Thursday, December 04, 2008
Well, then, Barack Obama had better convert
A leading Egyptian "telemullah" calls on Barack Obama to convert to Islam. Or else.
I only wish a knew whether tools like these are the Jim and Tammy Baker of Islam, or the Archbishop of Canterbury. Or maybe Billy Graham. Is this guy and fools like him a clown that the Average Abdul laughs at, or a real guy who people respect? That seems to be a rather important question, and I do not feel that we get straight answers to it.
15 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Dec 04, 06:52:00 PM:
You raise an excellent point. Just how influential are these nutjobs anyway? How do mosques get new imams? Who decides how important these fellows are in the hierarchy? Is there a hierarchy?
They are everywhere, even here in our country: I just had a young programmer leave my company, going to a military contractor to work on drone weapon delivery vehicles, who is a young Indian muslim. After he left, his boss told me she was glad to lose him, despite his exemplary work with us, bcause over the last two years he'd become increasingly indoctrinated by his "cleric" to believe in jihad against American imperialism. It turns out his mosque hired (was assigned?) a new guy, a looney tune, and all the young people are being targeted. Where do we go to report these folks?
By , at
Thu Dec 04, 06:52:00 PM:
T-hawk...you are clearly a product of the louche Ivy-mill ( guilty meself ), are you aware of a wee book called the Koran ? Read this islamic fundus..no, R.E.A.D it. Please. And no relativistic blarney re: .."well, the OLD Testament said..."...recall the Reformation & Enlightenment , as ye do.Please!...or, and there is cleverness demonstrated on this lovely wee blog , are you tossing a harpoon laddie?
By 
J, at
Thu Dec 04, 07:45:00 PM:
TH, it is important to note that there are many so-called 'muftis', those who issue fatwas, who see themselves as genuine Islamic scholars, practiced in the art of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). There is an especially large number of these men practicing in Egypt, and I imagine other places as well. As the state has incorporated secular forms of legal code from Europe, the legitimacy and practicality of many of these muftis has decreased. Thus many of them find work more as counselors to pious Muslims in search of Islamic guidance. Often times the fatwas being issued are ridiculous, many times bordering on asinine. Fatwas, by their nature, may or may not be followed, they are simply that mufti's interpretation of the law or issue at hand. Some of these people, inevitably, find an audience via television, like this guy. Perhaps the most famous of these 'telamullahs' as you call them, is Yusuf al-Qaradawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi), an Egyptian cleric who is well known in the Muslim World via Al-Jazeera. To answer your question, he does matter. As a 'moderate-conservative' with some ties to Muslim Brotherhood circles, some of his opinions are questionable, including his longstanding support for viewing Palestinian attacks on Israelis, including civilian targets, as legitimate resistance. However, not all muftis are created equal. Thousands of fatwas are issued every day, many of them for shock value and publicity. This cleric, who I have never heard of before seems to be in that category. Do people respect him? Probably. Some Egyptians must have some level of respect for him, for he has been given a 'tele-minbar' to preach from. Where he lies in the spectrum of Islamic clerics is hard to tell, and a literal reading of Islam could lead one to his views on Obama, which is clearly a joke in terms of Obama's own view of his faith.
By , at
Thu Dec 04, 10:46:00 PM:
Consider the Roman Catholic Church to be at one extreme of church hierarchal organization. Anarchist Wiccans at the other. Islam is much closer to the Wiccans than the Catholics.
By , at
Fri Dec 05, 01:31:00 AM:
Just how influential are these nutjobs anyway?
In what way is he a nutjob? That's standard Islamic jurisprudence. His words, "embrace Islam and you will be safe", come straight from Muhammad himself, and whatever Muhammad does or approves of is by definition normative for all Muslims.
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"
Muhammad also said:
"If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."
Consider the Roman Catholic Church to be at one extreme of church hierarchal organization. Anarchist Wiccans at the other. Islam is much closer to the Wiccans than the Catholics.
