The chat show in Pakistan
Is it okie dokie for Muslim men to have concubines?
Why of course it is; what a silly question. Evry fule kno that.
The first condition is that if during waging of jihad the women who come with the enemy forces to support them are captured and the emir of the army distributes them, it is his discretion, we can keep them as concubines. Second, if we explore and find some market where slaves and concubines are sold and the sale is established as a social institution there, the women you buy from there will be concubine. Abducting a free woman to take her as a concubine or to sell a free woman is, I think, wrong…
Oh my, how liberal, how generous, how really fair and just and all that anyone can expect. If selling women is established as a social institution, then men can buy them, no problema. Just don’t abduct a free woman to rape her or sell her, that’s all. Agreed? Splendid. Let’s all go for a smoke.
You gotta love a religion that serves its misogyny straight up, no waffling.
There are mild poisons, and then there is the real thing. Well, religion is a poison. Hitchens has got that right. But Islam is a very serious, nasty, brutal inhuman poison, even more than most religions – and that’s saying quite a lot. It is a vile, misogynistic, cruel, beastly religion, a religion of slaves. To think of this being debated on TV in all seriousness, is another nail in the coffin of this religion. Let’s bury it, before it becomes, if anything, more vile than it already is. It already stinks, and the smell is becoming unbearable.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jessica Anderson. Jessica Anderson said: RT @OpheliaBenson: The chat show in Pakistan http://dlvr.it/28Z92 […]
But aren’t we assured ad infinitum that Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance? Just because it is antithetical to all secular values doesn’t mean we shouldn’t tolerate it; it’s more important, you see, for us burdened by colonial guilt to appear tolerant to the intolerant than it is to uphold and defend the values that allow for tolerance of the intolerant. Islam is all about submission to the will of Allah – who just so happens to deeply favour misogyny. Nothing can be done about it, I’m afraid; one simply cannot tolerate any deviation from this slavish obedience to misogynistic intolerance. It’s so… tolerantly peaceful.
But it’s only free women from countries with which Pakistan has diplomatic relations that can’t be enslaved (it says). Israel is specifically excluded.
Well, at least Pakistan doesn’t have nuclear weapons – wait a minute, that’s not right!
Not that xtianity is any better. It’s just that, most of the time, they try to keep quiet about it, these days.Consider, just from the Epistles in the NT:
Romans 1,27; I Corinth 11, 7-9 & 13; Ephesians 5, 22-3; I Timothy 2, 11-12 & 14-15; II Tim 3, 6-7 and I Peter 3, 1 & 7.
Eugh!
And religious people wonder why we non-believers become enraged. Why, they ask, are some atheists so irate, infuriated, hopping mad, bloody annoyed, really angry…?
They can easily answer their own questions. This articlde says it all.
Tune in again next week for a stimulating discussion on “Is Cannibalism Halal?”. Send advance questions to Professor Siddiqui, via camel, to: dirt track by the palm tree, third tent on the left.
Fascinating. The discussion takes place in the absence of acknowledgement that there might be a thing called ‘modernity’, and that technological advance [like TV, duh] might connect in some way to political-cultural change.
It does drive me bonkers that, no matter how outrageous and backwards the ideas being propagated are…there will be some who are far, far more outraged that people like Ophelia have anything negative to say about it (the imperialist, colonialist oppressor!) than of what was actually said/done (which is probably somebody else’s fault, anyway, or shouldn’t be judged by Western/developed world standards, despite the wholesale adoption of developed nations’ technology to propagate it…).
I might note that this attitude, even codified in such a cold bloodedly legalistic way, probably represents the world view of 90% of human history and human culture. It may not be “fair” to blame Islam alone for this…we are the outliers here. I’m not saying this patriarchal world view is in any way right or correct or moral…just that it is distressingly common.
Of course, I thank Darwin, PBHN, that I live in an outlier culture, but…
We did this too. Hell we kind of do it now. If little boys are used as prostitutes in another country, many rich white men will travel there.
