Muslim attitudes towards the West

[Kia ora]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1314501182' post='2296146']
Seriously, what would be a better example to use?

What is more "official" in Islam than the Q'ran?[/quote] That's an interesting question.

The trouble with pointing to a passage in the Qur'an and saying that this is what all Muslims believe or should believe is that much of Islam has nothing to do with the Qur'an. The Qur'an isn't actually that important for Islamic law, which is what religious Muslims are supposed to live by. For the Shi'a, they rely on their imams. For the Sunnis, it's the Prophet's legacy in words and actions i.e. the Sunna.

People who want to convince other people that Islam is evil should study Islamic law rather than the Qur'an. It's as if someone pointed to Jesus saying 'turn the other cheek' and then claimed that all Christians are and should be pacifists. But Christianity isn't the Bible and someone who said that would be ignorant of Augustine's theory of Just War.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1314501182' post='2296146']
If we use the traditional meaning of Western culture as that originating in Europe, and heavily influenced (directly or indirectly) by Christianity for 2000 years, then yes it is. Western culture (broadly, Europe and areas heavily colonized by Europe) is distinct from Islamic culture and Far Eastern culture and civilization.

Culture may be a "social construct" (which seems like essentially another way of saying the same thing), but that does not make not real or unimportant in human activity.

Trying to avoid this by reducing "Western" and such to mere geographic locations is silly and solipsic.[/quote]

The reason why I say it's a social construct is that it's just not that important. We've built the idea of the West only fairly recently and only because it was useful to do so at that point. The idea of Western [i]culture[/i] is even more tenuous. I see nothing remotely comparable between the culture of the Roman Empire in 1 AD and the culture of Sweden now. Who would group the amazingly diverse cultures in Europe together under the single moniker of Western if they didn't already have an ideological motive for doing so?

The way I think of the term Western is the way I think of the term Australian. A Sudanese refugee comes to Australia and becomes a citizen. As a matter of fact, I think we have the largest Sudanese immigrant community in the world. I'm going to call him an Australian because I think that's what an Australian is, a person who has an Australian citizenship. The government certainly thinks so. They don't use any other definition of Australian, whether it be a person who is of Anglo-Saxon descent or Aboriginal or who is a Christian etc.

Culture is real but I also think it's remarkably flimsy.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1314501182' post='2296146']
If he whole-heartedly adopts Islam as his core beliefs and way of life, he would be abandoning Western culture, regardless of his geographic or racial origins. The same thing might be said to a lesser extent of Buddhism.

(I'm referring to an actual serious commitment to these beliefs, not some fashionable superficial affiliation.)
People can and do live in the West, yet be culturally non-Western. ( And vice-versa.)
[/quote]

Lets say you are right. Is this a problem? My country is a multicultural one. Ever since the British settlers colonised/invaded, we've had multiple cultures here. I think Christianity is just as foreign on Australian shores as Islam is.

Islam is a [i]belief.[/i] Christianity is a [i]belief[/i]. It is held by people. Christianity started a long time ago in the lands of the Middle East, and moved from there to all over the world. If one Middle Eastern faith can become Western, then another Middle Eastern faith can do the same.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Kia ora

[mortify]

[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1314327299' post='2295046']
If you can't find a reference, I can't accept it as a valid claim.[/quote]

I read the excerpt almost ten years ago, I can't find the reference to it. I did a search on Islam-qa and absolutely nothing came up on suicide bombing, strange. So I can't demonstrate a direct connection between Ibn Tayymiya and killing civilians because they pay tax to an enemy nation.

