I prefer not to divide between Sunni and Shia in this way and say that we are all Muslims (those who submit themselves to God).

There are a few other minor factions but these can really be neglected as they aren't Muslims at all. The nation of Islam (as they like to call themselves) is one example.

Zillah wrote:

Fatwahs, Jihad, Suicide Bombers, Apostates and intolerance: What is the modern opinion on these sorts of traditions?

Well, I'd like to steer clear of the idea of a "modern opinion" as this implies that Islam has to be changed as time goes on. Anyway...

Fatwas:
Let's clarify the definition here. A fatwa is nothing more than a religious ruling/opinion. For example, a Muslim may ask a religious scholar whether it is okay or not to take medicine with mild traces of alcohol. The scholar may then issue a fatwa to say that since it's a necessity and that the intention is not to drink the alcohol but rather to take the medicine then it's okay (I believe that is the opinion on this matter. God knows best).

Sometimes, the word fatwa is used such as in the sense of placing a bounty on someone's head. I'm not even sure if this is okay to do to be honest with you and if it is okay, I'm not sure of the circumstances required for this. In short, I don't know.

Jihad:
Another clarification of a definition. Jihad is simply an Arabic word that can mean struggle or effort. This can be a struggle of any kind. The internal struggle that every Muslim lives with daily is called jihad al nafs (struggle of the self). Someone who may exert an amount of effort in trying to spread the message of Islam or rectify its false image can be said to be doing jihad as they strive in the way of God (kind of like what we're doing here on this forum. May God accept it from us).

And sometimes jihad can be a military action against another military faction. There are rules for this sort of thing. Please read the following article from islamonline.net that puts it way better than I can.

Jihad, not... a "Holy" War!

Suicide Bombers:
There are two main opinions on this. One is that (as long as it's in Israel), it's the last resort of a desperate person trying to fight for freedom and justice and the other is that it's not okay regardless of the goal and intention. The possible justification for it being okay in Israel is that all Israelis above and below a certain age are part of the military since they take it in the turns to serve in the army.

It's a touchy subject and I'm not sure what to think either way to be honest with you. I think that certainly when elderly and children are victims then it's not okay at all and this, I believe, is in keeping with the teaching of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) when giving instructions to his soldiers before a battle.

"Do not kill women or children or noncombatants and do not kill old people or religious people (he also mentioned priests, nuns and rabbis). Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies."

Apostates:
Once again, there are two opinions but the opinion that I personally am completely convinced with is that apostates are free to be apostates if they want. Evidence from the Quran supporting this point of view:

An-Nisa:137
"Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe, and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of the truth - God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them in any way."

The idea being that an apostate must be free to believe what they want if they are given the chance to disbelieve and then believe again.

Intolerance:
Not really sure what you mean about intolerance. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific?

Zillah wrote:

Just what does the Koran say about unbelievers in terms of rights, friendships, marriages etc?

Unbelievers have rights and it's fine to be friends with them. Muslim men can marry Christian and Jewish women but not the other way around.

Zillah wrote:

Lets not dance around the issue: Islam holds an awful place in the minds of a lot of secular/Christian westerners.

You're right and this stinks. It's partly the fault of the media (some intentional), partly the fault of people who spread bad info (some intentionally while others unintentionally) about Islam and partly the fault of Muslims themselves since we're not doing enough to represent the true image of Islam.

Zillah wrote:

The Islamic world has shown itself to be quite reactionary; I wonder is this an element of Islam or is it a natural side effect of the way recent history has played out?

The latter.

Just a reminder that I'm not a religious scholar so my opinions shouldn't be taken as such. We try our best Any goodness in this post is thanks to God and anything bad is my fault.

wes

Will answer what I know here.

Zillah wrote:

1 - Islamic law, Islamic nations and core beliefs: I'm gonna show my hand here and say that I think the majority of Islamic countries have horribly oppressive laws, such as Saudi Arabia. I've heard it argued that Islam doesn't neccessarily condone, promote or require these sorts of laws, that these nations have very conservative cultures regardless of their religious beliefs. I wonder what exactly Islam says about what an Islamic State should be?

Islamic law has many manifestations, you have one extreme Saudi Arabia, than at the other end you have a country like Malaysia. There are several version of Islamic states, what Islam says doesn't matter as much as what the Muslims interpret what an Islamic state should be.

Zillah wrote:

2 - What it is about those differences that can justify the sort of inter-Muslim massacres we're seeing in Iraq?