@Eric, Islam is no more or less vile than any religion, it’s just going through one of the phases they all seem to go through. They aren’t doing anything that any other, especially monotheistic, religion would or has do/done. Christians do the same shit really. Just do it, until it’s socially stigmatized. The bible was used to justify slavery, the killing of witches, and many other atrocious crimes. Not to mention the stance many Christians take on women through devices like the quiver-full movement. It’s all absurd, it’s all wrong, it’s all dehumanizing, and it’s all done by Christians too. Regardless of which part of which genitalia is being given away or cut up, it’s all bad.
@tildeb: Honestly, replace every islam or muslim with christianity or christian and your statement continues to ring true.
@Sarah: you were good until the whole sterotyping with camels and stuff. Little bit of the wrong way to go. Plus, cannibalism isn’t something religions have been huge on. I’d say “Next: Little Boys, tomorrow’s future, or todays jizz rag, by the pope. That would be a bit more correct.
@Dave: Ya, the problem is, countries that control their media outlets heavily often use it to spread religion, because religion is a great way to keep people in check and squabbling while the powerful stay right where they’re at.
@Lisa Bauer: Absolutely. It’s very upsetting.
@Brian M: I think it’s sad, but true. People don’t really care about it until it’s them being raped and just look the other way rather than question power or authority.
I think we need to make sure we don’t let these things just drift away. Cite them in conversation, post this on your social networking sites, do everything you can to spread the news about these things. Also, don’t forget that Christians view what is going on now as a religious war, and unfortunately, due largely to Zionism, and the strangely prominent Christian Zionism, the Christians are treating it as a religious war no matter how it gets spun, just look at the bit abou tthe bible cite’s on the gun scopes. It’s all sad.
Lisa, yup – I got a message from one of them! Challenging me to a debate. I said sure. No reply.
:- )
Caseyhov, and any who think islam is capable of evolving, from Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
“(Islam) is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves a feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hypocrisy, and double standards. It relies on the technological advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam.
… we in the West would be wrong to prolong that pain of transition unnecessarily, by elevating cultures full of bigotry and hatred towards women to the stature of respectable alternative ways of life.”
You assume islam can change and modernize like other religions, that it is capable through the efforts of moderates and well-intentioned people to somehow maintain its theological roots that defines islam yet still affect this transition, which necessarily must include liberal secular values. I do not think this is possible. I think islam is incapable of such change because its root is antithetical to individual freedom of any kind and dependent on theocratic slavery. That’s why is called Islam, meaning submission. Promoting any change – no matter how well intentioned, logical, enlightened, and necessary – by definition is apostasy. There is no compromise or evolution of root ideas possible. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can stop pretending that respecting rather than condemning this religion is a sign of tolerance. It isn’t; it is a sign of appeasement and surrender to that which will always be a source of direct and intentional conflict with Western values.
@caseyhov: “[R]eligion is a great way to keep people in check and squabbling while the powerful stay right where they’re at.”
made me think of a fine quote from Seneca:
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/luciusanna118600.html
We don’t seem to have learnt much since.
So did Muhammed…. ba-dump!
@ Stephen Turner: Absolutely, there are thousands of great quotes to a similar tune. referring to it as the “opiate of the masses” was always one of my favorites.
@tildeb: I think you may have taken some of my progression and growth metaphors a bit too literally. So I’ll say this. Thers is no religion, especially amongst the monotheistic ones, that is good or capable of being 100% humanist or even compatible with human rights. They all have their issues and they all rely on works from long ago that do not treat women as people. None of them do. Not just islam, and to fool yourself into thinking that there could even possibly be a tangible idea of western thought or culture that is some how above islam is particularly absurd. This isn’t about west vs. east, this is about religions who no longer serve a purpose in this world. They need to be cleansed because they all take advantage of people.
What I mean though, as far as growth and development of the religion is more along the lines of comparing it to the mental maturity of a human. Islam is an adolescent at best, Christianity in it’s most watered down mature form is like early 20’s…. Feel me?
This page shows the graphics I would say that are relevant and adds anothe rpotential one for Islam. The actual blog post is interesting but the graphics are more what I’m pointing at than the writing itself, but the ideas in the writing aren’t bad.