The idea that Islam has no central authority and therefore no central source of jurisprudence is a prime example of the Big Lie. All orthodox Islamic sects agree on the centrality of jihad, the duty of Muslims to conquer the world, and the right of Muslims to own everything and rule everywhere. The absence of a living pope is irrelevant, since ijtihad (innovation) has long been forbidden.
By , at
Fri Dec 05, 02:24:00 AM:
TH --
You are trying to frame Muslims into a Christian model. That won't work.
OF COURSE they are quite influential and powerful. It's why they are tightly controlled, and managed by the government. Which pays them quite handsomely.
Surely you are aware of Egypt's central position in Islamic society, as one of the premier Islamic centers after the fall of Baghdad in the 1200s? That Egypt and Egyptian clerics have been the center of the Sunni world for that long. That a few men like, oh I dunno, Hassan al-Banr or Sayid Qutb form the intellectual basis for modern Jihad?
No they are not "nutjobs" or considered extreme, and contrary to your poster up this thread, Sharia courts are taking over in Islamic countries as well as in the Western ones. Turkey's secular revolution of the 1920's has been largely erased, Algeria is still fighting a bloody civil war over it, and Tunisia faces severe terrorism over the desire to impose Sharia.
Most Muslims prefer Sharia and the rulings of Mullahs. For one, they are considered "pure" and untainted by government control and corruption, a theme that goes back to the 900's in the Muslim world (the wise and faithful Mullah who declines government service to be faithful to Allah). Second, they have more authority than the corrupt and distant government, which has only secret police on offer. Third they offer a complete range of social services, and assistance.
Moreover, Muslims ARE NOT LIKE US.
For us, Polygamy is weird stuff practiced by "degenerates" and losers such as the FLDS. Muslims find that mainstream and most Muslim men who can afford it have more than one wife at a time. Mohammed bin Laden, Osama's father, had 22 wives (he'd get tired of one, divorce her, and pick another, giving the discarded one to an employee). The more powerful Muslim men have four at a time and several mistresses. It's "Big Love" society-wide, with many "losers" who have no wives or hope of that.
Muslim society and Muslims themselves have so many assumptions (it's "correct" to kill Jews wherever they may be found, same with Westerners or enslaving them, Jihad, extreme cruelty to non-Muslims) that we do not share that there is no real way of approaching them as fellows in Western beliefs.
You think they are like you, even educated and sophisticated Muslims. Who rest assured very likely have four wives if they can afford them and believe as most Muslims do in very different assumptions.
Imagine that Jesus Christ, Julius Caesar, and Nero were all the same person and created an entire society, that is approaching the conception of what Muslim society is like.
You live with so many embedded assumptions that you cannot understand what people who think God does indeed exist, and moreover wants them to kill with extreme cruelty Jews and Christians wherever they may be found, in a seething mass of sexual frustration and resentment and sexual slavery / degradation.
When Osama was ten, his father "divorced" his mother and sent her (and Osama bin Laden) to live with an employee, who hated and feared Osama. Osama has 57 siblings. This is not unusual in Muslim society.
The only Western Analogue is 19th Century Mormon society in Utah before 1890 when "discovered" revelations told Brigham Young that polygamy was out.
By , at
Fri Dec 05, 11:20:00 AM:
The guy is a clown, a know nothing with no standing or following. All the truly influential Muslim clerics KNOW that Obama is and always has been a Muslim and, therefore, has no need to convert or consider converting.
By J, at
Fri Dec 05, 02:29:00 PM:
randian, I can't help but respond further to your comment. Although much of what you say may have come from Hadith sources, your last comment is problematic.
" All orthodox Islamic sects agree on the centrality of jihad, the duty of Muslims to conquer the world, and the right of Muslims to own everything and rule everywhere. The absence of a living pope is irrelevant, since ijtihad (innovation) has long been forbidden."
It is true that many Muslims believe in Jihad, of many different types, from armed insurrection or conquest to an inner personal struggle of faith without connotations of glory and ruling the world. Most of the Muslims with whom I am acquainted, as far as I understand, have no desire for Islam to rule the world, or believe that they have some god-given right to rule the entire world. In fact, many Muslims feel that this line of thinking, in the current state of affairs, more accurately reflects the foreign policy of the United States. I don't agree, but that opinion would be common among many.