Well the Iraq conflict has a lot to do Saddam. Now Saddam was a Sunni who secular dictatorship oppressed the Shia majority. There have been tensions between Sunni's and Shia's, but nothing on the scale of Iraq. So Saddams oppression caused all this hatred, and then you have an illegal badly planned invasion. Then you have Al Quada who are purposefully trying to get the 2 groups to kill each other and are apparently responsible for blowing up a Shia holy site, which lead to the current seceratian strife. Then you have the US/UK occupation who for a variety for historical reasons are not welcome i Iraq (read here constant betrayal since the first World War).

Zillah wrote:

3 - Fatwahs, Jihad, Suicide Bombers, Apostates and intolerance: What is the modern opinion on these sorts of traditions? What do mainstream Muslims think of such violently religious traditions like Fatwahs and Jihad? Is there any room for cultural context (ie, in a more tribal society these have a place, but perhaps not the modern world?)? Just what does the Koran say about unbelievers in terms of rights, friendships, marriages etc? Does the Koran actually promise a special place in Heaven for suicide bombers?

A Fatwah is a religious edict or ruling e.g. a scholar making a ruling on a part of the Koran.

Jihad = struggle, this can be religious internal struggle or the Osama variety.

Suicide attacks, are something imported from Japan from what I can see as an asymmetric tactic against superior forces for terrorists groups to use. They use it to show there enemy they are not afraid to die. The justification for these actions came after they started to occur.

As for treatment of Non-Muslims, there are plenty of examples of tolerance e.g. Muslim Spain, modern day Malaysia, and examples of intolerance e.g. Saudi Arabia.

The Koran does not have a special place for suicide bombers. Its a silly thing these nuts are promised and the media likes to repeat without providing context for it. Paradise is for all believers and not suicide bombers, who by the act of suicide and attacks on innocent civilians are committing the worse sin possible, so they unsurprisingly go to hell.

Zillah wrote:

I know thats a lot of questions but I want to make sure I understand Islam before I come to any opinions. Lets not dance around the issue: Islam holds an awful place in the minds of a lot of secular/Christian westerners. The Islamic world has shown itself to be quite reactionary; I wonder is this an element of Islam or is it a natural side effect of the way recent history has played out?

Muslims aren't big fans of the "West" dealings with them. Right now the US is giving 6 billion dollars a year in military aid for an Apartheid state, Israel. In 1948 3/4 of a million Palestinians were driven from there homes. Millions still live in the squaller of refugee camps to this day.

At the end of the first world war, Muslims of the Middle East who joined the Allies in fighting the Ottoman empire were promised freedom. They got tyrants instead and the planned destruction of Palestine.

In 1952 the Iran's socialist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was murdered during a joint CIA/MI5 op, as he was planning to nationalize his nationals oil industry in accordance with international Law. The CIA lead coup put in place the Shah a brutal dictator who murdered and tortured, which lead to the Islamic revolution which over threw him and the current Iranian government.

Why does the "West", fund an apartheid state, sell weapons to every tyrant in the Middle East, even when he gases thousands of his own people with there fill knowledge of this and even after that still sell him weapons? Why was this dictator the only one brought to justice for this and the Europeans who sold him these weapons are let of scott free? The "West" dealings with Muslims have rarely been honest and the "Wests" media has fun way of twisting facts in a post-orwelian propagandist fashion.

Then Colonialism and slavery of Africa, which destroyed that continent for all intents and purposes.

So you in the Middle East, you have tyrants who don't allow free expression or legitimate, democratic descent. So the only place they have to go is the Mosque, so then you get the likes Al Quada who have a nice group of angry people to draw from. The problem is political not religious. When Osama first started making his speeches against the "West", he was against occupation of Saudi Arabia (this existed in his mind) by American military bases, which really isn't an occupation. Of course this wasn't compelling enough, so he started to talk about Palestine, now this got people to his cause. Of course if the "West" didn't fund his Jihad against the Soviets he might not have the infrastructure he had to carry out the 9/11 attacks and beyond.

The terrorism came first and the religious justifications came after they decided to go down that path. There causes and problems with the "West" are political, wrapped in religious ideology for justification of there mass murder.