Derr derp derr forgot the link…
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1662
@caseyhove: you misunderstand satire.
I found it very droll, Sarah.
@James Sweet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad's_wives
“Marriage to Aisha
Aisha was six years old when betrothed to Muhammad.
She stayed in her parents’ home until the age of nine or ten, when the marriage was consummated in Medina. Most of the Islamic sources indicate that she was 9 years old at the time that the Prophet first had sexual intercourse with her with the single exception of al-Tabari, who records that she was ten. She was therefore married to Muhammd while still a child.”
He did some crazy shit that guy…
@Sarahe: No, trust me, I don’t, I just know the good and bad ways to do it. That would be why I offered up my alternative, not that it’s particularly clever, it’s just a more proper line to draw with sattire while not dragging us down with it. Satire is a weapon to use when something is more obviously ironic. This isn’t so much ironic as it is purely atrocious. You don’t satirize this, you show it to people.
Your comment may have felt like a modest proposal but it was way more of a birth of a nation than anything when you get down to it. Don’t take that poorly, I mean this with the most sincere intentions. I think satire is a wonderful tool, but it isn’t an easy one to do well.
caseyhov. I’ve read through your comments. Time to stop pontificating, I think. It’s a bit tiresome when you turn out to be the only bright guy on the net. Okay?
Sarah. Thought your little satire was great. Don’t let the pope get you down!
@caseyhove: You took my send-up too literally or you missed the point, or both. No, cannibalism is not a feature of most religions (unless you count Christian communion). That is one of my points. Just as it would be absurd to debate the legalistic rules of cannibalism, so it is outrageous to debate in a serious way the legal status of slavery and concubinage. My sentence was in the nature of an analogy. That is one point you missed. The other concerns the second sentence, which implies that our Islamist expert is living at a much earlier time when communication was at a primitive stage. So messages are sent by camel and a street address (modern concept) might be expressed by describing a rough track by a tree, and instead of a house (modern concept) the primitive equivalent might be a tent. This emphasises the fact that his whole discourse is rooted in the remote past of nomadic desert-dwellers. Most people would not require this exegesis. (But then, if I can’t break a butterfly on a wheel here, where can I?)
@Eric MacDonald: Thanks Eric, I’m glad you read them. I’m also glad I have some one who can tell me when it is and isn’t ok to comment! Aww thanks. If you’d like to pass along your email address I’d be happy to run anything I’m even thinking about commenting on past you. But do it soon before I post anything else, I’d hate to find something unfunny and offensive in the comments section of a blog and actually respond again.
Sarahe: OK THANK YOU. I don’t know why you keep adding an e to the endof my interwebs name, but I’m glad you did. I felt like I needed an extra vowel. I gave you one too it made me so happy. Also, if you wouldn’t mind, could explain some more stuff to me? I have a weird red spot on my eye, no clue why it’s there…Oh oh oh and could you explain why I find humor in something you don’t? I will admit this, I think your intentions are better than my first assumption, I am extremely wary of any form of humor that involves muslims and camels because of many of the terrible remarks I hear. I really do appreciate your last comment, and honestly, I underestimated the amount of thought you put into the original comment.
I think the important thing is this, generally speaking, we’re all on the same side in this discussion and remembering that is important. So rather than turning a disagreement on something into insults and such, maybe we could have a discourse, afterall aren’t we claiming to be the more intelligent folks in some regard? I just don’t see why shit talk always has to trump just talking. I’ll say it, Eric, your attitude in this discussion is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Now, if you’d like to address which parts of my comments you took issue with, maybe then we can discuss it. I’m hoping you will, I’m hoping you’ll avoid the all too common response of *wordpoop*.
Islam is no more or less vile than any religion, it’s just going through one of the phases they all seem to go through.
The difference, Casehov, is that mainstream Christianity and Judaism (to compare Islam only to the other “Abrahamic” religions) went through the last vestiges of these “phases” about two centuries ago. We’re now in the 21st century and mainstream Islam is still literalist. Seemingly nothing has changed since in fourteen hundred years. It is definitely more “vile” than the others. Not to mention that it has whole swaths of the globe in its thrall and seeks constantly to add to them.
