shukran, meph.
i am going to present this to eight or ten of the biggest wafa fans and death-fatwa-myth proponents and see if i can get any retractions.
what are my chances?

Thank you for taking the time to translate that.

Jinnilyyah-

Well since he never actually called her an apostate I would say your chances are pretty good, unless you are presenting it to people who are somewhat linguistically challenged. It is rather amusing to me that someone would say 'I asm a secular individual and do not believe in the supernatural' and then panic when one replies, 'oh so you are an aethist then?'. How one goes from that to 'eeeeeeeek! That's a fatwa!' is childish and exploitive of anti-barbaric Islamic sentiment and actually would put the idea of a fatwa into most people's minds.

Dubaiwalla- cheers, thanks to Matthew Hogan, Raf* and eerie who polished it up brilliantly.

meph, thank you for all your work on this. i think it is important for many reasons.
last week there was a dustup over reports that Sistani had published a fatwa calling for death to homosexuals on his website. Zeyad of healing iraq published a translation.
Yet it turns out that fatwa is over three years old.
i think it would have been responsible for Zeyad to include that fact.
i saw a lot of condemnation of Sistani resulting.
like in Wafa's example, the masses are easily manipulated.

reports that Sistani had published a fatwa calling for death to homosexuals

Hmmm....I think I can remember about 20 Texas honky-tonks where that fatwa was issued nightly, with jihadi passion increasing in proportion with beer consumed.

Could you explain further why it was translated as "are you heretic?" on MEMRI? And also the following statement from al-Khouly, where according to this translation, he said, "there is no censuring you". As I recall the MEMRI translation was something along the lines of "there is no point in talking to you" (if you are a heretic.

That said, I must stress that this is very enlightening. Wafa Sultan has not been questioned at all in the west (I live in Sweden), but hailed unanimously as someone who dare speak up against muslim fanatics.

But in the end al-Khouly still seems very troubling to me. Especially this part: "What civilized man [allows] homosexuality, homosexual marriage, loss of bloodline? Many of those who rule the West are bastards and illegitimate children"

I think homosexuality is becoming a litmus test for the western civilization and the rest of the world. What I want to know is what would happen to homosexual people in the west and elsewhere if someone as al-Khouly was to decide? I only see gay people being persecuted in muslim countries, or even worse, executed. Everyone is allowed to think of homosexuality as something unnatural, that's basic freedom of thought and expression, but it's not only expressions is it? It's actions.

dear daniel,

obviously, we don't know why the people @ m.e.m.r.i. chose to translate the term mulhidah (the term ibrahim al-khouly used to ask wafa sultan if she is one) as "heretic" and not "atheist".

the term for "apostate" (the punishment for which could be death) is murtadd/murtaddah. and it is highly unlikely that ibrahim al-khouly, being a professor @ al-azhar, mistakenly used the word mulhidah when ACTUALLY he wanted to say murtaddah.

as for al-khouly's answer - the m.e.m.r.i translation was almost right with the phrase "there is no point in rebuking you", but the term 'atb means "rebuke" in the sense of "censure, blame, reproof, reprimand" and here it is clear that his argument is: if you're an atheist, then i cannot say anything if you curse islam, the prophet, the qur'an. he implies that atheists are outside islam and islam has no say over them. it'd be different if wafa sultan had self-identified as a believing muslim - in that case, insulting the religion, the prophet, the qur'an would be a different matter and he (ibrahim al-khouly) would have the right to censure/reprimand/rebuke her.

in short, his answer is almost the EXACT OPPOSITE of a "death fatwa".

--raf*

So he's essentially saying "you're out of my jursidiction"??

I think homosexuality is becoming a litmus test for the western civilization and the rest of the world.

If that's the case, the USA entered western civilization just two years or so ago.

And Singapore, a country founded almost specifically NOT to be Muslim, is still litmusly uncivilized. As is India. OTOH, Jordan has no sodomy law, if all this is correct.

If Andrew Sullivan is listening. . . .

Daniel,

Could you explain further why it was translated as "are you heretic?" on MEMRI?

Ahem, as I am very keen not to discredit this translation by any rabid expression of personal views, I can only say that MEMRI's use of the word 'heretic' is not only inaccurate but also misleading. Dr.Ibrahim asked her if she was an aetheist, i.e, one who does not believe in God, in addition, there was no mention of the fact that she was a Muslim past or present in the interview so as far as he was concerned at the time she could have been born a Christian.

And also the following statement from al-Khouly, where according to this translation, he said, "there is no censuring you". As I recall the MEMRI translation was something along the lines of "there is no point in talking to you" (if you are a heretic)

This is very vital and very well pointed out. Al-Khouly said there is no censuring you if you insult Islam, in effect, the total OPPOSITE of a fatwa. To translate that as 'there is not point in talking to you' seems to smack of deliberate omission if not followed by his statement that based on her position as an aethist there is no expectation of her to respect Islam or its sanctities.

But in the end al-Khouly still seems very troubling to me

Al-Khouly is troubling period, however, as Matthew pointed out, such opinions of homosexuality are prevalent even in the West where legislation is divorced from religion. He is guilty of being non-pc. In my opinion, his rabid conspriacy theories re missionary campaigns in Africa e.g. let him down more.

Iranian/Afghani/Saudi whackjobs aside, Muslim responses to homosexuality can vary considerably. I recall attending mosque one day and seeing a guy wearing a shirt with this written on it: "If I don't say anything, no one will know I'm gay".

A few people (including myself) did double-takes, but that was it. He was obviously trying to raise awareness. I'm sure some people were uncomfortable, but nothing happened.

My mother's Muslim hairdresser is totally flaming, but also observant.

Matthew-
So he's essentially saying "you're out of my jursidiction"??

In a word, yes.

In many words, what he is essentially saying if one extraploates further is that there is actually no punishment at all under any jurisdiction. He absolves her from blame,in the way a minor or one who is found insane is excused due to diminished responsibility. He says that there is no anger, blame and hence official censure.

Who'd have thunk?

Meph

Apologies, work is still sucking me dry. Lots of dumb fucking things.

I think there are two standard terms in Arabic for heretic: the loaned haratiqi to render the Christian notion, and dalin (lit. one who goes astray) in context of Islam. However, if you open a dictionary, you're likely to see heretic as a possible translation of mulhid. It's the context that makes this meaning completely implausible here.

Another major flaw in MEMRI's translation is in the conjunction:

If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...

i.e., since instead of if. Now, if you listen to the audio, you can't actually hear the conjunction itself in the cross-talk. What you can hear is that, given the measured rhythm of al-Khouly's speech, it can have at most a single short syllable: as in 'in (=if) but not any of the standard words for since.

It also doesn't help to omit the stressed repetition of the word Islam: ... if you curse/blaspheme against Islam and the Prophet of Islam and Qur'an of Islam

That said, he does sound rather angry, both here and throughout the program. As does Wafa Sultan. In the trademark style of Opposite Direction.

Yeah, the bit about the World Council of Churches running guns to Garang was my favorite bit of lunacy. Not much impressed with either of them.

