(no subject)

[shinytoaster]

In a letter to The Times, published in 2004 and subsequently reprinted in the pages of New Internationalist, one Dr H. Tabar lets fly:

The cowardice of our clerics in pushing their heads firmly in the sand, not confronting the misguided and the extremists amongst us, is an affront to all that I regard as holy. If they have not the courage to declare the Islamic suicide terrorists as apostates, then perhaps they would be good enough to declare me as one, for I would rather burn in the eternal flames of Hell than share Paradise with the likes of them.

I believe he somewhat missed the point. Speaking on Radio 4 throughout the day, representatives of organisations including the Muslim Council of Britain have disavowed the actions of the terrorists.

"They are not Muslims," they say.

But they are Muslims. Incontrovertibly so. And by disavowing their activities, British Islamic leaders do not seem to realise that they make it harder to confront the realities of what is happening within that religion.

The Koran is, to my mind, very much like the Bible and very much like the Torah inasmuch as it was written many, many centuries ago to fit the lifestyles of a people who were very, very different to us. Wandering in a hot, dusty desert, it makes sense to avoid eating any shellfish you might come across, after all. But times change and our interpretations of our culturally 'holy' texts changed, too.

For sure, many Christians got left behind in the rush to re-interpret, witness the bigotry of Fred Phelps or the blind idiocy of the Pope's teachings on birth control. And as there are groovy Christians, so there are Reform Jews who'll eat bacon and don't see the need to drink Kosher wine - which is widely accepted as undrinkable. And as there are nasty Christians, so there are maddened sects who want to blow up Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.

Looking at Islam it begins to appear to me that this religion is perhaps undergoing the same process. Certainly as practised in Saudi Arabia and other such places, it appears very much to behave like Christianity did in the past.

So I think now, my point is that Islam needs to undergo a process of immense change, and the change needs to come from within, and it needs to be lead by the secular leaning, educated Islam of the West. It is no good denying the religion of the bombers. I can deny Fred Phelps' Christianity but it doesn't make him not a Christian.

Of course we have no right to blame all British Muslims for what happened yesterday, and the avalanche of hate e-mail and reported attacks on Islamic interests in Britain since yesterday is truly sickening. But I really firmly believe that Islam needs to take the initiative and get its house in order. Denying that the terrorists have anything to do with Islam is no longer the way forward. Confronting the evil within is.

As for what took place yesterday, my shock has turned to anger, and there are feelings over which I feel guilty. In some sense, there's relief that we've 'had' our attack now and, by all accounts, Al Qaeda do not seem to be in the habit of conducting 'campaigns' like the IRA. I feel fairly confident in saying I don't think there'll be another one in these parts. Then there's fear where the next one may be? Rome? Sydney?

Listening to the radio earlier, a studio discussion turns to competing theories as to whether or not this was a suicide attack. There seems to be some hope that it was, for if we catch them what will we do with them? The Sun and the Mail will call for the rope and the scaffold, and although I live to the left of the political spectrum and am naturally against the death penalty, my anger at them makes me want to see them suffer: I am only human, it appears.

I can't say I think pride is the right word to describe the sense one gets of being part of this city after the bombings. But I can say I feel satisfaction in the behaviour and conduct and civilised, beautiful stoicism of the people around and about me - the one person on my friends list who quoted the Smiths lyric: 'panic on the streets of London' should know how completely wrong I think they got it. Panic is not the word for me, as pride is not the right word for me. Panic, if it happened at all, was quiet and restrained and not at all panicky. So today I'm satisfied and strangely calm, and my love for the city I already loved is not dimmed.

As for 'burning in fear' I say pfah. We're cool. Even if we're in the wrong over Iraq, we're in the right here. And to you who would dispute our right to live as we like, you can go stick your head in a bucket. Because it's going to be okay. We have counted to a hundred and we are coming to find you now, and we will not stop until every Londoner has slapped you in the face with their shoes.

Comments

[pinguthegreek.livejournal.com]

Did I tell ytou lately that you are just the best thinker ?

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

While Islam globally is certainly undergoing a process of change, it's not really fair to compare it to the Reformation in Europe. And it's certainly not fair to link up the Reformation and Enlightenment, as if there is a causal relationship between the two. Religious reform did not cause anyone to be more "enlightened" in the way we like to think of it; Islam has a long history of openness, debate, and acceptance of other cultures. To suggest that Islam is just now coming out of it's "medieval" phase is completely unfair.