Robert Fisks book "The Great War" for civilization, is a great book that goes into detail of the motives of Jihadists, as well as giving a very indept history of the mid-east conflict, from the Armenian genocide, Palestinian Naqba, to the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. I would also google Robert Fisks articles for the independent, as they are very well written.

the_new_mr

Very good post there wes.

wes wrote:

Jihad = struggle, this can be religious internal struggle or the Osama variety.

Just wanted to point out that Osama isn't performing justified jihad.

I didn't answer the question of:

Zillah wrote:

What it is about those differences that can justify the sort of inter-Muslim massacres we're seeing in Iraq?

The answer is nothing can justify it.

Wanted to clarify that no current state is exercising Islamic law correctly.

Also, I wanted to clarify a little bit on what I said about suicide bombers earlier since it could be badly misunderstood. I edited my previous post to clarify a little.

wes

the_new_mr wrote:

Just wanted to point out that Osama isn't performing justified jihad.

Thanks for that. Should have mentioned that myself, but forgot too.

Just to add thats there 2 sides to the story and that in the News here I am increasingly seeing people trying to forget there motives. One needs to ask themselves, like a cop would with any murder, what is the motive? If you don't look at this in context things get skewed very badly to one side. There are 2 sides here, one is just better at hiding there dirty work.

the_new_mr

wes wrote:

one is just better at hiding there dirty work.

Too true.

wes

Just one more thing, I was not trying to excuse the actions of Muslims who murder innocent people. I was just trying to explain the complex motives for doing what they do. Not sure if that came across as well as I wanted, in my post.

Zillah

Apoligies for not getting back to this sooner, I've been quite busy.

the_new_mr wrote:

Sometimes, the word fatwa is used such as in the sense of placing a bounty on someone's head. I'm not even sure if this is okay to do to be honest with you and if it is okay, I'm not sure of the circumstances required for this. In short, I don't know.

Ok, well can anyone explain Fatwas in the bounty/death sentence meaning? A number of prominent people, especially those who criticise Islam, have essentially had death sentences put on their heads. How do these function? Who's allowed to make such rulings, does the Koran support them and are Muslims obliged to comply?

Suicide Bombers:
There are two main opinions on this. One is that (as long as it's in Israel), it's the last resort of a desperate person trying to fight for freedom and justice and the other is that it's not okay regardless of the goal and intention. The possible justification for it being okay in Israel is that all Israelis above and below a certain age are part of the military since they take it in the turns to serve in the army.

Well, it raises the question, what parts of the Koran do the handlers of these suicide bombers quote to convince them? Where are the 72(?) virgins mentioned and all that.

wes wrote:

Islamic law has many manifestations, you have one extreme Saudi Arabia, than at the other end you have a country like Malaysia. There are several version of Islamic states, what Islam says doesn't matter as much as what the Muslims interpret what an Islamic state should be.

Funny you should mention Malaysia. In regard to Apostates, I saw a report on Al Jazeera about a Muslim woman who married a Hindu man. When the authorities found out, she was arrested and sent to a re-education camp where they're trying to convert her back to Islam. Both are being denied access to the children and the husband is told she is not his wife because she is not allowed to marry a Hindu.

The Koran does not have a special place for suicide bombers. Its a silly thing these nuts are promised and the media likes to repeat without providing context for it. Paradise is for all believers and not suicide bombers, who by the act of suicide and attacks on innocent civilians are committing the worse sin possible, so they unsurprisingly go to hell.

As I asked above, what is it that is misquoted to convince such a shocking amount of people (thousands in the last few decades) to commit such acts?

the_new_mr wrote:

The answer is nothing can justify it.

Well, my question is more what convinces the Shia and Sunni sectarian fighters that it is justified? How can they call themselves Muslims while they are murdering other Muslims in cold blood? I assume the Koran explicity condems such acts.

wes

Zillah wrote:

Ok, well can anyone explain Fatwas in the bounty/death sentence meaning? A number of prominent people, especially those who criticise Islam, have essentially had death sentences put on their heads. How do these function? Who's allowed to make such rulings, does the Koran support them and are Muslims obliged to comply?

A Fatwa as far as I know can be made by anyone more or less. As for who would listen, that depends. There have been Fatwa's put against Bin Laden. I doubt anyone would be crazy enough to go and try and find him however. Most death Fatwa's are ignored by the majority of Muslims.

Zillah wrote:

Well, it raises the question, what parts of the Koran do the handlers of these suicide bombers quote to convince them? Where are the 72(?) virgins mentioned and all that.