My favorite bit from al-Khouly was the one about loss of bloodline: ... most of those who rule the West are children of adultery and bastards. Not so much troubling as amusing.

Well, time to broadcast our little coup.

My biggest dork of the day award goes to the host. Like reading Noam Chomsky without periods and on acid.

Oh FQ gave me a migraine, funny thing when he spouts in Arabic it doesn't sound as absurd.

Michael,
It also doesn't help to omit the stressed repetition of the word Islam: ... if you curse/blaspheme against Islam and the Prophet of Islam and Qur'an of Islam

Another distinction, to blaspheme against Islam is not the same as cursing Islam especially if the context is one of heresy/apostasy as opposed to aetheism. When a Christian curses Islam he/she is not being blasphemous while a Muslim cursing Islam is. To accuse Wafa Sultan of blasphemy further enhances the view that she is being addressed as a wayward apostate. He EXCUSES her as a non-believer more so than he condemns her as a blaspheming heretic.

Yeah, the bit about the World Council of Churches running guns to Garang was my favorite bit of lunacy. Not much impressed with either of them.

They're all barking, bloody frustrating how easily people are manipulated in a world where Sultan is now considered a courageous martyr by those who have never seen the actual programme and not actually read a full English translation.

Worth pointing that the stuff that goes into Qasim's standard some-say-but-others-say intro isn't what Qasim himself believes. The format of the show is to pit representatives of two diametrically opposed points of view and let them duke it out. The Opposite Direction is the most black-or-white of all talk shows on al-Jazeera, which on the whole aren't that conductive to shades-of-grey opinions to begin with. Regular viewers will correct me, but I believe you tune in to Qasim's show to be entertained by a good bashing match and/or to get your blood pressure up.

As far as I can tell, Qasim's own views tend to the rather middle-of-the-road old-school leftist pan-Arabist kind. From my experience, whichever of the two guests he disagrees with less, will get a cookie from him once in a while, but the bottom line is, as a host he seems to like nothing more than a nice bit of sustained and colorful raving, from whatever viewpoint. You can tell that he has attained a state of hostly nirvana when he gets into his hm-mode, as in:

Guest: raveraverave!
FQ: hm!
Guest: raveraveraveraverave!!
FQ: hm!

I'm not sure al-Khouly ever reached those loftier spheres of lunacy.

Ah but Michael, did you see how Qassem pounced upon the condemnation of Saudi? I thought al-Khouly was eager to let it go after making a bloody good point re Saudi perversion in applying Islamic principles. He should have stuck to his guns and had a good go at Sultan with it.

This I found very interesting (not to mention entirely underplayed) and raises questions about the state of a nation where an academic at a prestigious religious academic institution cannot criticise a Muslim nation without pissing himself later.

I thought al-Khouly was eager to let it go after making a bloody good point re Saudi perversion in applying Islamic principles. He should have stuck to his guns and had a good do at Sultan with it.

In the written transcript it seems he did, or am I missing something?

He could have gone much further, when Qassem asked him to face the logical conclusion of his statements, i.e do you mean that Saudi is unconnected with Islam etc, he seemed to want to leave it there and move on to Sultan's sophistry, he was on to a good thing and would have gained more kudos if he stayed his course.

Or maybe I'm just thirsty for some good legit Saudi bashing and was left wanting.

Dear all,

Thanks for the clarifications about jurisdictions over atheists and others. A question arises then. I remember a french philosopher stating (during the cartoon controversy) that the ban on depictions of Mohammed only applies to muslims. Is this true?

I still think the homosexuality issue is interesting, although I see your points. Gays are only beginning to get full rights and only in certain countries. But it is telling that gay people are often the most outspoken critics of Islam, for the fact that they feel real fear. They feel they have a lot to lose. Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Bawer, etc. In the west there are hate crimes, but there are also sanctuaries in the big cities. Can these be found in muslim countries?

And the bigger question is, could Islam be reconciled with homosexuality in the way that parts of Christianity has? I don't see why not, even though the suras concerning Lot and Sodom are a bit harsher in the Qu'ran, as I recall. I don't expect you to answer these questions here and now, but with a few upcoming movies on the subject (Hirsi Ali's sequel to Submission and an Indian filmmaker I can't remember the name of right now, to name two) I believe it will be much discussed this year.

I also want to tell you I am very fond of this site. My love goes out to you.

Daniel

Gays are only beginning to get full rights and only in certain countries. But it is telling that gay people are often the most outspoken critics of Islam, for the fact that they feel real fear.

Gay Westerners.

At the same time a generalised fear of Islam is on the rise in the West and Muslim minorities more visible in Western countries.

Rewind to the early to mid 20th century, you have gay Westerners like Bowles et al going to the Arab world for "sanctuary."

Context and time, mate.

They feel they have a lot to lose. Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Bawer, etc.

Maybe, or perhaps they're partaking of the more general rise in social tensions that tend to come with new minorities.

In the west there are hate crimes, but there are also sanctuaries in the big cities. Can these be found in muslim countries?

Depends on what one means. Open purely Gay identified lifetyles are a new Western invention and as such are not precisely part of any tradition.

And the bigger question is, could Islam be reconciled with homosexuality in the way that parts of Christianity has?

Certainly.

In the context of its own development.

But do note parts of Xianity

All in all, I find it more than special to make one of the standards for "Islam" to meet for "modernity" is to meet what are the cutting edge of liberal social attitudes in the wealthy west.

In the west there are hate crimes, but there are also sanctuaries in the big cities. Can these be found in muslim countries?

Not just the cities, consider the madrasas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, bin-Laden and Taliban country.

Andrew Sullivan is to some degree a knee-jerk Islamophobe; he self-identifies as a Roman Catholic, before going on a crusade, might he not want to take up the issue with the Vatican?

And the bigger question is, could Islam be reconciled with homosexuality in the way that parts of Christianity has?

I don't think it has much to do with religion. It seems rather a function of cultural mileu. Pederasty has had an illustrious history in Muslim lands (although the Wikipedia article distinguishes it from sodomy -- I don't know to what extent the two were in fact dissociated).

On the other hand, the long-distance impressions I get from various modern Muslim countries regarding attitudes towards homosexuality remind me a great deal of my Russian childhood during in dying days of the Soviet Union, where homosexuality was 1. criminalized and 2. in the popular consciousness firmly associated with crime and hard drugs. In fact, homosexual rape was not uncommonly used by criminals as a form of retribution or simply humiliation. Now, on the other hand, having homosexual friends is considered rather trendy among some young urbanites, like the crowd my cousin and her husband (and their son) in Moscow hang out with.

I seems to recall that homosexuality is, or at least has been until recently, fairly taboo in India and China, but I don't have solid information on that.

Daniel --

And these are not predominantly Muslim countries or leaders -- correct me if I am wrong.

Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, the most homophobic of Africa’s presidents, dismisses gays as “lower than pigs and dogs.” Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni has threatened them with arrest, prosecution and deportation. And former Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi long characterized them as a “scourge.”

