Nothing is more fun than listening to the US government try to deflect our attention away from the Saudis towards Iran as if Iran were the source of all that is scary. Not that the Saudis are the source of all that is scary, but dagnabit if they don't give it all they got! Those wacky Saudis. Watch this exquistely painful interview with the head of a British Muslim school that uses books saying that all other religions are worthless, etc.... ÂÂ
This video was brought to my attention on a list-serve. It was asked, what should we do? I say, "Make more videos! Expose it all!" Two birds, one stone. Turn non-Muslim attention more properly toward the Saudis and their corrupt relationship with the United States and pressure Muslims to have no tolerance for this ugliness. This particular school is directly funded by the Saudis. I wonder if the school has instructions for security to let female students die should there be a fire and the girls don't have their hijabs with them while they try to escape? Those wacky Saudis! Never know what they'll do next!
The woman is a dishonest dumbshit. Like how apologetic can
apologetic get? I think more internally funded schools to put
these guys out of business? What about just starting schools that
teach Arabic as a language open to people of all faiths? I think
there is one starting up in New York. Exposing this crap is important. But it is only a start. I would like to know how many Muslims actually believe that Jews, Christians and polytheists will
end up in hell. Is this intolerance more widespread than we like to
admit?
From where I am right now I'd rather end up in hell with more tolerant folk then spend any time with these guys in heaven. Of
course they can make a hell of heaven and seem determined to do
so. ughh!!
Ginan
It is bullshit that the Saudis use those books, but realistically Christians say the same kinds of things every single day and nobody's running an expose'.
Actually, there is a genre of films directed at exposing fundamentalist Christian nonsense- they just don't get played on Fox News.
while not defending the 'school text books', bashing Saudi is a popular sport these days. Press reports indicate that Saudi is fighting (literally with guns etc) what they call the 'deviant groups' who made it their ultimate goal to dominate the country. Saudi is changing school curriculums to eclipse the influence of these groups.
Instead of condemning the country, why not direct the criticism toward the extremist group(s)! if we continue to condemn the whole country for excess of certain groups, then we have used the same tactic Fox News has adopted.
In our attempts to 'fit' in current debate and be more Catholic than the Pope, some of us have adopted the same bashing tactics 'the other' continues to use, to condemn 'us, muslims'.
If we continue to do that, then we are doing what Ibn Khaldoun called 'imitating the oppressor.'
I do not like it when someone questions my loyalty because of my identity. I reject statement like: Muslims should be profiled; not trustworthy; blacks are lazy, Italians are Mafioso or Americans are imperialists.
If you disagree with Bush Iraq policy, say so, but please do not condemn American for that.
Well, like us Uh-mericans, the Saudis may well have a government that is not representative of their needs and aspirations (I know, Captain Obvious strikes again). The question is, can the US provide any support for Saudis who may be working toward this goal? Not chaos, which the US excels in providing, but real support?
Center - the Saudis have done untold harm culturally by
spreading this brand of petro-dollar supported Islam. The
fact of the matter is that many Arabs working in the Gulf
return as rich immigrants and exert undue influence in their
own societies, it's kinda of an internal colonization and it tends
to wipe out local cultures and religious expressions. So really
one can contest whether it is bashing or a form of resistance.
This is not a matter of stereotyping but of actually focusing on
forms of cultural transmission that are backed by powerful
interests. It raises important questions. Why, for instance, aren't
Western Muslim communities creating their own books, ones that
are more in keeping with the values of those places they inhabit?
what interest does the Saudia government have in spreading ideas
that would make it so difficult for Muslims to adapt to the larger
culture they live in? These are questions vital to the community and
hardly reducible to forms of bashing. It's true that the spot light
is on the Muslim community and that one might find such intolerant doctrines preached by people of all faiths but that doesn't
negate the importance of having true intra-Muslim critique.
Fashion/Mujahid- what are some of those films to which you allude? I would be very interested in looking at some of them. I
guess one might be Jesus Camp- I haven't seen it yet- but I'd like
to know about others as well.
Ginan
I commend the honesty of moderators here to expose, rather than suppress, such an interview.
Wittgenstein pointed out that if words and language were truly utterly subjective, then each person would speak their own unique language, and no one would understand anyone else.
I find it such a lame but frequently presented argument that Qur'anic verses can only be properly understood in the original Arabic, and not in translation.
Why then is it not the case that the Old Testament Bible can only be understood in Hebrew and Aramaic, or that the Gospels and Epistles can only be understood in patristic Greek?