Your talking about Martyrdom, which is not unique to Islam. Those who convince those to commit suicide bombings tell those who commit them that they are martyrs for God etc. Really its just a case of convincing young men who either have nothing to lose or feel that way, to sacrifice themselves to fight an injustice. Really, they hardly need to quote religion, they just point them to places like Palestine etc to get them riled up and angry and then throw a few quotes etc that they can twist to make it seem justified. Islam is very clear on not hurting civilians especially Women and Children.

As for the 72 virgins, the number changes a lot depending on who you talk too. Its also possible that the particular passage actually means dates (the fruit). As far as I can tell there is no explicit number mentioned at all in either meaning.

Also to explain again, suicide is a grave sin and murdering innocents is an even greater sin. So they would never get into heaven to enjoy virgins or dates either way.

Zillah wrote:

Funny you should mention Malaysia. In regard to Apostates, I saw a report on Al Jazeera about a Muslim woman who married a Hindu man. When the authorities found out, she was arrested and sent to a re-education camp where they're trying to convert her back to Islam. Both are being denied access to the children and the husband is told she is not his wife because she is not allowed to marry a Hindu.

I never said the place was perfect, its still a developing nation and has its problems. Its still far far better than many other Muslim countries. For some odd reason people expect that developing nations to have the same standards as developed ones.

Lets remember Ireland as recently as 1993 had a law against homosexuality and other religiously motivated laws before then, with time and development things changed here.

Zillah wrote:

As I asked above, what is it that is misquoted to convince such a shocking amount of people (thousands in the last few decades) to commit such acts?

Look at the history of the middle east to understand why things have gone to hell. It all goes back to the end of the first World War and it would take for too long to go over the whole thing, the book I mentioned earlier goes into great detail in this regard and if you want to understand I recommend you give it a look.

Another good book is the Pulitzer prize winning "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright. I have not read this one as of yet, but intend to get around to it eventually. Its comes fairly highly recommended especially since its Pulitzer prize winning book and will provide a different perspective to Robert Fisks book.

I have to ask you also, how many unnecessary wars have "Western" countries fought since the Second World War? Why do old men always send the young to die for some stupid cause? Its hardly something peculiar to Islam.

Suicide bombings are horrible, but there the acts of people who have nothing to lose or at least think so. The terrorists leaders even refer to them as weapons. Is a group of civilians killed by a suicide bomber any less horrible than say a group of civilians killed by a missile fired from hundreds of miles away?

Zillah wrote:

Well, my question is more what convinces the Shia and Sunni sectarian fighters that it is justified? How can they call themselves Muslims while they are murdering other Muslims in cold blood? I assume the Koran explicity condems such acts.

Simply put another Muslims is expressly forbidden to kill another Muslims (also another person in general as well). Murdering someone is grave sin and nothing can justify it.

Your looking for a religious reason for the hatred in Iraq, the reason is simple Saddam exacerbated the differences between to groups who under normal circumstances got on well enough. Inter-marriages happen all the time for instance. Saddam murdered and brutalized the Shia's and the Kurds. In the case of the Shia's, they live alongside the Sunni's in the south quite a bit and then there was a spark which kicked off revenge killing after revenge killing, which is in turn exacerbated by a occupation. Remember when Saddam was executed the executioners were shouting Muq'tada (referring to the radical Shia cleric), which clearly illustrates the desire for revenge on Saddam and his base (the Sunni's). One other thing to note Saddam's Ba'ath party were a secular pan Arab movement which was actually founded by a Christian.

InFront

Zillah wrote:

what is it that is misquoted to convince such a shocking amount of people (thousands in the last few decades) to commit such acts?

Nothing. The Qur'an does not advocate killing innocent civilians - it just isn't in there. What causes suicide bombing is essentially a socio-political question, not a religious one.

It is true that fighting can be allowed as a last resort under certain restricted circumstances. But the terrorists don't read the whole 'contract', so to speak. They just think "defend, fight". This gives the terroists a perceived 'cause'.
Suicide bombing is a huge affector of politics because it directly impinges upon public freedoms, and their subsequent death is seen as martyrdom. This gives them method.

But if it isn't religion, it's nationalism. If it isn't nationalism, it's video games. If it isn't video games, it's Seung-Hui Cho with a gun shooting students for no particular reason at all.
It isn't a question of Islam moulding suicide bombers, it's a question of suicide bombers moulding Islam to suit themselves.