In Namibia, homosexuals have been blamed for severe drought by religious leaders, who insist their wicked behavior displeases God. Government officials, who have threatened to deport gays, accuse them of trying to depopulate the country and describe their lifestyle as a kind of cancer, threatening to lead to “social disorder.”

dear daniel,

the answer to your question is: yes. the big hullabaloo in the "islamic world" was not about the DEPICTION of the prophet muhammad but about the BAD DEPICTION. some also think that ANY depiction of muhammad by ANYone is wrong, illegal, blasphemous etc. ... but that is not the position taken by muslim authorities, legal or otherwise.

as for homosexuality, the reality on the ground is much more ... i am want to say "normal", in the sense that at all times throughout the world "official rules" and "way of everyday life" were rarely congruent. in a sense, homoeroticism (if not homosexuality, which - globally - is a rather modern concept) has been much more a normal part of life in the dar al-islam than "the west". i can only speak authoritatively about the levante - there are regular gay parties in cairo (and once one of them, on a nile cruise boat moored in cairo was broken up - it made the news), the "books@cafe" bookstore/cafe/bar in amman (jordan) is known as the gay hangout and managed by openly gay men, there are some clubs in beirut known to be "gay clubs", and in aleppo it is quite normal to be propositioned by gay guys when shopping in the suq. a friend of mine complained to have been sexually harrassed by middle-aged arab men when, during his army service, he was stationed in bahrain. the very fact that, just recently, a gay wedding had been broken up in the u.a.e. shows that there clearly there is a sizeable number of gay nationals who don't feel overly threatened.

given the difficulties that arab males have at "accessing" females, homoeroticism is much more widespread than commonly imagined and certainly much more than admitted.

interestingly enough, the taliban had massive problems with combatting homoerotic relationships among their fighters. there is a great collection of photographs that "portrait" photographers in afghanistan took of taliban fighters. to the "normal western eye" they would look quite gay - with mascara and rouge. you can find it on amazon:
Taliban - Thomas Dworzak

cheers,

--raf*

ps: thanks for the love. maybe at some point you have a blog ... or let us know via e-mail who you are.

WRT homosexuality in the ME: Brian Whitaker just blogged about how brokeback mountain isn't being shown in the middle east and how that's a damn shame, because the film basically depicts how homosexuals in the middle east have to live now (ie false marriages, etc.).

Re: the transcript: That was an entertaining exchange.

Daniel,

In the west there are hate crimes, but there are also sanctuaries in the big cities. Can these be found in muslim countries?

Cities I know, in Nablus in the West Bank and in Nabel (yeah funny coincidence) in Tunisia come to mind. There are certainly others in other places, as per Raf.

thought al-Khouly was eager to let it go after making a bloody good point re Saudi perversion in applying Islamic principles. He should have stuck to his guns and had a good do at Sultan with it

I personally thought he condemned Saudi in very clear terms (Saudi practices perverted? Come on that's got to be water down a parched throat, how many times do you hear that from a religious cleric on Arab television?)and managed to display some sort of distinction as opposed to Sultan who merely banged on in a totally un-nuanced way about how the West was peachy and Islam had to be totally revised. Points about Garang and Zionist conspiracies aside, he did not degenerate into total childishness and insist everything was peachy in the Muslim world.

Hi, friend, great job with this translation! I have been following Dr Wafaa's carrer since her wonderful smashing and bashing of the Algherian, Ahmed bin Mohammed...


Any chance of getting a transcript of that in the next year or so...?


:-)


Keep up the great work!


Salib

Salib,

Cheers and everything I am sure, however, the translation was not posted in order to promote Sultan's 'career' (or anybody's for that matter). I personally witnessed no 'smashing and bashing' unless you consider repetition and limited angle of argument as particularly stimulating. The whole transcript I am afraid boasts little intelligence or profundity.

It seems that most people consider any aggressive debate with a Muslim cleric to be some sort of spectator sport. From what I see of this translation, al-Khouly and Sultan were not even playing the same game let alone scoring points.

since i am having small luck getting my questions answered elsewhere, meph kindly offered to discuss them here.
Dean was good enough to make a post on the translation.
here is my comment from Dean's post..
here are the things i thought were important.
1. There is no death-fatwa, or anything remotely like one. Al-Khouly states that Sultan is an aetheist, so he cannot condemn her even if she "curses the Qu'ran".
2. This is a debate on the Clash of Civilizations. MEMRI makes it out to be a one-sided smackdown by Sultan. I'm interested in what Al-Khouly has to say.
3. Two questions: Is it fair for MEMRI to disseminate such a biased perspective? And will all the websites i saw propagating the false-death-fatwa meme publish retractions? Or is it just ok for that false meme to pass into urban myth.
4. The most interesting thing i read that Al-Khouly said was, "so, in order to become a progressive like you, muslims must become secular, must renounce our faith..."
How many Christians and Jews here are prepared to renounce their faith to become progressives?
That is not a rhetorical question. Transhumanism is soon going to force exactly that kind of choice for western religionists.
Do you have an answer?

also, meph, so far i have shown your translation to Dafydd at Biglizards and to Joe Katzman at Winds of Change. Dafyddd had nothing to say, and Joe said i was off topic to the thread and closed comments.

i am not done.

al-Khouly and Sultan were not even playing the same game

that is right, meph, they were talking past each other.

I've always wondered if arranged marriage to a homosexual man might be one of the most liberating states for a muslim woman in a more traditional society. No jealousy - he does his thing, you do yours. He has a quick frot over pics of [insert Hollywood gay icon here] and gets it up long enough to start a family. If he's old, or fat, or smelly, you won't have his attentions regularly forced upon you. Should you become extra friendly with your dashing Afghani driver, he probably won't care. As a persecuted person himself, he's possibly far more tolerant about you working and continuing education, or whatever.

If I couldn't marry the man I loved, and my parents weren't arranging something for me with Sean Bean's parents, I'd go for a screamingly gay cousin or neighbour any day.

Actually secret, it would be unfair for the woman. You haven't thought this through. In a more 'traditional' society, the man would do what he wants. Not the same for the woman, who will be stuck with this sham marriage.
Who guarantees that she will like this Afghani driver? Or is she stuck with him because of lack of options? What if she likes him enough to want to marry him? Will she be able to do that?
In the end, the woman would be the one to lose out in this sordid affair.

Offtopic (as often:)), but since we're at it... I believe the whole legal marriage institution should be abolished. The state has no business in private relationships. Traditional society or not, any adult is an emancipated individual and should have no way of enslaving himself in any legalized relationship. Now if it has to be extended to gays because we want to grant the freedom of enslaving oneself to more people, then it should be extended to any group of consenting adults, including a menage a trois with Stacy, her brother and their gay uncle (what's the rationale otherwise?).

I realize my last is so offtopic but the last posts about marriage and gay/women rights and freedoms sounds so full of paradox when put side by side with the marriage institution I really felt inspired:)...

it should be extended to any group of consenting adults, including a menage a trois with Stacy, her brother and their gay uncle

If it's just to formalize an arrangement whereby affairs are managed jointly and someone is probably getting screwed, there may be existing frameworks for that. Business mergers... coalition politics....

