Article

2004-09-10 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ed 2004-09-10 10:08:38 AM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 yeah ex-muslims are a reliable source for interpreting authentic Islam. Kinda like ex-Jews are the best for interpretating authentic Judaism, and ex-Christians for interpretating authentic Christianity.

So this guy agrees with AQ on what is authentic Islam. Fine. And this trumps the views of millions of muslims who disagree?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-10 10:55:25 AM|| 2004-09-10 10:55:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Fascinating response. No reply needed, just my take.

Posted by .com 2004-09-10 11:01:45 AM|| 2004-09-10 11:01:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 # of Muslims (or former ones) condemning the Russian attack: 2

# of Muslims who now have fatwas on their heads: 2+

Getting the word out on the RoP: Priceless!

I pray for this guy's safety. LH, this guy is spot on! He's only telling what the "prophet" himself did (lead by example), what the Koran says (there are many verses about killing the infidels...Jews, Christians, Atheists, even other "non devout" Muslims). If he's legit, he's been on the inside, probably heard the hate taught in the madrassahs and mosques. Just b/c "millions of muslims" (according to you) disagree, that doesn't make the text of the Koran any less clear, or the Terrorists' following of those scriptures any less devout! And where are these "millions of muslims?" I want to hear more of them SPEAK OUT and DENOUNCE (categorically, I may add, not like CAIR who "denounced" the Russian attack but subjected it to Russia not attacking Chechens) these acts! Until this happens on a large scale, in my mind, they're cohorts in the deaths caused by the jihadis!

Posted by BA 2004-09-10 11:07:19 AM|| 2004-09-10 11:07:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Seeing, when it is dangerous to do so, when it contradicts to what people are supposed to see, is beautiful. I am very impressed with these ex-Muslims-they put their lives on the line to speak truths in this time of history, and yet they still do it, fervently. And they certainly know their religion better than any non-Muslims do.

BTW-I actually learn a lot from talking to people who are "ex" their religions. Sometimes the "organized religion" aspects of their denomination sours them on what is otherwise an excellent relationship with God. Their faith seems more soulful, more alive to me than those who are literalists who blindly adhere to books.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-10 11:20:51 AM|| 2004-09-10 11:20:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 You may disagree of what the faithfreedom people say; however, it is past time that they have a chance to tell their story in the marketplace of ideas.

In fact, a lot of muslims suspect deep down that the ex Muslims are right. That's why the 'death to apostate' chant is heard even in the West.

Posted by mhw 2004-09-10 11:56:19 AM|| 2004-09-10 11:56:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 "Sometimes the "organized religion" aspects of their denomination sours them on what is otherwise an excellent relationship with God. Their faith seems more soulful, more alive to me than those who are literalists who blindly adhere to books."

-excellent sentiment Jules. I believe that can be said for any organized religion.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-09-10 12:03:51 PM|| 2004-09-10 12:03:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Sometimes the "organized religion" aspects of their denomination sours them on what is otherwise an excellent relationship with God. Their faith seems more soulful, more alive to me than those who are literalists who blindly adhere to books."

Organized religion != literalism. Certainly not in Christianity, where non-literalist denominations are every bit as organized as literalist one. Certainly not in Judaism, where even the "fundamentalists" are really literalists, since a tradition of interpretation is a 2000 year old (at a minimum) part of Judaism. And as far as I can tell in Islam as well. These Ex-muslims are agreeing with the Salafists that non-literalist approaches are "inauthentic".

Look, i know some ex-Jews who are soulful. But unbiased viewers of what authentic Judaism is, they are not. And i know plenty of Jews who are quite soulful. Including both liberal and Orthodox ones.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-10 12:46:02 PM|| 2004-09-10 12:46:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 LH, etc.

Ex Muslims are a bit different from ex Catholics or ex Jews for one very important reason: they risk death for being apostates.