I think that the beauty and genius of the many parables in the Gospels is that they can be understood in any language, and can be understood by simple and unlettered people who are not scholars.
I remember in the mid 1990s watchin a PBS broadcast of Huston Smith on Religions of the World.
I can paraphrase from memory Huston Smiths remarks on Surah 5, verse 48 , "If I had wanted to, I could have created all humans as the SAME religion, but for my own reasons, I chose to create them as DIFFERENT religions. SO, if you must compete with one another, then compete in doing good and compassionate works, and when you return to ME, then I shall explain the reason for those religious differences."
Huston Smith paints a fairly ecumenical interfaith picture with this verse. Yet I have seen so many Muslims grow angry when this verse and Smith's interpretation are mentioned. They protest that one can only understand properly in the original Arabic.
How could it be that the Rosetta stone unlocked for the world the meaning of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, but non Arab speakers are forever denied an understand of the Qur'an?
Sitram:
well for a start one can look at the fill in the blank questions exposed on the video and the expected answers. what are they?
why are such questions posed in the first place? I also think a
different kind of questions needs to be asked here, one that reminds
me of Cantwell's book the meaning of scripture. rather than constantly fussing about what scripture means, one can explore
what it has historically meant to specific people in a specific context..
After all, it the transcendent meaning ever attained? In such a case
one might ask what meanings are being circulated and for whose
interest and to what purpose.
Ginan
Ginan: Jesus Camp and In God's Name come most readily to mind, as well as a number of films that condemn Christian fundamentalist ugliness as a subtext. In God's Name, I believe, was a independent production, but it received some media attention in Boston. Alas, I only paid attention to it at the time b/c it was scored by a Berklee student.
'The fact of the matter is that many Arabs working in the Gulf
return as rich immigrants and exert undue influence in their own societies,...'Ginan
assuming your general statement is true, are you saying that Saudi should not hire arab workers? if you do not know what to do with these workers whose financial lots (some by the way, not all) have improved!!
then Ginan asks: Why, for instance, aren't
Western Muslim communities creating their own books, ones that are more in keeping with the value...'
I am for that, Ginan. The question is: is anyone stopping anyone from doing their thing if they wanted to. This is america. you make it sound muslim communities are caught in a saudi web of ineptness.
groups, not saudi, the country, might be doing something 'no good'. Granted!!
Instead of condemning saudi, why not join saudi in 'getting' those groups who are up to 'no good' (from our perspective!)
Sitram, non Arabic speakers are not denied an understanding of the Quran. what gave you that idea!! Look at the different social structure{S} Muslim communities have across the globe.
Experts in the Quran, much like those who deciphering the Rosetta stone, need to know much more than the person interested in the Quran or in ancient Egypt. After all, they are specialists. We expect more of specialist. Specialists in the Catholic Church, for their own ((reasons)), refuse to condone abortions. They are the specialists and the ones calling the shots for the Church. The Rosetta stone was deciphered by specialists; we do not second guess them.
Why would you expect less of the specialists in Islam to be asked to know the in and outs of the faith and its medium: Arabic.
A more pressing need is independence of the Muslim individual. It is worth mentioning that Muslims are expected to be responsible for their actions, ie, no clergy to take the 'hit' when meeting God. The call to encourage Muslims to know Arabic is an avenue to make each Muslim individual capable of relying on his/er resources to answer questions about life as a Muslim. If a muslim individual is going to be held accountable for their actions/in action, why not encourage them to know, if not ask them to know the medium of islam. if muslims knew the ins and outs of the faith, this would, I believe, take care of the many fetwas and run away quack sheiks who stoke the fire of social discored as well as dependence (on them.
the plethora of 'fetwas' on almost every social/political/religious topic is indicative of the individual Muslim's loss of autonomy to independently think for him or her self.
The way I see it, the call to learn Arabic is a call for freeing the Muslim mind of Jahilyyah clutter: being a follower. Nothing wrong with that.
"Whatever gave me that idea!?" The very film clip in this thread, which shows an interview with a member of management from the Saudi school, illustrates the pathetic sophistry that one cannot understand the words "pigs" and "apes", even though an Arab scholar certifies that such words are used! Are you blind to the contents of the film? Yet, I have personally encountered this same sophistry, dozens of times in my life, in argument with Muslims (many of whom were ignorant of Arabic), who insist that no non-Muslim is qualified to discuss or debate the Qur'an, or understand it in translation.
I see a frequent tendency among Muslims, both laypersons and scholars, to stick their heads in the sand and refuse to discuss or debate something on the grounds that only an Arab speaker could understand it.