In a more 'traditional' society, the man would do what he wants. Not the same for the woman, who will be stuck with this sham marriage.

Yeah - but if you are stuck being married to someone you have no physical attraction to, far better that he is gay, frankly.

Ok, now that we've addressed the esteemed scholar's view of homosexuality and civilization, what about this looming menace:

What civilized man [allows]. . . loss of bloodline.

Does he mean absence of established married paternity or is he speaking of absence of intra-familial marriage, more common in MENA than other areas?

By the way, I assume that this is now shown to be wrong (other ravings there omitted):

Now Mullah al-Khouli could have said, "Ms. Sultan, you are entitled to your opinion." . . . But what kind of Mullah would al-Khouli have been if he had responded like a reasonable fellow? He would have been a Mullah looking for employment. . . . So, in response to Ms. Sultan's statement, he accused her of being a heretic.

"There is no point in rebuking you since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran," said al-Khouli.

If it's just to formalize an arrangement whereby affairs are managed jointly and someone is probably getting screwed, there may be existing frameworks for that. Business mergers... coalition politics....

I fully agree. But some people seem to find so much value in marriage they want to extend the "right" to it to others.

Now I understand abolishing this last remnant of slavery would get some bread out of Matthew's table (just kidding you Matthew:P).

"Now I understand abolishing this last remnant of slavery would get some bread out of Matthew's table (just kidding you Matthew:P)."

Am missing the reference....

You're a lawyer Matthew, aren't you? (I don't know in which field though and if divorce matters are something you deal with)...

3. Two questions: Is it fair for MEMRI to disseminate such a biased perspective? And will all the websites i saw propagating the false-death-fatwa meme publish retractions? Or is it just ok for that false meme to pass into urban myth.

Well, I doubt if fairness ever came into it. It is more about promotion of an agenda and making the most out of an oppurtunity. And RETRACTIONS? Are you serious? No self-respecting hysteria mongering ignoramus ever publishes a retraction, that would betray the whole raison d'etre. And no, it is certainly not bloody ok for the fatwa to pass into urban myth but half the blame lies with those who think in black and white and are thus receptive to MEMRI's one sided presentation. People ultimately believe what they want to believe and turn a blind eye to what taxes their intellectual muscle (to plagiarise Sultan herself)

4. The most interesting thing i read that Al-Khouly said was, "so, in order to become a progressive like you, muslims must become secular, must renounce our faith..."
How many Christians and Jews here are prepared to renounce their faith to become progressives?
That is not a rhetorical question. Transhumanism is soon going to force exactly that kind of choice for western religionists.

Am not sure that being progressive and also Muslim are necessarily mutually exclusive as al-Khouly believed Sultan was implying although it is definitely harder as a Muslim to reconcile some of the more incompatible aspects of the faith with modernity (execution of apostates as exemplified by Afghanistan's trial of a Muslim convert to Christianity).

Re the deafening silence you are receiving I mot surprised in the slightest, nuanced thought and research are boring, not sexy and do not attract attention, drama queens don't have debates, they have tantrums.

it is definitely harder as a Muslim to reconcile some of the more incompatible aspects of the faith with modernity (execution of apostates as exemplified by Afghanistan's trial of a Muslim convert to Christianity).

Execution of apostates comes from a Hadith. Hadiths are disputed by many Muslims. It also contradicts a verse of the Quran, which has greater religious authority anyway.

So, correction: it is difficult for a Sunni (who sticks to the 9-10th century hadiths as if they were mathematical truths) to reconcile modernity with some of her/his tenets. But it definitely isn't for a Muslim who removes that dust from over the Quran and interprets it with a 3rd millenium eye.

What civilized man [allows]. . . loss of bloodline.

Does he mean absence of established married paternity or is he speaking of absence of intra-familial marriage, more common in MENA than other areas?

He means loss of established married paternity, as in 'ibn haraam' (bastard or child of sin). This is an absolute obsession in the Islamic world and most Islamic law re female adulteres/widows/divorcees revolves around eliminating doubt over parenting. For example, a widow must remain within the confines of her home following the death of her husband and not come into contact with any men for four months and ten days considered to be the time when a pregnancy would begin to show. Of course, going off and shagging someone when you have been recently widowed is common therapy for bereavment.

More seriously, loss of bloodline epitomises the dissolution of society and I would assume threatens most men who live in supremacist impunity in paternalistic society.

More seriously, loss of bloodline epitomises the dissolution of society and I would assume threatens most men who live in supremacist impunity in paternalistic society.

Actually, my impression is that it's a genuine concern over a faux problem that has been repeated over and over until it caught an overinflated place in the collective conscience. A very common quasi-superstition of people fearing fortuitous incestuous relationships that would give birth to subhumans. Kind of like the avian flu which has less risk of hitting you than a truck, yet provokes more fear because of over-exposition to alarmist headlines. So it has nothing with the paternalistic nature of those societies. Maybe in other eras, but not today.

So, correction: it is difficult for a Sunni (who sticks to the 9-10th century hadiths as if they were mathematical truths) to reconcile modernity with some of her/his tenets. But it definitely isn't for a Muslim who removes that dust from over the Quran and interprets it with a 3rd millenium eye.

Let the hairsplitting badinage begin! Shaheen, you are not seriously suggesting that every verse in the Quran can be interepreted in a way that would be accomodated in modern times purely by casting a third millenium eye? Women's inheritance rights alone would be at odds with contemprary women's lib.

So it has nothing with the paternalistic nature of those societies. Maybe in other eras, but not today.

If Muslim women started having children out of wedlock and not caring for their reputations and names I doubt that men would have as much hold as they do now in Arab socities particulalry. Blood line and reputable family lineage etc clearly position the male as the spearhead of social institution and the fragmentation of that institution would I believe make that position much less certain. The secret numbers of children abandoned at orphanages because their fathers would not recognise them is a manifestation of that paternalistic society. Whether it will happen or not is another story and more about the entrenchment of social/cultural values than the erosion of Islamic integrity.

Meph, without going into the boring endless debates of theologians, yes. Women inheritence rights are often put out of context. The way they're stated, my sister could spend her whole life having fun in libraries, movie theaters, sports club, traveling around, I would have the obligation to support her financially. Is that fair, one way or the other? I don't know and I don't care. The fact is, I don't have that obligation, and as a result, she should get what I get, period.

dear shaheen,

you missed meph's whole argument. she's not talking about what is fair & what's not. she's arguing that there are some provisions in the qur'an itself that are hard to twist in such a way that, for instance, your sister is going to get the same inheritance share as you will.

just tell your dad to establish a waqf and design her as the manager. that's the traditional way to ensure that the idiot sons don't waste the inheritance.

cheers,

--raf*

ps: needless to say - you guys can always just chose to ignore the qur'anic prescriptions.