Erm, Case, Eric does have a point, and I wasn’t around when he commented (which he somehow intuited). You are kind of talking as if no one around here had ever noticed anything before. Maybe slow down a little, read a few threads, before telling everyone what to think about Islam and the like.
@Alain:
I get what you’re saying, and I do agree, but again I think the growth analogy is being taken to literally.
The thing is, Islam, although acting a bit more archaic than some of the comprable religions, is generally doing the same thing as christianity or judaism. It’s taken different paths, slightly, and Islam is arguably taking longer to get there, but honestly, they’re all doing the same things and having the same issues. Honestly, when you boil it down, they’re all doing heinous things, the difference, is that the other Abrahamic religions do it in a more technoligically advanced and socially acceptable manner, but they’re all doing the same thing.
You also have to consider the influence of the western world in those environments. If the tables were turned, do you think Christians would be doing things differently? I would argue they don’t.
To me, I think the argument that Islam is some how worse than the other religions based on what we see in the media of it now is the equivalent of saying that black people in the United States, are in poverty because they are not white, and white people are inherently better. Let’s be real about this, if Islam were the religion of the United States we’d be looking at the exact opposite claim. I do like this line of discussion though. I previously had thought that maybe Said’s idea of Orientalism was a bit much, but I’m starting to see his point more and more on a general level. I think one thing that people don’t realize is how many muslims live in nations where Christianity is the dominant religion. They aren’t riding camels around or publicly sentencing people to rape or murder, yes some of them have done bad things, but not all of them, hell not even close to most of them.
No problem, didn’t mean to try and have a discussion. Please excuse me.
That’s ok! And I hope you did mean to try to have a discussion. By all means have one.
caseyhov, I think you are sincerely wrong asserting that islam is like any other religion – just slightly slower to modernize but subject to the same kind of necessary changes as other religions. You are not only wrong, but dangerously misguided to think the threat against secular values posed by any of the main religions is equal. They are not equal.
The christian enjoinment to love your neighbour and turn the other cheek is not synonymous in any way with the qur’anic commandment that when you meet the unbelievers strike them in the neck, and bin Laden’s correct quotations from the haddiths to fight the jews and kill them, that you are not to take jews and christians as friends or you become one of them, worthy of death. Nor is the comparison based only on a few extremists. Bin Laden’s view is the correct view, the only view, the only allowable view in islam because it comes directly from the qur’an and the accepted haddiths. Those who do not actively endorse these admonishments know perfectly well that their lack of active support means they are threatened not only with hell if their intention is to subvert the true word of god but the very real charge of apostasy if they act against it. That’s why you do not see the same ferocity of demonstrations by muslims (if any demonstration at all) against atrocities committed in the name of islam that you do when perceived insults are made against islam. The usual silence by adherents of the one true faith in response to gross human rights violations and violent misogynistic practices is both deafening and very telling and headway against this theocratic tyranny is not made by excusing this lack of support for secular values with a shrug that all religions are equally guilty of the same kind of fundamental beliefs, and that all we have to do is sort of wait it out while it undergoes growing pains. That’s not going to happen with islam and it is extraordinarily naive to think otherwise.
Caseyhove,
You say:
Let’s be real about this, if Islam were the religion of the United States we’d be looking at the exact opposite claim.
and…
You also have to consider the influence of the western world in those environments. If the tables were turned, do you think Christians would be doing things differently?
This is relativism for 8-year-olds. And, frankly, not a little insulting. Are you really suggesting that save for an accident of geography we would be blithely regarding women as the rightful booty of jihad?
Various people saying that islam cannot “modernise”, but would anyone have bet, in say 1388, that xtianity was capable of “modernisation” or a “liberal interpretation”?
And, of course, many xtian sects still haven’t caught up, starting with the RC church. Then there are the extremely rich and powerful and dangerously loonie “Dominionists” in the USA.