The other reason to have ex Muslims get their chance to be heard is that they understand, as a forever-kufr could never understand, both the formal sources of Islam (Quran, Hadith, etc.) as well as the emotional aspect of these things. They understand the chill in the spine that a Muslim gets reading about the punishments that await in hell and the rewards that await in heaven for the believer.

They also understand both the formal and the emotional levels of rage/denial because they have been thru these levels.

Posted by mhw 2004-09-10 1:09:53 PM|| 2004-09-10 1:09:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Perhaps I didn't say it well. Maybe strict-doctrinaire is the right term? What do you call the hierarchically-based, top-down authorizing, literalist part of a religion? The part which tolerates no questioning? The part that tells you snakes talk or that jihad is good? The part that, for example, won't recognize the marriage of 2 people if one of them has previously been married (as is the case with the husband of a co-worker of mine, who divorced his 1st wife because she was unfaithful and then he remarried into a loving and respectful relationship which his church refuses to recognize)?

This same "doctrinaire" part of Muslim makes it dangerous, IMHO, and I don't know how you would alter Islam so that it isn't so doctrinaire-its very name means "submit". Parts of the Quran could be considered as incitement to violence and perversion-the writings speak glowingly of these occurences within Mohammed's own life. A person who takes the Quran too literally might think it is ok for him to do the same because the "holy book" said it was ok for Mohammed, and he is trying to live his life by Mohammed's model. And the "moderate" Muslim who sees the sickness of those acts for what they are and dares question Mohammed's sickness risks being dangled from a gibbet or having his head chopped off by another "true" Muslim.

That's what I meant to say.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-10 1:23:34 PM|| 2004-09-10 1:23:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 The letter reads like a poem ripped right out of my head. I now shit about Islam. Other than Mohhamed must of been very charismatic and arabs very easly lead.

But as I've said many times, the world needs to be freed of islam. Destroy the myths that hold it up.

Posted by Lucky 2004-09-10 1:49:23 PM|| 2004-09-10 1:49:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 MHW first im not saying they shouldnt be heard, of course they should. Im just saying I wouldnt privilege their view of what is authentic Islam. as for their being at risk for apostasy, I dont see evidence that this is the case in the US. See my first post, highlighting the other reason mentioned for their choice of anonymity.

Jules - Ok, youre talking about something other than all organized religion. My own religion encourages questioning, and my own subgroup of my religion believes in the power of religious law to evolve, within certain fairly broad limits.

A "moderate" muslims, would I presume, not call Mohammed sick, but would question the interpretation of what Mohammed is said to have done, or its applicability in other time periods. Just as moderate Jew does not call Joshua sick for slaying Canaanites, but simply recognizes that their are things about ancient history that are alien to us, and that this was not meant as a model for our own times.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-10 4:11:50 PM|| 2004-09-10 4:11:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 pardon my i meant my first post to another thread, MHW.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-10 4:12:38 PM|| 2004-09-10 4:12:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 LH-Yep, people change with history (and hopefully get better). People deal with the context of their times, but it is tough to argue the appropriateness of marrying and bedding a child of, what was it 9???, in ANY time, as told in the Quran. I would say the same of a number of other matters in Islam. Humans should know better by now.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-10 4:20:51 PM|| 2004-09-10 4:20:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 jules - in biblical times Jews married multiple wives, and could marry a 12 year old girl. Today jews arent allowed to have more than wife under jewish law, and everyone accepts minimum marriage age laws comparable to other modern societies. Yet the bible we read hasnt changed one jot. Law based religions are capable of changing practice WITHOUT changing the holy texts. I KNOW this to be true for Judaism, and from everything i have read it is true for all but the Salafist fringe of Islam. So i have little patience for non-muslims who proclaim the unchanging nature of Islam by reading the Koran. I have more respect for ex-muslims, but im NOT going to privilege their view of Islam, just as im sure as hell not going to privilege some f**king jew for Jesus as an authority on Judaism.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-10 4:48:43 PM|| 2004-09-10 4:48:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 LH-You're getting awfully testy here. 1.) I am not challenging your faith. 2.)I don't know what you mean by "privileging". 3.) To assert that a person can't criticize a religion because they don't belong to it, or because they read a page rather than the whole chapter of the holy text and so are miscontruing the context, seems a stretch. 4.) Where did I say that Islam is unchanging?