If Muslim women started having children out of wedlock and not caring for their reputations and names I doubt that men would have as much hold as they do now in Arab socities particulalry.

I don't know, you may be right, but that's not the point. The point is, your average Moe doesn't make so far fetched reasoning about keeping hold of society or power. It's a very common explanation of paternalistic behaviors by Westerners who observe Arab societies and look for complex reasoning where there's none. It's actually much more simple: it's all about mental inertia associated with the weight of traditions.

Raf, I don't think I missed the point, I actually answered Meph's point by saying that yes, I believe you can twist everything the way you want. The example of women inheritence rights is a proof of that. You don't have the obligations that come with the rights, then you don't get both. I don't see how it contradicts the Quran, because it doesn't tell you that that combination of rights and obligations is the only possible one. I know it can be unconvincing to anyone who thinks that the correct reading is the traditional one (even while rejecting it), but it is if you totally depart from the traditional reading. Straight and simple, it's all about the reading.

The point is, your average Moe doesn't make so far fetched reasoning about keeping hold of society or power.

Of course he doesn't, but that does not stop him feeling a visceral rejectioon or fear of a society where his position is compromised.

You-it's all about mental inertia associated with the weight of traditions.

Me-Whether it will happen or not is another story and more about the entrenchment of social/cultural values than the erosion of Islamic integrity.

I bloody hate it when I have to re-paste something.

It's a very common explanation of paternalistic behaviors by Westerners who observe Arab societies and look for complex reasoning where there's none.

The only complex reasoning here is yours, was merely making a comment about what loss of bloodline represents to Muslim/Arab men and the fact that they find contemplation of the acceptablity of that eventuality disturbing. Let us not deprive the average Mohammed from all his faculties shall we?

Women's inheritance rights alone would be at odds with contemprary women's lib.

Wwwell..... they do seem like a fairly striking model of establishing a more gender-equitable inheritance law in the place and time of their revelation (regardless of what one takes the nature of revelation to be)... revolutionary but not so much as to be unenactable.

I just consulted Google to check that it's not only godless hobby historicists who think that...

http://www.mwlusa.org/publications/positionpapers/inheritance.html

dear shaheen,

you seem to opt for a more metaphorical reading of the qur'an. or for mahmud muhammad taha's approach.

fine.

call me when the o.i.c. adopts that approach.

--raf*

Meph, I honestly think you're giving far more credit than is due to Arab men's average sophistication.

To answer only one of your points: Of course he doesn't, but that does not stop him feeling a visceral rejectioon or fear of a society where his position is compromised.

I really don't know where you got that, but neither you nor I who never felt such a visceral rejection or fear of such societies can tell. What I can tell though is that I've never seen signs I interpreted as fear. Rejection, yes. But not because their position is compromised as much as because of the same irrational assurance that Westerners have about being Right (tm) within the values dad and mom taught you.

Ya Raf ya khouya, I don't care about the OIC has to say about it frankly. Islam is supposed to be "better" than Chrisitianity - or so we're taught - because "one of the advantages is that it eliminates intermediaries" between you and Hank. In other words, it's between me and Hank, and no goddamn human can tell me how I have to understand the Quran.

Now, my reading is not so metaphorical. It's about finding the right twist without insulting a smart rational person's intelligence:)

Meph, I honestly think you're giving far more credit than is due to Arab men's average sophistication.

Believe me, I am the last person to give any Arab man any credit but the sense of vulnerability and lack of supremacy that some Arab men feel especially when in relationships with non-Muslim women is partly a result of the fact that their precious seed and its lineage is not as idolised as it would be were the woman a cousin wife back gome.

I really don't know where you got that, but neither you nor I who never felt such a visceral rejection or fear of such societies can tell.

Well, if I had to wait to experience everything I believe or observe other people experiencing before I make a comment on it I would have a very eventful life and very poor commentary. While I do try not to spout shite purely based on opinion one has to formulate concnlusions from what one obeserves no?

What I can tell though is that I've never seen signs I interpreted as fear.

You have never seen signs of something, I have, and frankly I cannot see any space for debate beyond that point other than Khouly-Sultan like attrition.

Shaheen Bey

Ya Raf ya khouya, I don't care about the OIC has to say about it frankly

Akhna has a bit of the Faqih's spirit in him, Zwein lakin....

Meph, I believe you're generalizing out of some bad personal experience. But I feel I have struck some sensitive nerve here without realizing. So I won't continue on this issue indeed, just wanted to tell you I didn't mean it if that's the case.

Meph, I believe you're generalizing out of some bad personal experience

Again, it seems that you find it difficult to separate observations and some attempt at logical conclusive thinking with visceral knee-jerk reactions. Whether you think I am not capable of the latter or because you are not capable of it I am not sure.

So I won't continue on this issue indeed, just wanted to tell you I didn't mean it if that's the case.

Please continue on this issue if you feel there is more you have issue with but please not patronise me or cop out by claiming that I am speaking out of personal bad experience.

just wanted to tell you I didn't mean it if that's the case.

There is nothing to mean, please afford me the same right you afford yourself as one who speaks in a general way either to establish or refute an allegation.

By the way, Meph gets this precisely right: Re the deafening silence you are receiving I mot surprised in the slightest, nuanced thought and research are boring, not sexy and do not attract attention, drama queens don't have debates, they have tantrums.

which is why I have utter contempt for the posturing about "Blogosphere" versus Mainstream Media. Utterly baseless.

Shaheen re marriage institution. I am not sure if you mean that people shouldn't marry or in the more libertarian sense of no recognition by the state. You have an argument in the latter sense.
But if you meant the former, believe it or not people do actually want to marry. I might not agree with them but I won't strip them of the right to do it if that is what they want.

"I am the last person to give any Arab man any credit"
Frankly, I feel insulted.

Whether you think I am not capable of the latter or because you are not capable of it I am not sure.

I don't know Meph. If your tone was less hostile since the beginning, I might have seen more cold reasoning and less kneee-jerk reaction from your part. No offense meant, really, just stating what is.

Ali,

I definitely meant it the Libertarian way. I have no business in what you might want to do with your imam, rabbi or priest. If one wants to marry, kol hakavod. But it shouldn't be the state's business, and the state shouldn't enforce on anyone any loss of right or obligation that might result from its dissolution.

In that sense I agree.

By the way, I am, regardless of Meph's correct observations, surprised the MEMRI scam has gotten so little attention. Lightly suprised but surprised.