Zillah

You seem to be more defensive than is warranted. I'm not implying that Islam advocates these things, I've already made it clear that I don't know enough to make such a conclusion. What I'm asking is that you play devil's advocate using your more informed position to help me understand the position of Muslim's who do do these things.

Muslims, as a group, are incredibly devout people. The dedication of the average Muslim is far far stronger than the average Christian, for example. With that in mind, I find it difficult to understand how a young Muslim man can perform acts that are explicitly forbidden by their own holy book.

I understand that the reasons these people want to perform suicide bombings is socio-political, but they must, as Muslims, be convinced that their actions are in keeping with their belief that they will face Allah's judgement after their death.

wes wrote:

Really, they hardly need to quote religion, they just point them to places like Palestine etc to get them riled up and angry and then throw a few quotes etc that they can twist to make it seem justified.

Which quotes, is what I'm wondering? Again, I understand the reasons that these men might want to commit terrible acts against the West, what I'm wondering is how they rationalise with their beliefs.

InFront, why did you edit out the mention of justified martyrdom from your post?

InFront wrote:

Fighting is allowed under certain resitricted circumstances and Martyrdom is considered valid on repelling a true, serious aggression against Islam.

Thats what you said originally. Is it true?

InFront

Yes, that's correct but saying it like that is open to misinterpretation, it's a bad choice of words on my behalf. For example, what is a true aggression against Islam and at what point does fighting become necessary? And of course - this only includes fighting against aggressors.

Robert Fisks book "The Great War" for civilization, is a great book that goes into detail of the motives of Jihadists

All of the responses to the thread answered the original question pretty well but wes is correct, this book is particularly good for getting into the mind of asuicide bomber.

There is one chapter where Fisk explores the stories of the young Iranian teenage boys who wrap themselves in heavy coats so that their remains will be scattered close together when they die. Whether they die for Iran or for Islam is unclear, I'm not sure they would have known themselves. I would recommend this book too.

PDN

InFront wrote:

There is one chapter where Fisk explores the stories of the young Iranian teenage boys who wrap themselves in heavy coats so that their remains will be scattered close together when they die. Whether they die for Iran or for Islam is unclear, I'm not sure they would have known themselves. I would recommend this book too.

I thought it was a great book. If an evangelical Christian and a Muslim agree on a book written about the Middle East then there's hope for the world yet.

InFront

PDN wrote:

I thought it was a great book. If an evangelical Christian and a Muslim agree on a book written about the Middle East then there's hope for the world yet.

Indeed, and agreeing on a book written by an agnostic at that:D

wes

Zillah wrote:

Which quotes, is what I'm wondering? Again, I understand the reasons that these men might want to commit terrible acts against the West, what I'm wondering is how they rationalise with their beliefs.

I am not sure which quotes to be honest.

Here is an article by Mona Eltahawy which is really good and I think will go some way to answering this particular question.

Qaradawi damages Palestine’s cause by turning global issue into Islamist weapon

the_new_mr

wes wrote:

A Fatwa as far as I know can be made by anyone more or less. As for who would listen, that depends.

Just wanted to point that, as far as I know, fatwas in the bounty sense are not a part of Islam and have no basis in the Quran.

wes

the_new_mr wrote:

Just wanted to point that, as far as I know, fatwas in the bounty sense are not a part of Islam and have no basis in the Quran.

Thanks for mentioning that. Something I completely forgot, again. Where would we be without you ? I really need to give my posts a second look from now on.

the_new_mr

You think too highly of me You often mention things I forgot or didn't know. Posts from people like yourself and InFront as well as others are just as important.

seahorse

the_new_mr wrote:

You're right and this stinks. It's partly the fault of the media (some intentional), partly the fault of people who spread bad info (some intentionally while others unintentionally) about Islam and partly the fault of Muslims themselves since we're not doing enough to represent the true image of Islam.

Hi. I realise I'm responding to an old post here, but there's something I'd like to say in response to this. The Western media are, in my opinion, responsible for blackening the name of Muslims, but I never bought into that. There are points about Islam I dont understand, such as the wearing of the hijab, but I have enough cylinders firing in my brain to know it'd be unlikely I would understand every nuance of a religion I didnt grow up with, and I also know that ignorance can lead to fear and the two of those put together make the perfect recipe for intolerance, so I've never had any problem with Muslims, or any other religious group for that matter. I was raised Catholic in a Republican household and my ex fiancée was a protestant from the Shankill Road; that raised a few eyebrows around the place, I can tell you! I would describe myself as more spiritual than religious actually, and I firmly believe that God put all the religions of the earth here for a reason. It's a reason, of course, I couldnt claim to understand, but if I were to hazard a guess I'd say it was probably to teach us lessons in tolerance.