“A religious war”. Yes it is, but not in the sense they mean it. I wouldn’t be suprised to see the religious nutters temporarily declaring truce, to make sure the dangerous atheists and secularists are squashed, and then having their own internecine war, later. This sort of viewpoint seems quite common amongst some US commentators, which is also scary.
Lastly, Alain @ 32. Yes. Go back and read the actual bible quotes I listed a long way back up, as to the traditional and officially-approved xtian take on women. I think this is an aswer to Ophelia’s question: “Does god hate women?” – Yes (again).
It’s all about power and control, hence the Seneca quote, back at #15
Getting back to the matter of slavery, Wafa Sultan says in A God who Hates that in inter-personal relationships in Islam each person is either a slave or a master. Everyone is the property of someone else. “Woman is the property of Man, a child is the property of his father, a slave is the property of his master, and a laborer is the property of his employer. All of these are the property of the ruler, who governs by divine decree.” (p. 156) “In Islam, children are property, not a responsibility.” (p. 161)
All of which makes sense if you really think there is a pyramid with god at the top – and that’s one compelling reason to keep pointing out that there is no good reason to think that. No god, no pyramid, no “natural” hierarchy, no ownership of persons.
Wafa Sultan may say this later (I haven’t finished the book) or perhaps it is so obvious that she doesn’t bother to state it, but it seems to me that in a hierarchical system like this cruelty at all levels of society is inevitable. If the person above you on the scale is treating you like dirt, it would take a superhuman effort not to take it out on the next person below you in the scheme of things. And that person above you is behaving like that because the person above him is treating him badly, and so on ad infinitum in both directions. If it is a vicious and violent society to begin with, the bullying will be vicious and violent. Wafa Sultan would say that the one thing feeds the other. A long-standing institution of slavery fits neatly into this. We are shocked by the idea of an intellectual discussion of it on TV, but perhaps we shouldn’t be so shocked. We should just understand that it is part of a repulsive mind-set.
Alright so I’m not sure if I should or shouldn’t post what I think here, so I’ll try one more time and see what happens.
@Eric MacDonald, I still don’t see any response to all of the comments you read. I’m still not certain of what you took issue with. Perhaps you’d care to clrify since you felt strongly enough to say wat you did.
@Tildeb: I can’t possibly know your entire perspective on this issue, but I think one of the things we differ on is the idea of what Christianity really is and isn’t. You cite the same things Christians do when they are describing their religion in an unchallenging environment. Which to me means you could be, or are, very forgiving of Christians, which I am not. “The christian enjoinment to love your neighbour and turn the other cheek ” has never been congruent with their actions. I mean if you want to evaluate religions based on their scripture alone, I can assure you that Christians have plenty of fun things in their closet. I’m not saying tha Islam WILL DEFINITELY GROW UP AND BE A BIG KID. I am saying that being so critial of Islam is ok, but you can’t just look the other way with Christianity or Judaism or any other religion. I’ve heard that Osama Bin Laden is everything from a religious extremist to a middle of the road muslim, since I have not grown up in a largely Islamic area, I don’t have as great of a grasp on the spectrum of belief and enforcement, but if Islam alone was the problem, there would not be mosques in the U.S. if they all believed and acted in accordance with your last comment and the impression it gives of Islam. I do know that there are Christians (I do include everything from Luterans and Methodists to pope lovers and baptists, oh and Mormons too they all work together in some form or another) who I interact with regularly who believe that homosexuality is going to cause us all to burn in hell. I know Christin women who look down on women in politics, and women who speak their mind. They don’t just think these things for fun. I’m trying to say, that at the root of it all, they all do the same things just to varying degrees in the current climate. I know you’ll come back with the same thing at this point so I’ll just hold off for now.