I don't care if the year is 2004 or 700, marrying a 9-year old is SICK. A kid whose age would put her in the 2nd or 3rd grade is not suitable for sex. That should be abundantly plain for anyone, whatever their religion.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-10 4:57:57 PM|| 2004-09-10 4:57:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 privileging = taking one piece of evidence as superior to another,for arbitrary reasons. I see putting the testimony of ex-muslims about the "autheniticity" of Islam over that of millions of practicing muslims as privileging that testimony. You may disagree.

My problem isnt so much with criticizing as with people making statements about what the "true" version of a religion is, for the purpose of showing how evil that religion is.

Marrying a 9 year old is sick. And killing babies is sick, no - dare I point you to the parts of the Hebrew bible that allow for that? What the Pagan Romans did to their victims was sick. Roman slavery, which St Paul approved of, was sick. And BTW, Im not sure there wasnt child marriage in those days, or that Christianity particularly banned it. The modern world is different from the 7th century, and thank god for that, I say. But you cant expect religions to drop their ancient holy books for that reason, or expect people to change religions.

And let me say this, posting stuff about a religion on a political site, one dedicated to the WOT implicitly says this is of political relevance. If so, the implication, that we shouldnt make allies of or worry about the sensitivities of moderate muslims (IE those who DONT agree with a literal reading of the koran, etc) is precisely the wrong lesson.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-10 5:10:42 PM|| 2004-09-10 5:10:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Law based religions are capable of changing practice WITHOUT changing the holy texts.

True-if its people appreciate the hellish nightmares that literal, rigid adherence to ancient texts and practices can bring. After the Inquisition, later generations of Christians realized that acts done in the name of their religion were shameful and horrific, and DISHONORED THE CREATIONS OF GOD. I think that Muslims are capable of recognizing that same poison within their own religion, but only with self-examination, and only if EVERYONE IS INVITED TO THE DISCUSSION TO TEAR APART WEAK OLD MYTHS THAT NEED TO DIE. Leave the texts alone, if they are sacred to you. I won't tear them out of your hands to rewrite them. But we better have a common understanding as humans on how we will treat each other. If a religion sanctions the mistreatment of others, you bet I will jump all over it. As a non-Muslim.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-10 5:25:00 PM|| 2004-09-10 5:25:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Our comments crossed paths at the same time.

I can't argue what is and isn't the true version of Islam. You are correct there.

Yes, it is of political relevance, but I wouldn't follow that statement with an immediate connection to the sensibilities of moderate Muslims. As far as suitability of Muslims as allies, it's a tougher call. I don't think there are many Muslim allies, because the US tends to get bunched in with Israel as the cause of all the misery of Muslims in the world. Muslims who believe that are not allies I particularly care to make.

I have met one moderate Muslim in my entire life as a teacher of foreign languages. I hope someday I will meet more-but that doesn't mean I will. Time will tell-I am not a fortune teller.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-10 5:39:24 PM|| 2004-09-10 5:39:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 All we are saying is 'give muslim apostates a chance'
All we are saying is 'give muslim apostates a chance'
can you hear me Khomeini?
All...

Posted by mhw 2004-09-10 6:06:04 PM|| 2004-09-10 6:06:04 PM|| Front Page Top

21:46 UFO
21:46 UFO
21:19 UFO
20:02 UFO
19:47 UFO
19:47 UFO
19:41 Anonymous6390
19:41 Anonymous6390
16:25 UFO
16:25 UFO
16:22 UFO
16:22 UFO
16:19 UFO
16:19 UFO
16:15 UFO
16:15 UFO
16:11 UFO
16:11 UFO
16:04 Unknown Flying Object
16:04 Unknown Flying Object
16:02 UFO
16:02 UFO
16:00 UFO
16:00 UFO