As far as you last sentence, I'm not sure what you are attempting to assert. You have your terms mixed. In Islam, the arabic word, bid‘ah, translates to innovation, of cultural practices, customs, science, and religion. In most Islamic circles, religious innovation is frowned upon. The term Ijtihad refers to the process by which a scholar interprets Islamic Law from sources of the law: The Quran and the Sunnah (Life of the Prophet). This is an ongoing process that has never been 'forbidden' as you seem to suggest. It is a necessary feature of any religion to adapt to the modern times. Sure, Islam can be seen as having serious difficulties in this regard, but saying that Ijtihad is closed is simply false, it happens everyday throughout the Islamic World. Religious innovation, which is akin to revising theology is frowned upon, and this point is something that you may contest and cite as a difficulty that Islam has with the modern world.
I wished that commentators on Islam, and the Middle East as a whole who make religious references were willing to make a more conscientious effort to at least understand the basic precepts of Islam.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Dec 05, 03:25:00 PM:
Randian: "The idea that Islam has no central authority and therefore no central source of jurisprudence is a prime example of the Big Lie."
That's actually completely true. There are no fewer than 5 different accepted schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and they each recognize the others as equally valid. (officially) Also, there is no central authority and has not been even in name since the Ottoman sultanate (who claimed the title of caliph) was abolished.
In some ways, things would be a whole lot simpler if there was a central authority.
"This is an ongoing process that has never been 'forbidden' as you seem to suggest."
You were so close...
Ijtihad was declared 'closed' in Sunni Islam hundreds of years ago. Only recently, with the rise of the liberal (modernist) movement, are Sunni 'ulema squeaking the door back open. I think that it still is not widely accepted in the Middle East, however.
Shi'a, on the other hand, have had different kinds of ijtihad active since forever via the Imams and after them through the Shi'a clergy. In fact, the culmination of studying to become a Shi'i clergyman (not really a better term than that in English) is becoming a mujtahid. (one who can perform ijtihad) The reason that Shi'i mullahs and ayatollahs have followings is because they have been judged competent to issue ijtihad religious rulings.
"Most of the Muslims with whom I am acquainted, as far as I understand, have no desire for Islam to rule the world, or believe that they have some god-given right to rule the entire world."
But it is a common belief and theologically defensible.
"I wished that commentators on Islam, and the Middle East as a whole who make religious references were willing to make a more conscientious effort to at least understand the basic precepts of Islam."
Done. :)
By J, at
Fri Dec 05, 04:00:00 PM:
Dawnfire:
Fantastic comment. Thanks for mentioning the Shia/Sunni aspect of Ijtihad. I think that is a very important distinction, and I should have made explicit that Ijtihad is much more ongoing in Shi'a circles.
Thoughtful and informed comments are always appreciated.
By , at
Fri Dec 05, 05:14:00 PM:
That's actually completely true. There are no fewer than 5 different accepted schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and they each recognize the others as equally valid. (officially) Also, there is no central authority and has not been even in name since the Ottoman sultanate (who claimed the title of caliph) was abolished.
The schools themselves are as good an example of centralized authority as any, as is Al-Alzhar University. All are as authoritative with respect to Islamic religious practice as any papal pronouncement. The reason I call "lack of central authority" a Big Lie is that it is used by Islamic apologists to imply that Muslims get to interpret Islam any way they want, and to further imply as a corollary that terror and murder in the service of Islam is illegitimate. Neither are true, but they have been effective in deflecting blame for terror committed in Islam's name away from Islam itself.
The reason that Shi'i mullahs and ayatollahs have followings is because they have been judged competent to issue ijtihad religious rulings.
They still don't get to make rulings that contradict those of the major schools. Any who try are likely to get thrown off the roof of a tall building for committing heresy.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Dec 05, 07:29:00 PM:
"The schools themselves are as good an example of centralized authority as any, as is Al-Alzhar University."
Actually, I meant 'schools' in the abstract. Maybe I should have said 'schools of thought' or something.
Here's what I was referring to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhhab
"All are as authoritative with respect to Islamic religious practice as any papal pronouncement."