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

Thinking about it and duly editing as a result - I think the change needs to be towards a secular Islam that will work within the framework of the global society that we now exist in, and I think this has something to do with an enlightenment process, but will certainly mull over what you said.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

You are SUCH a STAR!

Know Tarek Heggy, Irshad Manji, Fouad Ajami? All terrific Muslim reformists. I strongly recommend Ajami's utterly brilliant, beautifully written, The Dream Palace of the Arabs, which is like an exploration of half a century of Arab intellectual life, and feels like a voyage into a different mind.

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

My inner theologian is kind of now thinking that, of course, the Arabic world lead the way in science and learning for a good millennia after the collapse of Rome. So it's maybe a re-enlightenment?

I mean, Islam at its roots is, like Christianity, meant to be peaceful and respectful - Christianity is deeply hippy-like at its core. But certainly Christians lost sight of this, would it be fair to say Islam did as well?

[ias.livejournal.com]

However, while I agree wih much of our post, remember that church leaders in N.I. said much the same thing about both Nationalist and Loyalist terrorists: that they were not Christian.

[cat-mom.livejournal.com]

My husband grew up a Muslim in Iran and if I didn't know better, I'd think the Koran being read by the extremist groups today was a radically revised edition, with added chapters on "Recruiting and Training Suicide Bombers" and "Forging Western Security Documents". But of course it's not. They just turn and twist it around to suit their purpose, the same as the wackos who bomb abortion clinics and gay bars because they think they are following the teachings of the bible. The Muslim organizations who declare that the terrorists are not truly Muslims are merely trying to distance themselves from them because they know that most of the world is all too eager to paint them all with the same broad brush. As for your comment that "Islam needs to undergo a process of immense change, and the change needs to come from within, and it needs to be lead by the secular leaning, educated Islam of the West" This is indeed true, but sadly, I don't see it happening any time soon. The fundamentalists only have to point to the moderates and ask, "what has the West ever done for us, that we should bend to their ways?" Muslims are not motivated by the same kinds of things that westerners are, and to expect that they will somehow come together and initiate reforms as a result of these extremists is applying Western problem solving technique to a different kind of problem altogether. I think the most important thing for people to remember is that this struggle has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam itself. Religion is the one and only unifying force in the middle east. It is the way to get a rise out of the people, to get them worked up and behind a cause. The British themselves learned, when they were trying to gain control over the oil fields in Iran around the turn of the last century, that you could appeal to their sense of community and civic pride forever, to no avail. Out of frustration, they accused the local leaders (who were resisting their efforts to take over) of being bad Muslims and before long, the townspeople had rioted and overthrew their disgraced leaders. Islam is being used much the same way today to whip up support for groups locked in to-the-death power struggles. I don't know what the answer is. But it would certainly help if people on all sides would stop bleating like sheep and look past their prejudices and try to think for themselves (as you have done brilliantly Alex, thank you).

[sweet-merak.livejournal.com]

My parents and I were talking and I mentioned your blog post. They were interested enough I actually gave them the URL so they can read it. My dad mentioned a Muslim reformist named Irshad Manji, who's written a book calling for these very things from the global Muslim community. She's got a website, and also talked on NPR and the Huffington Post about how she hopes Muslims will respond to the London bombing. Definitely recommended reading. She's a feminist lesbian Muslim revolutionary!

(I told my dad to comment to you directly but I think he's shy.:) He says, "But I don't have an icon!" :D)

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Shezan a few comments up linked me to Irshad Manji and some other reformists as well - she looks especially interesting, particularly the whole Project Itjihad thing and I'm keen to read her book at some stage.

[sweet-merak.livejournal.com]

Ah, cool! When I'd first read your post Shezan's comment wasn't up yet, and I didn't refresh before posting mine. I'm planning to buy her book today, and learn more about & publicize the project. I'd thought it was odd that Islam didn't seem to have the same kind of tradition of new interpretations that Judaism has, or even that Catholicism has through the Pope (much as it takes forever to percolate through, change in canonic law does slowly happen). In the web literature for Project Ijtihad it talkes about how when ijtihad was thriving as a tradition, that was when we had the golden age of Muslim art and science, when Islam led the world in innovation. It's very heartening to know, now, that that tradition exists, and to think of it starting to thrive again.

[strange-idols.livejournal.com]

Shit man, the pope's position on birth control is not "blind idiocy". I'm a pretty devout Catholic and it really bothers me when people attack our beliefs. See, I don't agree with your ideas about homosexuality (that just seemed the most obvious), but I don't call them idiotic.