That some Islamic scholars have justified killing civilians for this reason is undeniable. But the point is that Islam authoritatively teaches that war is to engaged with non beleivers until they convert or are conquered. This is explicitly stated in the Quran and is agreed upon by the four schools of Sunni thought, and the school of Shia thought:

[color=#0000FF][i][b][size=4]"Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."[/size][/b][/i][/color]
[b]Surah 9 : 29[/b]

The People of the Book are Christians and Jews. This verse is what justified Muslim armies out of the hijaaz and into the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, and Europe.
[quote]

It has no official opinions in the sense that one can't look up a book, except maybe the Qur'an, and say that this is what Islam teaches. And the Qur'an is not a good example, because Muslims do not believe in sola scriptura.[/quote]

That's just not true. The Reliance of the Traveler is essentially an Islamic catechism according to the Shafi school of thought. It's the reliance of the traveler precisely because a person traveling can carry it in their bag and use it as a reference guide. In the past, if a person couldn't afford a book they would turn to scholar certified to teach. So authoritative opinion was always available.

Now there is a growing trend in Islam that rejects strict adherence to one school of thought. In the past, you had a magthab and you followed it completely. Nowadays Wahabis and Neo-Salafis, argue that one only need to strictly adhere to the Quran and Sunnah (so not completely sola scriptura!), and they basically pick and choose what they want from the magthabs. There is a group of Muslims who adhere to the Quran only, but they are a very small sect.

So whether one asks whether classical orthodox Islam, or Wahabi Islam, teaches that war is a means of spreading religion, the answer will be YES to both.

[quote]The differences in madhabs (for those who don't know what they are, they're the four schools of Islamic law in Sunni Islam) are representative of that. I don't agree that they differ only on minor things. How to pray is not a minor thing.[/quote]

I don't know your background, but whether a person prays a rakat with their hands folder over their chest or there navel is really a small difference. What concerns me as a non-Muslim, is that the Sunni and Shia schools of jurisprudence unanimously teach war is a means of spreading Islam. That Christans and Jews are to be fought until they are subjects of an Islamic state paying a special tax. That the goal is to ultimately contain and ensure Christianity withers away. Perhaps more disturbing is the teaching on war booty. If an Islamic army conquers an area, the women and children are taken as slaves. If the woman is married, her marriage is null and void because of her capture. She is the property of her Muslim owner, and if he is attracted to her and decides to sleep with her against her will, it's not considered rape.

What I just mentioned is not fringe thought. It is the thought of the four schools of sunni Islam, the only school of Shia islam, and the teachings of Wahabis and Salafis. And it's not like these are laws meant for some distant past, reflecting a more primitive mentality. NO. These are laws meant for all times, according to Muslims!

[img]http://delhi4cats.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/islam_will_dominate_world.jpg[/img]

[i][b]Can't wait....[/b][/i]

[quote]When you get down to it, they interpret the Sunna (the Prophet's legacy) in different ways. And that is a big thing by anyone's measure. The way that ordinary Muslims understand the madhabs is not 'this madhab is wrong, my madhab is right'. They're much more tolerant of the variety within their religion. They don't cite the founder of their school and expect other Muslims to accept this opinion because it's an official opinion, because they don't have official opinions.[/quote]

Sure, Sunnis tolerate eachothers magthab, but that's totally irrelevant. If those schools of thought vastly disagreed on the concepts of Jihad, killing apostates, treating Christians as second class citizens, then it would be something of value. But sadly, they are in agreement on these issues.

[quote]The Muslims who most attack the madhabs are probably Salafis, the unorthodox and relatively new fundamentalists. Traditional Muslims do not do this.[/quote]

Yes, this is true. But liberals also attack the magthabs. Again, the irony is that whether one follows the magthab or Salafism, one accepts war as a means of spreading religion.

[quote]And who is this man? Why should Muslims listen to him over the Grand Imam himself?