Dear Lounsbury phenomenon,

Akhna has a bit of the Faqih's spirit in him, Zwein lakin

I had noticed that already:)

thank you meph. ;)

Re the deafening silence you are receiving I mot surprised in the slightest, nuanced thought and research are boring, not sexy and do not attract attention, drama queens don't have debates, they have tantrums.

but, i am sexy! just ask raf.

seriously, this is a big problem. there is already a huge chasm between the two belief systems, not helped by grandstanding drama queens that get up and yell about how this or that example validates all their scare tactics. And then we have "trusted sources" like MEMRI and Zeyad of Healing Iraq that slyly warp the perspective even more with their bias.

but i am not going to give up yet.

women's rights: women didn't get the vote in the US until 1920. and they couldn't own property either. Patriarchy is a successful fitness strategy dating from the EEA, environment of evolutionary advantage. it's in the genes, as well as the memes. women needed to be protected in the stoneage.
so those parts of the haditha are sort of a hang-over from the time when the tribe needed them.

but science and economics can both mitigate biology.

i think as MENA becomes more "modern", the old traditions will die out.
but the old traditions are not dead even in this country--look at the abortion debate. science mitigates biology, you cannot really accomplish the same thing with law. women and men cannot be truly equal while a woman can be forced to bear a child.

surprised the MEMRI scam has gotten so little attention

Weekend has to sort through then it will tell better.

Ali K,

Frankly, I feel insulted.

Well if it makes you feel any better, I WAS defending you.

If your tone was less hostile since the beginning, I might have seen more cold reasoning and less kneee-jerk reaction from your part

I am afraid that if one wants to sustain an argument one has to look beyond tone and address the content. If the tone was too passionate and put you off the discussion, then that's through your equation of cold reasoning with solid argument.

Meph,

Thanks very much, a fine job. The full transcript should be posted as required reading on at least 35 blogs I can think of off the top of my head.

Al-Khouly does have some, ahh, colorful ideas but he actually comes off as quite reasonable, really.

Those you are speaking about do not have the correct grasp of Islam. When a non-Muslim insults Islam and Islam's prophet, this doesn't disturb a hair on our heads. We excuse him if he is ignorant and we accept the situation if he is a resentful extremist because he is not to be judged by our standards or our criteria.

On the question of apostasy, he is solidly in the liberal camp. Earlier, he says,

There is no compulsion in religion, whoever wishes to believe may do so, and who wishes to apostasize may do so. That is the position of Islam.

To use the language of classical rhetoric, this demonstrates that claming Al-Khouly issued a fatwa against Wafa Sultan is a Big Fat Lie. Raf's interpretation is clearly correct.

dear anonymous,

could you POST the transcript on said 35 blogs you can think of off the top of your head?

that'd be nice.

thank you!

--raf*

By the way, I am, regardless of Meph's correct observations, surprised the MEMRI scam has gotten so little attention.

Hmm. Did it find its way to people liable to get excited about a MEMRI scam?

I am afraid that if one wants to sustain an argument one has to look beyond tone and address the content.

I did.

If the tone was too passionate and put you off the discussion

It didn't, until it became openly hostile and personal. I don't believe rational discussion are possible beyond that point. And screaming is not my thing. A personal trait of character I guess.

Now sincerely Meph, if you want to continue adressing me, please do so without going personal or hostile. Otherwise, I'm just declining the hysterical fight invitation in advance. Best regards to you.

which is why I have utter contempt for the posturing about "Blogosphere" versus Mainstream Media. Utterly baseless.

Well, except that here in the "Blogosphere" you have a forum for providing nuanced thought and research whereas, in the mainstream media, you don't. Or did I miss your appearance on Nightline?

To quote a phrase, 99% of the blogosphere is crap. But, then, 99% of everything is crap. A populist, no-nothing, wanker, does not become less of a populist, no-nothing, wanker just because you put him in front of a computer.

On the other hand, people like you and the rest of the authors at Aqoul -- thoughtful people with both real knowledge and the analytical skills to apply to that knowledge -- can provide nuanced analysis and people who are stuck in a hotel and bored of a Saturday evening, like me, can take the time to work through it. That's not something you get from a 120 second infotainment piece in the mainstream media.

So I don't think the posturing about the mainstream media vs. the blogosphere is entirely baseless. On the contrary, it's the difference between a planned economy and a free market.

Now sincerely Meph, if you want to continue adressing me, please do so without going personal or hostile

At least I am addressing you and not attributing your opinions to some bad personal experience.

Re pointless arguments, please see above,
You have never seen signs of something, I have, and frankly I cannot see any space for debate beyond that point other than Khouly-Sultan like attrition

How many minutes of my life did I lose since then?

Michael,

Hmm. Did it find its way to people liable to get excited about a MEMRI scam?

More interestingly, was the original MEMRI translation peddled or did people seek, find and redistribute? In this case I tend more to think that people liable to get excited make their own way and cannot really be led there. As Anon said,

On the contrary, it's the difference between a planned economy and a free market.

In the latter people and when there are options it seems that there are more fatwa crusaders than those who wish to promote reasonable examination.

anonymous, tell me which ones you are doing so i don't replicate, please.

on second, replication is good. ;)

meph, it is social network theory. some nodes have high influence, the other nodes pick it up. information flows along the connections.
even Kos bought into this one, it wan't just the rightside blogs.

Meph,

In the latter people and when there are options it seems that there are more fatwa crusaders than those who wish to promote reasonable examination.

That's very true, of course. In general, people who like controversies to be more equivocal than the slogans they generate are well outnumbered.

The MEMRI translation made it big because it struck a chord and told many people what they wanted to hear. In the blogosphere it was a particular hit among the Islam-bashing crowd on the right. It's clear that they wouldn't be interested in qualifying their rants. I was trying to say that there is a loosely analogous crowd on the left who would love nothing more than evidence of a fabrication by MEMRI. Whether one would want to go out looking for them, is another matter...

I'm just here waiting for my code to compile. :-)

michael, if we seed the meme enough places in the web, it should flow to all the places receptive of it.
and then, possibly, enough pressure will build that the top feeding rightside blogs will acknowledge it.
i think acknowledgement is the most we can hope for, they will try to rationalie the bad translation.
;-)
if we put out enough smilies will L. venture from his lair and vouchsafe an opinion?
i am quite a fan.

meph, it is social network theory. some nodes have high influence, the other nodes pick it up. information flows along the connections.
even Kos bought into this one, it wan't just the rightside blogs

One might almost think that the Left-of-Center people are actually more likely to buy into this than the Right-of-Center types. Not knowing much of the background, what Wafa Sultan had to say struck me as a typical postmaterialist rant about organized religion in general, not specifically Islam, with her version of "the West" being in reality that of the extreme secularist types not usually found outside rather small circles even in Europe or North America. I always had a sense that much of the attack on Islam is being done vicariously by extreme Western secularists who find it difficult or inconvenient to openly attack organized religion in the West with such fervor (for the fear of offending the "pious middle" in their respective countries)--with the Rightists clapping on the sidelines.

Just an observation from the side....

In general, people who like controversies to be more equivocal than the slogans they generate are well outnumbered.

True, I can't name an army in history that charged into battle, swords in the air, shouting " Granted, you guys have some valid points!"

;-)
if we put out enough smilies will L. venture from his lair and vouchsafe an opinion?
i am quite a fan.

Nope, I hate smilies and my employers have managed to crate an epic fuckup.

Meph,

I can't hold my tongue any longer, so I'll say it and let the world perish...