You should read "The Trouble With Islam" by Irshad Manji if you haven't already. The thesis is pretty much what you're saying in this post, as far as it being time for Islam to move forward. If you don't mind dodgy research (many of her assertions about Christianity were just plain false) it might give you some good talking points. Plus, it's a Muslim saying exactly what you want to hear. (I really didn't like it and thought there was a lot wrong with it, but it seems like something you might enjoy.)

In conclusion, keep an open mind, pal - don't deride anything unless you're willing to be dismissed the same way.

In case you were wondering, I visit your LJ and browse occasionally but have never really felt moved to comment.

[strange-idols.livejournal.com]

p.s. sorry I hadn't seen the comments above.

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

The Pope's position on birth control is blind idiocy and it is VERY dangeroous. I'm sorry it bothers you to hear honest critique of that position. It bothers me to hear that you seem happy to imply I'm going to burn in hell for my sexuality and don't expect me to get very pissed off at you because of it. I will continue to 'deride' (us open minded people prefer 'critique' and you might want to consider that) the elements of the Catholic faith I am uncomfortable with, and I am quite prepared to be dismissed the same way, but I warn you that I think homophobes - and by implication yourself, are full of shit and do not therefore wish to be associated with you. Please defriend me and don't come back.

[strange-idols.livejournal.com]

By dangerous I'm guessing you're referring to Africa? I mean, I would love to hear your position on it, but it just wasn't offered in your post - you didn't substantiate your opinion at all. Most of the people I hear critique the Church's position on birth control just have no idea of the doctrine behind it. They just aren't interested in learning the underlying reasons and I think that's bad because if you're going to critique something you should at least be well-informed. I'm not saying you aren't, you've just gotta realize that 90% of the time a comment like "the Church's position on birth control is ridiculous" is followed by a citation of the Old Testament with no regard to context as proof that OMFG THE BIBLE CAN BE WRONG SO HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING SO OBVIOUSLY STUPID so sort of automatically I feel obligated to at least try to engage in conversation about the issue of my faith they are attacking. I mean, I have a feeling you've done a lot of research (care to point me to any sources?) but the pope is my most direct link to God and I happen to believe it's God, not the pope, that's telling me that birth control is no good. So when you say it's idiotic you're basically implying that my entire religion is stupid. And that's your right, but I mean, I had only to say "I don't agree with your ideas about homosexuality but I don't call them idiotic" for you to tell me that I was full of shit, and it's not like you pray to the God Of Homosexuals and ask Him to save your soul, do you see what I'm saying?

Right, because I don't think homosexuality is natural it means I am homophobic. Correct me if I'm wrong, a phobia is fear of something? I brought up homosexuality because I haven't ever talked to you + it's all over your LJ so it seemed like a pretty simple example. While I don't necessarily agree with your point of view I would never call anyone (much less someone as well-informed as you seem in your LJ) "blindly idiotic" for wanting to sleep with men. I mean, I just have a feeling that something like that would put you on the defensive (much like this comment seemed to have done, which wasn't intentional at all.)

The whole point of my post is that people can disagree and still respect other people and faiths without resorting to disparaging adjectives. It's not for me to decide whether anyone is going to hell that is why I purposefully did not say anything along those lines. I am willing to stake my life and soul that Catholicism is right but I certainly don't expect anyone else to. You're not putting your soul on the line so there's no reason for you to agree, I just wish you wouldn't insult - I mean, come on, saying that the position is "blindly idiotic" is supposed to imply that no one remotely intelligent would agree with it, i.e. be a good Catholic. You seem like a pretty smart, well-read guy, I don't understand why you can't use less insulting adjectives.

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

The thing is, while I'm prepared to engage in rational debate, if you imply my sexuality is in any way inferior the gloves will come off and I will knock you down and I will not stop knocking you down.

I don't believe for one second God would want millions of people to die as horrible a death as AIDS will ensure and I'm sure that you don't, too. It's not a nice way to go, trust me. My feeling genuinely is that so many people have interpreted the Bible in so many different ways over the past two thousand years that and when so many millions of lives are on the line for the sake of telling somebody it's okay to use a condom, that God's word is flexible. In a time of crisis like the one we find ourselves in with HIV as prevalent as it is in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, for the church to not take steps to try and stop this is irresponsible in my eyes, and it is dangerous and, yes, it is also quite idiotic. Why should those people die? And please don't start talking to me about abstinence programmes. I hope you're not so naive as to think that some pledge is actually going to stop people going out and getting laid. At heart we're biological animals, the same as all the others, and our purpose for being on this planet is to have sex and propagate. You can embroider this truth with religion if you must, but I choose not to.