@Alaine: No, that’s not what I’m saying, unless you consider the only dfference between the two to be geographic locations….What I’m saying is that had a world power emerged clutching Mohammed to it’s figurative breast and constantly had a good half of the political climate clammering for Mohammed while a lot of nations who favored the jesus were watching as this hypothetical Mohammedian Industrial Complex came and tried to “give you” democracy with bombs….Ugh No, no that’s not at all what I’m saying, but I apologize if a hypothetical swap in your mind doesn’t include the history of either religion we are discussing. I also apologize for the fact that I think I muddled my point a bit by assigning geographic locations to religions. I do this with Christianity and the U.S. because it’s the home of a lot of the religious meddling that causes the problems. Like for example the recent use of those “experts” on homosexuality that is purely religious in origin with no scientific backing in order to push bans on homosexuality in other parts of the world, especially Africa. They blame AIDS and HIV on homosexuality and aid in the misinformation about condoms. Honestly, how can those people be considered such a far cry from Islam? All of the religions have spectrums on which their believers can fall, and you can’t evaluate the entire religion on one small area of the religion in question, I wish I could, but that’s alot like evaluating a person on just their race or sexuality and assuming you know everything about them. I’m saying we need to look at the whol epicture and realize that no religion has a net benefit for humanity through its existence. They’re all bad, Islam says you shouldn’t be friends with xians, and xians support zionism through funding and actions, and generally speaking the same Christian Zionists in our government also are big supporters of war. So is it really worth debating who is worse? The religious people are eading EVERYONE down the wrong paths, regardless of which religion we’re talking about.
@Greg Tingey: Exactly.
@Sarah: That is scary stuff. To me there are some errily similar lines that can be drawn between capitalism and the quotes you mentioned @34.
“…perhaps we shouldn’t be so shocked. We should just understand that it is part of a repulsive mind-set.” Absolutely! A mind set people need to get better at recognizing and avoiding. It wasn’t long ago that a slightly similar discussion was being had in the U.S. Great points.
caseyhov, you continue to miss my (and Eric’s) point: islam is not like judaism and christianity. The very idea of some technologically advanced superpower islamic country is an oxymoron, and then for you to consider that if such a thing had happened…, shows just how misguided you are. I am no supporter of unjustified belief in whatever form it comes, which is why I continue to try to get you to see that your notion that islam equates in kind with others is – in itself – an unjustified belief. Unlike judaism and christianity, islam at its root is antithetical to inquiry of any kind beyond theology. This is simply not true of the others and it is a vital difference to one’s understanding why islam is such a danger to western secular values.
Eric didn’t really make a point, a least not one that had any element in this discussion beyond trying to shut some one else up. Which is disheartening when you read some of his better posts.
So YOUR point is that Islam is not capable of developing any further than it has? Your saying that because it takes a position that allegedly does not allow for inquiry in any area but theology? Do you deny that you’re looking at a very specific sort of Islam? I don’t disagree that the ideas you are condemning are bad, but Christianity and Judaism have both had some run-ins with science. For you to still insist that Islam is SO feudal, without any exceptions for the Muslims in this world who are not doing the things you say? Honestly do you think all of the fighting over Jerusalem had nothing to do with any religion besides Islam?
You’ll probably tel me that this site is complete fiction:
http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/history/islam.htm
And these pages surely must only link to things like fairy tales and fables placed in our midst by Islamic infiltrators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Agricultural_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventions_in_medieval_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_science_and_engineering_in_the_Islamic_world
Check the talk pages for the things that are being debate don the pages, but generally speaking, if even one non theological avancement was made by a Muslim your overall view of them certainly can’t hold up.
Like I said, they defnitely do bad shit. I think your definition of Islam and Muslims needs to be clarified, because I believe there is an element of Islam that completely and totally meets your definition, I just think you’re throwing out any of the good the have done. Still bad, but I don’t think you’re giving them a fair shake while giving religons more heavily embraced by the West a fair shake. Are you not even reading any of the posts about the pope and the Catholic church? Honestly? Covering up child rap is somehow more or lessok than using rape as a criminal punishmet for women in certain situations? Honestly? you’re going to tell me that if there was some sort of way to keep score amongst religions that Islam woud be losing? It’s crazy.
Eric wasn’t trying to shut you up, casey, he was trying to get you to stop pontificating. I’m sorry to say it, but you are a bit. That’s why I suggested you slow down and read a little more here before you comment. You’re talking as if to novices, but we’re not novices. Try to discuss without lecturing.