[/quote]

The Grand Mufti at Al Azhar is limited to his jurisdiction in Egypt. And besides, it's not so clear that he rejected suicide bombing:

[color=#0000FF][i]"The 9-11 suicide attacks sparked significant debate in the Islamic world about the merits of suicide attacks.[/i][/color][i][url="http://www.meforum.org/1003/the-religious-foundations-of-suicide-bombings#_ftn69"][color=#0000FF][69][/color][/url][/i][color=#0000FF][i] Sheikh Muhammad Sa'id al-Tantawi, head of Cairo's Al-Azhar, the most prestigious university for Sunni jurisprudence, declared that the Shari‘a rejects all attempts on taking human life, and Sheikh Muhammad bin ‘Abdallah al-Sabil, a member of the Saudi Council of Islamic Clerics and imam at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, decried the suicide attacks on the basis that Islamic law forbids killing civilians, suicide, and protects Jews and Christians. But both Tantawi and Sabil sidestep the question of "martyrdom operations." Because preserving the life of dhimmis (Jews and Christians) is conditional to their acceptance of Muslim rule, suicide attacks upon Israelis or Jews and Christians outside majority Muslim countries may be permissible. Indeed, other Al-Azhar scholars, for example, ‘Abd al-'Azim al-Mit'ani, say it is permissible to kill Israeli civilians in the cause of jihad.[/i][/color]

http://www.meforum.org/1003/the-religious-foundations-of-suicide-bombings#_ftn70

[quote]


Even the 'radicalised' Muslims you speak of are Western. They live in the West, so they're Western. They were born here, so they are Western. The idea that you have to believe one thing and live in a certain way to be a Western person is a fallacy and a pernicious one. A Muslim who wants the West to turn to Islam is as Western as I am.[/quote]

The problem is there views on freedom, religious tolerance, etc are very different.

More later...

[mortify]

[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1314515288' post='2296251']
The trouble with pointing to a passage in the Qur'an and saying that this is what all Muslims believe or should believe is that much of Islam has nothing to do with the Qur'an.[/quote]

Say what?!

[quote]The Qur'an isn't actually that important for Islamic law, which is what religious Muslims are supposed to live by. For the Shi'a, they rely on their imams. For the Sunnis, it's the Prophet's legacy in words and actions i.e. the Sunna.[/quote]

Dude, you don't know what you're talking about! The Qur'an isn't that important? My friend, the Quran is the very foundation, nothing can contradict it. After the Quran, there is the Sunna, or Muhammad's life, sayings, and example.:

[i][color=#0000FF]"The adillah (evidences) that fiqh is derived from are four:-

"[u]The Book and the Sunnah, and these two are the foundation by which the mukallafoon (the morally responsible) are addressed, and upon which is built their Religion[/u]. Then ijmaa’ (consensus) and al-qiyaasus-saheeh (sound and correct analogy), these two are derived from the Book and the Sunnah. So fiqh - in its entirety - does not leave the realms of these four usool (fundamentals).[/color][/i]

[i][color=#0000FF][b]....[/b][/color][/i]

[i][color=#0000FF]As for the Book: It is al-Qur‘aanul-’Adheem (the Great Qur‘aan), the Kalaam (Speech) of the Lord of the worlds, which was sent down by the Trustworthy Spirit upon the heart of Muhammad the Messenger of Allaah sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam, that he may be from the warners to the whole of mankind - in the clear arabic tongue - regarding all that they stand in need of with regards to what benefits them concerning their Religion and their world. The Book of Allaah is that which is recited by the tongues, written in the masaahif (copies), and preserved in the hearts; regarding which:

“No falsehood can approach from before or from behind it, it was sent down from the All-Wise, the One deserving of all praise.”
[Soorah Fussilat 41:42] [/color][/i]

http://www.ahya.org/amm/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=236


Notice that the Quran states it was "revealed in a clear tongue." It's not meant to be understood as a nebulous text.
[quote]

People who want to convince other people that Islam is evil should study Islamic law rather than the Qur'an. It's as if someone pointed to Jesus saying 'turn the other cheek' and then claimed that all Christians are and should be pacifists. But Christianity isn't the Bible and someone who said that would be ignorant of Augustine's theory of Just War.[/quote]

Yes! Study Islamic law! I posted something analogues to a Catechism, the Reliance of the Traveler. Read what it actually says! It's online for free.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1314515288' post='2296251']
That's an interesting question.