I didnt get to know a Muslim person in my life until I went to college, and she was a lovely young woman. It'd be hard to understand what kind of mind it'd take for a person to detest her on the grounds of her religion. Here's where I'm going with this: people who are thinking straight judge people on their behaviour. I never had any negative feelings towards the Islamic world until last year when the Pope made those unfortunate comments. Please understand that I am not denigrating the Islamic religion in any way shape or form. The negative feelings towards Islam I am talking about came about as a result of the Muslim reaction to those comments, the violent and angry riots which took place across the world; I have to say they shocked and scared me. I think a lot of Catholic people probably felt the same.

I felt that had I been there, having been raised Catholic as I was, I’d probably have been hurt of even killed. The assumption might have been that the Pope was speaking for all Catholics, but I can assure any Muslims on here, he was not. I think that the Muslim response was very unfortunate and cast Islam in a very poor light. Had the Muslim individuals who made up those mobs comported themselves calmly and held peaceful vigils to show a gently expressed disagreement with the Popes comments, they would have belied the content of his message, which was that violence was inherent to Islam. I feel that the way they responded actually gave people to believe there was a great deal of truth in the Popes comments. If somebody tells me violence in inherent to me, and I then promptly slap them in the mouth, I have just validated their comment. I wonder why could the people involved in those violent protests not see the counter productivity of their actions?

I’m curious about the general feeling among Muslims as they observed those riots? I'd be interested to hear what the Muslims living here in Ireland discussed between themselves at that time.

I'm glad I came across this board by the way, it's very interesting.

wes

seahorse wrote:

I’m curious about the general feeling among Muslims as they observed those riots? I'd be interested to hear what the Muslims living here in Ireland discussed between themselves at that time.

I'm glad I came across this board by the way, it's very interesting.

Well first there might be a thread here where we all discussed the Popes comments last year. Maybe do a search for that as well.

Secondly I am not going to excuse the violence btw, just give some background on the situation at the time. Look at the places were violence occurred on a scale as to alert the world media. The 3 main place off the top of my head, were Lebanon, Palestine, and Somalia. At the time Lebanon had gone through a war, this raised tensions and the machinations of the Hezbollah made things notable worse there. The place was a tinder box, it didn't take much to have the place go to hell. Then there was Palestine were there attacks on some churches (no one was hurt thankfully), which as we all know is in a constant state of conflict. Then Somalia which has had no government for the last 10 years. Now all these places unique situations contributed to the violence there, which made them far worse than anywhere else.

In the wider context there were Muslim leaders who used the popes comments to gain cheap political points. They fanned the flames and the typical thugs showed up to burn effigies etc.

So a lot of blame falls upon our eternally dodgy leaders (well the last decent Muslim leader may have been Attaturk or maybe Benazir Bhutto).

Also to say I condemn all the violence Muslims committed. There are no excuses for what they did.

Also it should be noted the Pope made a great effort to heal the rift with his visit to Turkey. He even gave his blessing to Turkey EU bid. He did a great thing here and I think a lot of Muslims realized that he is a good man and hopefully they also realize that the Popes comments were taken out of context by leaders trying to score cheap political points. I also doubt many of the rioters even read his comments.

InFront

seahorse wrote:

If somebody tells me violence in inherent to me, and I then promptly slap them in the mouth, I have just validated their comment. I wonder why could the people involved in those violent protests not see the counter productivity of their actions?

Interesting post; I for one am as curious as you about the answer as to why they do this.

I don't think protests were uncalled for. We all have our own opinions of what the Pope said, if someone felt that his statements could be challenged by a protest, then that's fine, I don't see how it impinges on anyone or adversely effects someone (within the context of a peaceful protest).
Rioting is quite different, obviously. Wes made an interesting point about the riots tending to happen in volatile political environments. We must ask ourselves the question that since there are Muslims everywhere, why was the rioting contained to specific regions?

Why Lebanon and not, say, the Portobello area in Dublin? or East London?

seahorse

Thank you for that Wes.