This is misleading. Authoritative, yes. You can probably say that. These people are not intellectual lightweights and many take their job of scholarship very seriously. (though there is a certain level of corruption... this is the Middle East)
But papal pronouncements are binding. Sunni clerical fatwas are not. They are simply legal opinions. Whatever weight they have depends on the credibility of the issuing authority.
"The reason I call "lack of central authority" a Big Lie is that it is used by Islamic apologists to imply that Muslims get to interpret Islam any way they want, and to further imply as a corollary that terror and murder in the service of Islam is illegitimate. Neither are true, but they have been effective in deflecting blame for terror committed in Islam's name away from Islam itself."
No further argument.
"They still don't get to make rulings that contradict those of the major schools. Any who try are likely to get thrown off the roof of a tall building for committing heresy."
I'm not sure about this... I've never heard of Twelver Shi'a (the ones who have established the formal mujtahid schooling system) turning on their own because of theological differences. Takfir is traditionally frowned upon. One of the biggest sticks that Muslims can use to beat the Salafists is their absolute readiness to declare other Muslims as infidel.
One one hand, you have the case of Salman Rushdie who received a death sentence for heretical writings. On the other, he was not a mujtahid.
By , at
Fri Dec 05, 10:08:00 PM:
Actually, I meant 'schools' in the abstract. Maybe I should have said 'schools of thought' or something. Actually, I meant 'schools' in the abstract. Maybe I should have said 'schools of thought' or something.
I know what you meant. Nonetheless, you pretty much must choose one. Islam is not a "take what you want and leave the rest" religion, and plenty of Muslims take seriously their right to self-help in the matter of dealing with heretics.
I am not sure we actually disagree in substance.
Takfir is traditionally frowned upon. One of the biggest sticks that Muslims can use to beat the Salafists is their absolute readiness to declare other Muslims as infidel.
True, but that doesn't mean that non-Salafists are ready to condone deviance. Alawites, Ahmadiyya, and Bahai would probably have been wiped out already if there weren't plenty of foul unbelievers still around to rape, murder, and enslave.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Dec 06, 08:49:00 PM:
"I am not sure we actually disagree in substance."
Nah. I don't think we disagree on many things.
"True, but that doesn't mean that non-Salafists are ready to condone deviance. Alawites, Ahmadiyya, and Bahai would probably have been wiped out already if there weren't plenty of foul unbelievers still around to rape, murder, and enslave."
They do condone. So long as a reasonable Muslim can look at another person and think, 'sure, he's Muslim. He's wrong about X, but that's not a big deal,' then things work fine. It's not terribly different from Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Lutherans all recognizing one another as fellow Christians. They disagree on matters of theology and their customs are different, but they all live in the same tent.
Historically, Muslims have worked the same way. Off the top of my had, it's just the Salafists and the Kharijites who have taken it upon themselves to denounce other Muslims' beliefs and practices and turn to the sword. Other intra-Muslim conflicts have been rooted in politics and economics rather than religious zeal. (I include Shi'a coups against Sunni powers in the Middle Ages under politics, though the line does blur a bit)
By , at
Sat Dec 06, 10:26:00 PM:
So long as a reasonable Muslim can look at another person and think, 'sure, he's Muslim. He's wrong about X, but that's not a big deal,' then things work fine.
The problem is that Islam encourages unreasonableness. Shia and Sunni are willing to shoot each other over doctrinal differences far less significant than a Cult of Mary (Alawites) or praying only once a day and not celebrating Ramadan (Bahai).
I argue it is ignorance about the religious practices of others, not temperament, that is preventing more widespread persecution. In Egypt, for example, I have no doubt that if the truth about Bahai religious practice were to become more widely known that the current low-intensity persecution of Bahai would rise to become comparable to the treatment of Copts. Bahai are required to put "Muslim" on their identity documents, for example. While I denounce the entire idea of putting one's religion on official identity documents, it means that Bahai have no problems getting jobs or serving in government office. It doesn't mean they're free to publicly advertise their heresy; "it's no big deal" is almost certainly not how the Sunni majority will react.