I'm not saying this is what happened to you or to someone dear to you, but your handling of our exchange on this page sure looks like some typical behavior I've met a few times before. That behavior is often the result of a white woman who likes Arab culture or falls in love with some Arab man and idealizes them. The guy reveals to be a loser, most probably some kind of pseudo-educated ass - when not a semi-illiterate one - of rather modest origin. He does exactly what you described, dump the girl for a cousin wife back home. That's bad enough in itself, and as far as I'm concerned, this world would be much better for us Arab men if there was some easy way to get rid of that kind of low-life. But it doesn't stop there. The result on the other is often that of a u-turn from a state of idealization to a state of generalized bitterness or hatred.

Whether this is what happened to you or someone dear to you or not is not the point and is none of my business. But I find the behavior displayed on this page revealing of someone who initially held Arabs with the patronizing criteria of lower standards and who went through some disappointment. It wouldn't happen if Arab trash was treated like White trash. And turning from "defending us" good savages to "not giving any credit to any of us" barbarians is not exactly the best way to gain a clear and nuanced understanding.

I wrote you this not to engage into a fight. I just wanted to tell the impression you conveyed, without any judgement from my part. I might be wrong, who knows, and who cares. Take it as is, no need to be defensive. No need to send me the bills for others' deeds too, I didn't dump anyone for any cousin wife. I might already have made it to your macho Arab shitlist too anyway but in any case, if you ever answer and do so agressively, I'll certainly cop out. I'm really not interested in that kind of exchange.

That behavior is often the result of a white woman who likes Arab culture or falls in love with some Arab man and idealizes them

Eerie- We really should get those bios up there, irrespective of how amusing this all is.

I've got a blog focussing on issues related to homosexuality and Islam, so please do pop over for a look...

http://gaymuslims.wordpress.com

L, i know you hate smilies, i was was just trying for your attention.
i may comeoff like a chicklet, but, honest, i'm not-- i'm a mathematician-- boundaryvalueproblemshermetianseulerequationsnonparametrics.
see?
sorry about your workload.

Here is Zeyad's translation. over 200 comments and no mention of the fact that the fatwa is three years old and someone of ill-intent combed through Sistani's archives to find inflammatory material.

dear m,

i don't think that putting up bios will solve the problem of visitors to aqoul not actually reading the posts and comments ... but at least we'll have plausable deniability.

--raf*

dear all,

this is the first time that a post on 'aqoul has received 100 comments.

congrats to the team and alf shukr to our fans.

--raf*

raf the thread-killer.

i am ashamed. i left comments on five blogs, and emailed another eight.
nothing.
maybe L. will prefer this.
>:-(

No worries, it's my real work and trying to save client relationships that are at issue right now.

The emphasis on bloodlines, its inherent focus on purity and exceptionalism, does it not yield to chauvinism, bigotry, a culture rooted supremacism.

Arab News, Why Is There So Much Hate Inside Us?
"I remembered one of my colleagues, a teacher who belongs to a certain tribe. He believes that a student lacking a tribal name is a man with no roots and hence of no importance. Then I remembered a preacher who visited the school after 9/11 and warned the students against dealing with non-Muslims. I also remember a sheikh in a mosque who would not allow a foreigner to pray next to him — simply because the man was not Saudi."

Washington Post, Why U.S. Business Is Winning
"The next explanation for American superiority is a healthy indifference to first sons."

To be honest, I don't care whether MEMRI mistranslated whether Ms. Wafa Sultan was or was not called a heretic. In a month in which we have riots over cartoons and a government pushing for the execution of a convert to Christianity, when I saw the footage of Ms. Sultan telling the cleric to go pound sand, I thought, it's about time. It's disheartening to know she has little or no appeal in the middle east.

The thing is, before I praise someone as a great truth-teller, I kind of like to know that she is, in fact, telling the truth. And Dr. Sultan's approach to the truth in the AJ debate was at best ballistic. (For instance, her assertion that every single religion besides Islam was wholly innocent of violence is ludicrous at best. And her assertion that Muhammad had invented the notion of religious war is pretty dubious as well.)

And she wasn't just telling the cleric in question to go pound sand, she also was calling every single believing Muslim in her audience a superstitious fool. Where I come from, that's not a great way to start a conversation. Possibly things are different where you come from, you ignorant bint.

I can overlook some of the abovecited inaccuracies as "heat of the moment" kind of things - after all, it was basically a Fox news/Crossfire-style screamfest, and the other guy took his own liberties. But telling the New York Times that the preacher had put a fatwa on her head, that's at best an indication of a mix of paranoia and ignorance, or at worst a plain simple lie, and one that she was telling for her own self-aggrandizement.

Either way, Not Impressed.

Candi, my strong objection is that MEMRI only translated one side of what was supposed to be a debate. We've had enough monologues, i think we need some dialogue.
it just cements the idea that the west is hypocritical, and we only want to hear things that validate our belief system.
they were supposed to be debating if we are in Huntington's clash of civilizations, and Sultan just turned it into a whack polemic on the eeevuls of Islam.
not helpful.
the rightside blogverse published a bunch of paens to her nobility and courage and won't retract a word when informed of MEMRI's bias..
screaming eeek! death-fatwa is hardly my idea of bravery.

Odd comment:

The emphasis on bloodlines, its inherent focus on purity and exceptionalism, does it not yield to chauvinism, bigotry, a culture rooted supremacism.

What emphasis on bloodlines? Arab emphasis? Well, that is some Arabs, the tribal sorts, but really not that much different than my blue blood relatives with their books of geneologies reaching into the 15th century.

Of course, one could argue that chauvinism and bigotry are natural products of humanity's natural clannish thinking.

You're bloody whacked, however, if you think this is actually more prevalant among Arabs than others.

To be honest, I don't care whether MEMRI mistranslated whether Ms. Wafa Sultan was or was not called a heretic.

Well, at least there is some truth telling.

In a month in which we have riots over cartoons and a government pushing for the execution of a convert to Christianity, when I saw the footage of Ms. Sultan telling the cleric to go pound sand, I thought, it's about time. It's disheartening to know she has little or no appeal in the middle east.

Somewhat collapsing events, eh? Riots were the prior month, the Afghan situ this month.

And Ms Sultan (not) telling anyone to pound sand.

So, you needed your fantasy because you're afraid.

Ah well.

To be honest, I don't care whether MEMRI mistranslated whether Ms. Wafa Sultan was or was not called a heretic.

We don't care if the nigger's guilty or not, we just wanna see the tribal brute hang.

Sincerely Yours,

A Lynch Mob

Candi --

From the same article:

"in India they were taught to love others because that is the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). I was moved by his words and promised him that I would write on the subject."

But only the hate part seems important to you. Just hear the part that reaffirms one's fears and sense of superiority.

Your method reminds me of when Arabs would take a self-effecing internal critique by Israelis discussing some terrible bigotry towards Arabs within the community, and cite it in order to demonstrate the total and irredemable evil of the Israelis. And then they go on to enjoy someone yelling at or about Jews. This is the same, with longer beards on the religious.

Meph,
Thanks for the translation of The Opposite Direction. I came here from Winds of Change, where jinnilyyah has gotten a good discussion going in the comments.