I seriously question whether all those Muslims who undertake to learn Arabic really reach any level of fluency.
PBS educational television hosted a scholary discussion of Genesis, with a distinguished panel that included a Muslim scholar, a Catholic and Anglican priest, a rabbi, and a hindu scholar. When it came time for the Muslim scholar to make a contribution, she just laughed and said "Well, fortunatly, my Islamic religion does not require me to look at these scriptures such as Genesis."
Well, I thought, thats just dandy. Why in the world do they have such a moron on the panel, other than to achieve some kind of politically correct balance of representation of different faiths and genders.
The Hindu representative, as I remember, had no problem in seriously discussing the topics of Genesis.
I find it a great weak point in the Qur'an, that in FIVE different verses, the Hebrew psalms are praised greatly, saying that even the birds and animals recite them. And yet, not one psalm appears in the Qur'an. Now, we know from the Qum'ran fragments, and other sources, that the Psalms available at the time of Mohammed were unchanged from previous centuries, and are the same as we have today. So, this argument that Jews and Christians have somehow corrupted the message of the book, even though they are referred to as peoples of the book, seems to me a strained and far-fetched argument.
The Psalms in the Qur'an
003.184
PICKTHAL: And if they deny thee, even so did they deny messengers who were before thee, who came with miracles and with the Psalms and with the Scripture giving light.
004.163
YUSUFALI: We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms.
PICKTHAL: Lo! We inspire thee as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as We imparted unto David the Psalms;
017.055
YUSUFALI: And it is your Lord that knoweth best all beings that are in the heavens and on earth: We did bestow on some prophets more (and other) gifts than on others: and We gave to David (the gift of) the Psalms.
PICKTHAL: And thy Lord is Best Aware of all who are in the heavens and the earth. And we preferred some of the prophets above others, and unto David We gave the Psalms.
021.105
YUSUFALI: Before this We wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses): My servants the righteous, shall inherit the earth."
034.010
YUSUFALI: We bestowed Grace aforetime on David from ourselves: "O ye Mountains! Sing ye back the Praises of Allah with him! and ye birds (also)! And We made the iron soft for him;-
Of course I am not saying that Center. I am merely pointing out
that the spread of Saudia influence has got something to do
with the return of wealthy emigres who are then in a position to
spread a particular brand of the faith, one that is arguably bent
on positioning itself as the one true expression. There is a lot of
economic and political clout behind all this.
Of course nobody is theoretically stopping anyone from doint that
Center but for me the more interesting question is, for instance,
what powerful interests are behind promoting such textsbooks as
opposed, let's say, to the novels of a Munif or other forms of
cultural expression.
Sitaram,
your statement that... 'non Arab speakers are forever denied an understand of the Qur'an?' is not accurate. That is my point. Your call to arms so the non Arabic speakers could understand the Quran was an empty Zoro-esque gesture.
I am not blind to anything, especially your attempts to be a clever muckraker.
I personally believe that it IS possible for anyone to understand quite a lot about the Qur'an through the aid of translations. I try to point out how ridiculous is the argument is that the Qur'an can ONLY be understood in Arabic. Yet that argument is often put forward in a cowardly fashion by those who simply do not deal with issues which make them uncomfortable.
I don't think there is any way one can white-wash the verse which says "be thou pigs and apes, despised." Historically, the only real debate was whether anyone was ACTUALLY transformed in some fashion into an ape or a swine, or whether it was metaphorical.
Here is an interesting link regarding the issue of translating the Qur'an,
http://www.quranicstudies.com/article84.html
And, by the way, I have never found it necessary, in any of my posts, to stoop to ad hominem name-calling.
The following author seems to describe an understanding of the Qur'an as
most difficult to obtain, even if reading the Arabic.ÂÂ
The Qur'an stipulates the Arabic language itself as being its sole linguistic medium and hence it is near impossible to even remotely grasp its deeply profound message in such translations as currently available in English. - Mehdi ‘Abd al-Qadir
http://shaykhibrahiminstitute.org/Site/MQ.quran%20intro.html
Know that the meanings and secrets of the Word are themselves inexhaustible and infinite and can never be comprehended and known by any one man, thus the way of understanding necessitates that one strive along a never ending path, never can one stop and rest which itself may be a cause to losing one's way after having found it.
The Islamic teaching is a living faith, which requires actual participation beyond intellectual concepts, for it is only via this participation that true transformation of the individual can occur, thus realisation and practice are of one inseparable equivalence.