The trouble with pointing to a passage in the Qur'an and saying that this is what all Muslims believe or should believe is that much of Islam has nothing to do with the Qur'an. The Qur'an isn't actually that important for Islamic law, which is what religious Muslims are supposed to live by. For the Shi'a, they rely on their imams. For the Sunnis, it's the Prophet's legacy in words and actions i.e. the Sunna.

People who want to convince other people that Islam is evil should study Islamic law rather than the Qur'an. It's as if someone pointed to Jesus saying 'turn the other cheek' and then claimed that all Christians are and should be pacifists. But Christianity isn't the Bible and someone who said that would be ignorant of Augustine's theory of Just War.[/quote]
Every devout Muslim would vehemently disagree with you that much of what they believe has nothing to do with the Q'ran.

As Muslims regard the Q'ran as being the direct and infallible revelation of Allah to man, your statement is blatantly false.

Different Islamic leaders and sects may interpret passages of the Q'ran differently, but none would consider themselves or their writings to be more important or authoritative than the words of the Q'ran itself.


[quote]The reason why I say it's a social construct is that it's just not that important. We've built the idea of the West only fairly recently and only because it was useful to do so at that point. The idea of Western [i]culture[/i] is even more tenuous. I see nothing remotely comparable between the culture of the Roman Empire in 1 AD and the culture of Sweden now. Who would group the amazingly diverse cultures in Europe together under the single moniker of Western if they didn't already have an ideological motive for doing so?


The way I think of the term Western is the way I think of the term Australian. A Sudanese refugee comes to Australia and becomes a citizen. As a matter of fact, I think we have the largest Sudanese immigrant community in the world. I'm going to call him an Australian because I think that's what an Australian is, a person who has an Australian citizenship. The government certainly thinks so. They don't use any other definition of Australian, whether it be a person who is of Anglo-Saxon descent or Aboriginal or who is a Christian etc.

Culture is real but I also think it's remarkably flimsy.[/quote]
As a student of history, I must say that culture is an extremely important influence on human thought and actions.

Also, Western civilization is indeed real (even if it is today being greatly weakened from within and without), and people in diverse parts of Europe traditionally have shared a common heritage, a large part of which was built on Christianity. (Even those who reject Christianity remain greatly influenced by ideas and strains of thought that developed in the Christian West.)


And you can't accurately reduce whether or not one is "Western" by his place of residence, or even his citizenship.

If, say, an American believed ardently in the need for an absolutist monarchy, and the abolishment of the Constitution, one could rightly consider his views "un-American," even if said person was a registered U.S. citizen, living and working on U.S. soil.

The same could be said for citizen of a European or North American country who wants to replace the system of law and government in place with Sharia Law (as is desired by a significant minority of Muslims in Western countries).

One who prefers Islamic law, customs, and governance over those of the West is indeed un-Western in his outlook, even if he is a citizen of a western democracy.


[quote]Lets say you are right. Is this a problem? My country is a multicultural one. Ever since the British settlers colonised/invaded, we've had multiple cultures here. I think Christianity is just as foreign on Australian shores as Islam is.[/quote]
And I don't think anyone can claim that the nature of the Australian continent was changed drastically by the arrival of the British. For better or worse, the culture and governance of the land was changed forever, and the native Aboriginal culture marginalized.

We'd see a change of similar significance if Islamic beliefs became predominant in Europe or other Western cultures.


[quote]Islam is a [i]belief.[/i] Christianity is a [i]belief[/i]. It is held by people. Christianity started a long time ago in the lands of the Middle East, and moved from there to all over the world. If one Middle Eastern faith can become Western, then another Middle Eastern faith can do the same.[/quote]
Christian belief significantly influenced and changed Western culture from pagan times in a number of ways (while retaining some good elements of classical Greco-Roman civilization.

An Islamic take-over of Europe would be just as significant, especially as Islam is not just a religion, but a prescription for an entire way of life. And believe me, Islamic rule would not be something most Western secularist liberals would find appealing.