Well said, Ophelia.
What sets Islam apart from the other Abrahamic religions is that it is not only a religion but a legal system. The other religions have had commandments and various kinds of advice, but not temporal laws controlling so many aspects of public and private life. I think this is one of the biggest stumbling blocks in having any kind of integration between our cultures. The idea of trying to impose sharia law on the rest of the world is beyond grotesque.
Casyhov, you are making my point for me: by all means be suitably impressed as I am by the advancement of knowledge made in the muslim world more than 700 years ago. Not that islam caused scientific advancement, mind you, but without question science advanced in the muslim world. Marvelous stuff. As the web sites your reference make this abundantly clear (except the last one that has been flagged as in need of massive references). Once upon a time, islam and science were compatible. No argument here.
So what happened?
Why has there been almost nothing since (other than an explosion of excuses for the past 700 years). Think about that. As the late one to the major monotheistic table, and having an ancient history of successful inquiry, islam should still be at least a player. Yet it isn’t. Even the Enlightenment failed to make a dent in this same muslim world except where the religious yoke was thrown off and that intolerable situation has been under constant theologically inspired attack ever since (I’m thinking of Turkey specifically).
So what, pray tell, might be causing this incredibly successful suppression of scientific inquiry for the past 700 years, one that we in the West are welcoming into our secularized societies?
Eric calls it a “very serious, nasty, brutal inhuman poison,” and I see nothing in any of your responses to successfully counter that charge of islam’s superior tyranny compared to the other religions… nothing, that is, except hoping that ‘things’ will get better through the same kind of appeasement and tolerance we have for these other religions that are capable of some change. It seems self-evident to me at least that facing 700 years of no change (discussing the purchasing and taking of concubines, for goodness’ sake) and yet still hoping for change that will somehow magically occur is not a very productive use of critical faculties.
tildeb, Bernard Lewis addresses exactly this question in What Went Wrong? One point that I found especially fascinating is that at a time when public clocks were beginning to be displayed in Europe–say the 16th century–there was terrific resistance to it in Muslim lands because the knowledge of time was the province of the muezzin! At a time when Europe was taking off technologically the Middle East more or less stopped in its tracks. The resentment at having once been pre-eminent and now lagging so far behind explains a lot. It is always somebody else’s fault.
Sarah, I don’t know if it is true or not, but I keep coming across usually reliable sources that more books were translated into Spanish in 2009 than published in all the muslim countries combined. It’s difficult to legitimately blame others when even the production of crafted thought in the muslim world seems so incredibly low. (Thanks for the reading tip, btw. I’ll hunt that one down. )
tildeb, I have read recently that that statistic about Spanish vs Muslim translation is wrong, but I feel sure that in a general way there is relatively little being translated into Arabic. I hesitate to say that, because last year a play of mine was translated by an Egyptian! I don’t know about Spanish, but scads gets translated into French, Dutch, and German. I would be surprised if the Arabic-speaking countries could keep up with that. I really do recommend the Bernard Lewis book. When I was looking at it again before writing my last message, I got very engrossed in it and decided that I must read it again!
I don’t understand how my posts differ so much from tildeb. It’s like people shouldn’t respond to each other. I’m not sure what’s so wrong about any of it. But sorry for being at all optimistic about any of Islam. That isn’t a welcome stance here I guess.
It would be good if Islam could have a Reformation comparable to the one in Christianity, as some people have suggested, but it would take a terrific wrench to get to that point. So much of its energy seems to be taken up with hatred and very violent imagery. e.g. Those 5-times-a-day prayers are not what non-Muslims might imagine when they think of “prayer”; rather they are mostly denigrations of Jews and Christians. (Wafa Sultan again in A God Who Hates).
Another accident of geography for Caseyhov…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/02/iranian-woman-stoning-death-penalty
And note the cringe-inducing use of the word “appropriate” by the U.S. official.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/01/iran.stoning/?fbid=-0sGj8tqQ20
Because we shouldn’t be too judgemental about other cultures, eh? Let’s give “Islam” a bit more time…