In reading the Qur'an one returns to the Source so to speak, the Source of all metaphysical, theological and eschatological doctrine; of all mystical understandings [11] hidden under a veil of breathless utterances, themselves inherently woven in every fibre of the human being.
This Pakistani Muslim's post says it all in a nutshell, and I agree
with what is said:
http://saqi.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/time-out-english-is-forbidden-printing-press-is-haram-right-and-i-am-from-mars/
Another poster in this thread comments:
 But we see in this link
 http://www.wordtrade.com/religion/islam/islquranR.htm
Ginan,
I agree with you. wish Munif novels were the center of attention.
As Salaamu Alaykum
First, Sitaram, let me apologize for times I have been rude to you in the past. I'd also like to extend this apology to anyone I've spoken inappropriately to, including Ginan, Fashion Mujahid, and anyone else who I've transgressed the bounds of adab when speaking to.
However, Sitaram, if I may, I'm not sure exactly what your purpose in coming here is. It seems to be mainly to criticize Islam and by extension point out the superiority of the Vedic and Buddhist thought you hold in high esteem. Leave aside for a moment the realities of Hindu (and to a lesser extent Buddhist) history with wars, violence, cruelty, and oppression of women. Leave aside the social mileau these beliefs have found purchase in in America. Do you really have no better thing to do with your time than a somewhat passive-aggressive missionary routine? If I misjudge, and you genuinely seek knowledge, than I apologize for my presumption. But this is how your behavior comes across to me.
On a seperate issue, I am not suggesting "supressing" this story. Anyone who knows me knows I am active in interfaith efforts and no fan of Saudi-style Islam. That being said, I object to the story on the grounds that it does not further the truth, only selectively shows what's going on to further demonize Muslims and justify America and (to some extent) Britain's quiet war on us. It's like Farrakahn pointing out that Jews were involved in the North American slave trade; there were in fact Jews involved, but the point of saying it is not historical accuracy, it's merely to support Farrakhan's hatred of Jews. Laury, with all due respect, I don't think it serves an interest to deny such events but given the social context I feel it is also undeirable to continue broadcasting it.
Peace and blessings of god be upon you all,
Dave
As a half Persian,
All this crap about Iran being "evil" is bullshit!
Iranians are far more Western and democratic.
Iranians have a dysfunctional democracy, but at least elections are contentious and debatable, Iranians can voice opposition.
Iran is an Islamist theocracy, but women outnumber men on college campuses across the country.
The universities are mixed gender settings, not separated by gender.
Women can drive and even be an armed police officer.
Iran has a thriving recreational drug usage scene, underground dance clubs, rising levels of pre-marital sex, etc.
How unfamiliar is this?
Arabs and Jews were involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade of sub-Saharan Black Africans, even Muslims were caught in the "Middle Passage" and brought to American shores enslaved and forced into the cruel institution of chattel slavery.
Slavery in Islam was never benevolent, a form of "white supremacy" did emerge among various Arab circles, even medieval Arab Islamic writings, Europeans were not "white"--"white folk" were Arabs. Europeans were "red."
An apology is a cosmetic which conceals, but does not eliminate, a blemish; I have yet to understand their value. We should feel sorrow or regret BEFORE we speak or act, and then exercise forebearance to avoid such speech or action.
If any of you aspire to interfaith activity, then, by definition you must have at least one person not of your faith in your midst. I qualify as that person.
I have perhaps a more vested interest in Islam than many professed Muslims. I would venture to say that most who embrace Islam do so, at least in measure, to save themselves from eternal, unending torment.
My interest is in saving the world from world war and genocide. I feel that the reform of Islam ( or "progressive" Islam, if you prefer), is one step which may, in theory, avert or at least delay the evils of war and genocide.
I believe I have participated here in a constructive fashion. I have advertised this site by mentioning it in a positive light in various places on the Internet. And I am certain that some traffic has come here because of my efforts.
Surely my presence here cannot be any MORE offensive than cartoons which depict prophets as lovers.
P.S. Ironically, quite by coincidence, the moment I posted the above, I went to myspace.com and found this comment from a reader in India.
Sitaram,
Well change your name to something shall we say more Islamic, you know that some Muslims do not consider "Hinduism" worthy of even discussion.
Teasing man, but it is nice to hear DA apologize for his previous postings that were sharp.
Sitaram, being modest is a Muslim quality which you have failed to master.
I believe it is time for bonkers to step in!
Sitaram, in the video she is saying that the verse has to be read in context and through the available history of interpretation. She is correct. Ali Eteraz wrote an entire piece on this verse. I'll go look for it later and put it up as a link, i'a.