InFront wrote:

I don't think protests were uncalled for. We all have our own opinions of what the Pope said, if someone felt that his statements could be challenged by a protest, then that's fine, I don't see how it impinges on anyone or adversely effects someone (within the context of a peaceful protest). Rioting is quite different, obviously.

Yes, that's true InFront. In fact, I think had there been widespread protests, but peaceful ones, it would, as I've already pointed out, have belied any interpretation of the message that suggested violence was inherent to Islam. I think actually, had there been widespread peaceful protests covered by the media, it would have done a lot more for the image of Islam and for Muslims generally than if they had not reacted or responded at all. I think in that case Westerners would have said to themselves; 'These people feel wronged, but look at how they comport themselves. There must have been no truth in the interpretation of that message.' It's a pity the media did not make the same point that Wes did; but then the media are not known to be fair, especially to Muslims, and after Sep 11th it became even more distinctly less likely that they would be.

InFront wrote:

Wes made an interesting point about the riots tending to happen in volatile political environments. We must ask ourselves the question that since there are Muslims everywhere, why was the rioting contained to specific regions?

Why Lebanon and not, say, the Portobello area in Dublin? or East London?

Yes it was a valid point, and not one many Westerners would consider, having little understanding as they do about what is actually going on in these countries. As for why violent protests did not break out in Western societies, I think there is more than one reason for that; along with the Muslims who live in those countries not being in a state of emotional agitation inflamed by their circumstances, I think it's less likely people anywhere will riot in a situation where they are racially or religiously outnumbered. Of course there are exceptions to that rule, as we saw here for thirty years.

PDN

InFront wrote:

Rioting is quite different, obviously. Wes made an interesting point about the riots tending to happen in volatile political environments. We must ask ourselves the question that since there are Muslims everywhere, why was the rioting contained to specific regions?

Why Lebanon and not, say, the Portobello area in Dublin? or East London?

Could it be as simple as the fact that people do things if they think that they can get away with it?

For example, killing a nun in Somalia in response to the Pope's comments exposes you to a much smaller likelihood of getting arrested than if you committed the same act in East London. Similarly, the firebombing of churches in the West Bank will hardly be investigated with the same rigour as if you firebomb a church in Dublin.

A more serious question is why you are more likely to get away with such behaviour in certain countries. Is it because you will find a greater number of people who will shield you, approving of such actions? Or is it that the authorities in certain nations would be less likely to pursue those who commit violence against dhimminis?

wes

PDN wrote:

A more serious question is why you are more likely to get away with such behaviour in certain countries. Is it because you will find a greater number of people who will shield you, approving of such actions? Or is it that the authorities in certain nations would be less likely to pursue those who commit violence against dhimminis?

Dhimmini system doesn't exist as far as I know anymore. Maybe Saudi Arabia. I could be wrong however.

Somalia doesn't have a government (the interim one has no power so doesn't count). So there is no one to enforce law and order.

Palestine, well the Palestinian authority is a shambles. Always has been, they over see a fiefdom (if you can even call it that), they have minor control in Gaza and none elsewhere.

So in both those examples the governments don't work, have little or no authority and they are constantly attacked thus destroying there capabilities. They are also virtual war zones for decades. There is no law and order quite simply. A lot of people are killed in both places for all sorts of reasons, the examples you gave are tiny minority of people killed in those places.

InFront

For example, killing a nun in Somalia in response to the Pope's comments exposes you to a much smaller likelihood of getting arrested

True; of course there was a civil war raging at the time, which certainly cannot be ruled out as the single reason for this nun's death.

PDN wrote:

Could it be as simple as the fact that people do things if they think that they can get away with it?

Yes, that's one reason, but it isn't the only one. It all revolves around breakdown in society and order: General political disorder is the enormous driver of public discontent. While certainly serious in their own right, the Pope's comments were occasionaly an excuse for political rioting in some places.
Societies don't tend to enjoy violence, there is more to it than simply "hating the west" for the sake of it: there is a reason for it, when it occurs. It doesn't just happen, it wasn't always as it is now. (This is really more of a topic for politics btw:) )

the_new_mr

PDN wrote:

Could it be as simple as the fact that people do things if they think that they can get away with it?

I don't like that at all.

Is it just me or does that sentence imply that Muslims in other parts of the world wanted to be violent but didn't because they were afraid of being caught?

On the topic, although the feelings of anger may be justified a little, the behaviour certainly was not.

Here's a link to a video that was posted on here a while ago. Very very very good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onX9kGF3uYs