I don't think homosexuality is natural it means I am homophobic

Yes, that is exactly what it means. I cannot really convey how shocked I am that you think that. I am perfectly 'natural' - I lead a clean, safe lifestyle with someone I deeply love, and really, you know most of the Bible makes sense and I can and do live by a set of precepts that derive, ultimately, from that source. I don't steal things, I try and be as good as I can and I think that's really about as Holy as individual humans can get. Life doesn't need the bells and whistles of religion, but you're welcome to them if you want.

You say earlier that '...a comment like "the Church's position on birth control is ridiculous" is followed by a citation of the Old Testament with no regard to context as proof that OMFG THE BIBLE CAN BE WRONG...'

But then the church's position on homosexuality comes largely from a section of the Bible that preaches ridiculous twaddle, really - have you actually sat down and read Leviticus? You must at least have read that 'letter to Dr Laura' parody thing that does the rounds from time to time. Take anything out of context from the Bible and you can damn well prove what you like. My point is that you simply cannot condemn me for suggesting a Biblical teaching on birth control is wrong in the face of really quite overwhelming evidence in that statement's favour, when you use the same methodology to condemn sexual practices that, get this, you are not obligated to participate in or watch. It smacks of hypocrisy, don't you think?

I don't believe it is the Bible's, God's, or, for that matter, your job to condemn a set of sexual practices that are safe, clean, carried out in private (because, seriously, ew), and in practice is far older than any sacred text that exists, from the Bible to the Torah to the Vedas to anything else you care to name. And I'm sorry, but the Bible is wrong. It is deeply, deeply offensive to suggest to someone that they are going to hell, that they are not natural, and that you know what's best for somebody you've never met. For you who have abolsutely no idea where or who I am or what I do, to speak in those tones is a really unpleasant thing to do and I hope you can begin to appreciate how that kind of talk makes people feel. It is not nice, it is not friendly, and it is certainly not Godly. I'm sure you're not a horrible person, but you CANNOT go around saying homosexuality is unnatural and then try to be all nice and sugary to the gays. 'Love the sinner, hate the sin,' I believe some people call it. Well, that's hurtful and wrong. You're right that it's not your place to say whether or not I'm hellbound, but can you not see that by calling me unnatural, you imply just that? You want to disagree and respect me, that's cool, but you will never accomplish that if you say my sexuality is unnatural.

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

Addendum: Seriously, if I hurt your feelings I apologise, but you must remember that I really will defend issues of sexuality down to the bone. If your religion is truly important to you, then I think you have it in you to be a perfectly good Catholic and disagree with what the Pope is saying. It's like being a good American and believing Bush is an idiot, or being a good Briton and thinking we should get rid of the Queen, both of which are perfectly possible things. The Pope is fallible, and I and many, many, many other people believe he is wrong, and that's really about it.

[strange-idols.livejournal.com]

By "natural" I mean that we are taught that God's plan is for all sexual activity to be for the sole purpose of reproduction and that said reproduction is calling in life second only to virginity. For me birth control and homosexuality are unnatural because they both go directly against God's plan for sex.

There are many "Catholics" OUTSIDE of Africa who use condoms. If they're content to disregard it for their own convenience in a situation that is nowhere near the magnitude of that of Africans, I have a hard time believing that the Church's position really stops Africans from using protection when there's a pressing need. It's the Church's job to guide its followers. Sex outside of marriage is bad. If people don't believe it they don't have to be Catholics. Problem solved. I know there's a lot of poverty and prostitution and the New Testament is really all the proof anyone needs of the reality of forgiveness. There are cirumstances that force behaviors that otherwise should be avoided but any Catholic in Africa having consensual sex for purposes other than survival or reproduction is not following the Church's teachings. And those teachings should not change - it's the Church's JOB to teach God's word (I mean, the Church's interpretation - you know what I mean).

You can think those things about Bush and the Queen because they weren't chosen by God. Anyone can think the pope is wrong but they shouldn't be Catholic then. You have every reason to think he's wrong (though I still think blindly idiotic is a bit harsh).

As for the Church's position on homosexuality coming from Leviticus? Well, see my first paragraph - it just doesn't fit into our view of God's plan for sex. For further reference, check out Romans 1:26-27.

I'm glad you're happy with what you do - everyone deserves to be happy. Even if I think it's outside God's plan doing whatever you like doesn't make you idiotic. (I am glad you also think it is best to keep those sorts of things private. If I were having sex with anyone I don't think I would go screaming it either!)