The verse is not so much the issue as the fill in the blanks that Ginan pointed out.
You have been very polite on the site Sitaram, but one does feel the anger bubbling beneath some of your posts. You seem to be working against your own anger to post here with us. I respect you for that effort. That is not an easy thing to do. Especially on a site that has no interfaith intentions and so is not likely to answer your questions as needed. That said, you have not always promoted our site well, in particular you seem not to understand the role that humor plays in upending injustice. You forget that the internet provides information for everytime someone links to or mentions the site. Criticism is fine, as far as I am concerned. Say all you want. I've never complained to you about it. But let's just not have any claims to sanctity here from anybody, thank you very much. Last tme I checked, everyone here puts on their pants one leg at a time.
DA, your apology is most appreciated! TabarakAllah alayk.
On the Saudis, they sold their souls to the Wahhabis to take power now they try to force it on us. They have done extraordinary wrongs to the world. They continue to be an extraordinary danger. It should hardly be a surprise that the US government is best friends with them. The Saudis and the US government must be the worlds heel (bad guy) tag team champs.
I always thought that if Chavez would be the US's whipping boy and hand over the oil, the US would dump the Saudis flat. No sanctity anywhere.
On putting up the film, I take my cues from the Wizard of OZ..."Don't look at the man behind the curtain!" While he makes the firey head say, "I am the Great Oz!" Toto knew what was going on. Oh yeah, there is also that story about pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
The Prophet, alayhi salam, did not mean this when he asked us to cover over the sins of our brothers and sisters. In a sense, to expose them is to cover their sins. Because the goal of covering sins is to help bring the brothers and sisters back to right action. I think at this point, exposing them is the only thing that will have any effect. Shame them. Shame us for letting it go on.
In love and peace,
Laury
Laury,
before bonkers steps in even more, could you explain or sometimes post on the following (in post above):
'They have done extraordinary wrongs to the world. They continue to be an extraordinary danger.'
thanks
Saudi state funded theology aka "wahhabism" is responsible for some of the most virulent interpretive choices ever made in the history of Islam. There is reams of literature on this done by Muslims and non-Muslim scholars. Do a google search, google scholar search, or in amazon. As far as I am aware, the Saudi funded influence on contemporary Islamic theology (popular and scholarly) is not open to debate. One might debate whether this is a good or bad thing, but I'll stay safely on the side of it is a very bad thing, hence my use of the word "virulent."
If that material does not impress you, you might consider how they have destroyed nearly all the archaelogical evidence of the early Prophetic community. There is, I hear, a Dairy Queen built on top of the Prophet's favorite well. Maybe the franchise has changed over, but the fact of it is the Saudis have done whatever they could to destroy the physical and spiritual heritage of our Prophet.
"An apology is a cosmetic which conceals, but does not eliminate, a blemish; I have yet to understand their value. We should feel sorrow or regret BEFORE we speak or act, and then exercise forebearance to avoid such speech or action."
Well, I see the value of civlized people admttng their wrongdoing and expressing remorse. The recipiant can accept or decline it, but I see no point in giving pretentious lectures instead of courtesy.
"If any of you aspire to interfaith activity, then, by definition you must have at least one person not of your faith in your midst. I qualify as that person."
There's a time and place. I do interfaith stuff, but ths does not include going to Jewsh sites to tell them why I don't agree with the Talmud and how much more ennlghtened slam s by comparison. I don't see the point.
"I have perhaps a more vested interest in Islam than many professed Muslims. I would venture to say that most who embrace Islam do so, at least in measure, to save themselves from eternal, unending torment.
My interest is in saving the world from world war and genocide. I feel that the reform of Islam ( or "progressive" Islam, if you prefer), is one step which may, in theory, avert or at least delay the evils of war and genocide."
So you'll tell us how to run our our religion so it will fit your social stadards? That's mighty white of ya.
"Surely my presence here cannot be any MORE offensive than cartoons which depict prophets as lovers."
Believe me, I'm disgusted that self-proclaimed Muslims put up two comics that mock two of our greatest prophets (saws). That was one of the reasons I stopped using this site, though there were several others. I like Omar's writing so I stopped by to see if he was commenting on Umar Lee's seres, and saw that you were still doing the same routine as when I left. I don't find all of it particularly constructive.
"P.S. Ironically, quite by coincidence, the moment I posted the above, I went to myspace.com and found this comment from a reader in India."
I would have to disagree with your Indian buddy.
"Sitaram, being modest is a Muslim quality which you have failed to master."
QFT.
Post new comment