AMac, more properly you should say the jinnilyyah.
My name is legion.
;)

The jinnilyyah.
;)

This splinter group was know as al-Nukkar (deniers), for their denial of the Imamate of Abd al-Wahhab b. Abd al-Rahman b. Rustam.164 They were also known by other names: Nakithah, Nakkathah, Nukkath for the word ( ), to violate, because they violated the oath they made to Abd al-Wahhab;165 al-Najwiyyah, from the word al-Najwa, secret intrigue, which was known of them when discussing the question of the Imamate after the death of the first Rustamid Imam and the election of his son Abd al-Wahhab.166 They were also called Mulhidah, blasphemers, because they blasphemed regarding the names of Go;167 Yazidiyah, after their theologian Abdullah b Yazid al-Fazari, or perhaps after their political leader in Tahert, Yazid b. Fandin;168 Shaghabiyah for the disturbance (shaghab) which they brought about;169 and by Maslawah, the name of one of the main Berber tribes of their adherents.170

Julie, that looks a lot like a quote; care to tell us where you got that info?

A couple of comments on the discussion here about gay issues.
1. Homosexual acts are illegal in Jordan. The British Foreign Office website (www.fco.gov.uk) is probably the most reliable source on this. Its "travel advice" section includes a warning in the case of countries where visitors might get into trouble for same-sex activity.
2. The question "Could Islam be reconciled with homosexuality in the way that parts of Christianity has?" is very interesting and I would say that the answer is yes. There's a whole chapter discussing this in my book, Unspeakable Love, which will be published by Saqi in May. For more info see:
http://www.al-bab.com/unspeakablelove/

dear all,

julie's quote is from a book quoted on the website islamfact.com ( http://www.islamfact.com/books-htm/ibadi/64.htm) via Winds of Change.

let me clear this up quickly before y'all waste precious energy on the issue: the text quoted is from a book called "Studies in Ibadhism". the ibadhiya are a splinter group of islam. this is a group who calls other muslims as "kuffar al-n'ima" ("deniers of god's grace"). please do note that in this case kafir/kuffar does not mean unbeliever in the "regular" sense of the word.

the passage which julie googled refers to a period in the 2nd century after hijra, i.e. 8th/9th century C.E. at that time, the word mulhid MAY have been used mainly in the sense of "blasphemer" (althought i don't know the credentials of the author of the text that julie quotes and he might just be wrong) ... but today it means "atheist".

dear julie,

pulling "evidence" off the net via google-ing terms ... can go wrong. in this case it DID GO WRONG. good luck next time.

--raf*

To Meph and others who speak arabic. Take a look at this:
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/details.asp?section=43&issue=9983&article=355341
It is from alsharq alawsat, a popular pan arab daily. It is about women's rights in Saudi. Do you know if it has been translated in MEMRI?

Also note the comments on that story

dear ali,

you'd have to ask m.e.m.r.i. themselves. as the article is from today, it might take them a moment.

my personal guess is that they're not interested in this stuff - i am one of those who think that m.e.m.r.i. is, indeed, a badly-biased organization.

--raf*

Raf,
Y'know the security settings on the translation PDF are so tight that I can't print it.

Yes. No printing = no OCR scanning.

>No printing = no OCR scanning.

Understandable, but it makes the transcript quite awkward to use. That notwithstanding, having now read it more carefully, my sincere thanks to Meph for putting in the effort and posting it on the web.

More at Winds of Change here.

AMac, cheers, whatever you may have gleaned or not from the transcript, I am just glad anyone has read it carefully.

Going back a few posts, I'm interested by julie having googled herself into a book I was looking at recently, Studies in Ibadhism. This was originally a Cambridge PhD thesis, and as far as I can tell, its author, a Libyan Ibadhi by the name of Amr al-Nami, became a professor of Islamic Studies in Libya. He is said to have been detained in 1984 and has not been heard from since.

I wanted to raise this to see if anyone here has any further thoughts about Ibadhism in particular. I ask because it is my understanding (based on limited knowledge) that Ibadhis regard the Quran as a creation of God, rather than an eternal and uncreated revelation. Is this right, and what are its implications as regards questions of historical contingency? I am assuming that Ibadhis are not alone in this conviction. Can anyone point me in the right direction here?

dear nicholas,

you're right about the ibadhis following the mu'tazilite doctrin that, since everything emanates from god, the qur'an also has to have been a creation of god. you want, thus, to look at books on the mu'tazilah. personally, i'd go straight to the encyclopedia of islam (but the new, 2nd edition!).

the mu'tazilites managed to self-destruct in the 9th century CE. the ibadhis are pretty much on the same level as, say, the alawites (syria): they're seen as a regional variation of islam but nothing more.

--raf*

Thanks raf. That's a help. It also seems they are very keen to insist that they are not khawarij. Does anyone today claim to be khwaraij?

"you're right about the ibadhis following the mu'tazilite doctrin[e] that you want, thus, to look at books on the mu'tazilah.

Would you techies lay off the computer talk, please?

Yah, I do wish the nerds would just keep it to themselves.

Well Al-Khawarij were initially proud to be so, the term has however become corrupted to mean all who reject the mainstream and work against it from the outside, so no, I do not suppose anyone these days claims to be Khawariji but I should think purely because of the heavy negative connotation of the term.

Thanks Meph. I'll lay off the computer talk now, matthew and Tom, before I expose myself completely as a complete tech-incompetent.

Incidentally, there's a parallel case with a lot of the Eastern churches - the Oriental Orthodox churches really don't like being called "Monophysite", and the Assyrians are not happy with the term "Nestorian", either.

Interesting, Tom. But well nerdy!

dear matthew,

i only use terms in their wikipedia spelling. except in those cases where the wikipedia is wrong, of course.

--raf*

[warning: this post contains lethally high doses of religious nerdiness.]

monophysite was a derogatory term from the very beginning though. it (falsely) implies that these churches believe jesus/christ had only ONE nature (instead of two, man & divine being, the position held by dyophysites/chalcedonians, incl. most western churches). they want instead to be called miaphysites, which is supposed to mean that he had a UNITED nature, comprising both these aspects. important enough to believers, but in retrospect one might question the wisdom of letting that cause a 1500 year schism.

on the off-topic, i've heard there's some minimal community of khawarij in algeria. on the other hand, i've also heard there's a minimal ibadi community there, so that would probably be the same people. (beats me how they managed to get there, though.)

and ... well, wouldn't khariji be a derogatory term too? what sensible muslim would self-identify as having "gone out" from the islamic community? does anyone know what they called themselves?

dear alle,

please first consult the wikipedia or another encyclopedia before asking such questions. your search terms are "Kharijites" and "M'zab" (the place in algeria where there are ibadhis).

enjoy.

--raf*

I've heard that the Ethiopian orthodox and even the Coptics are monophysites (or miaphysites depending on the biblic clock period), or is this just rumor spread to keep them out of the classy neighborhoods?

Chalcedonically yours, mh

Matt, until recently, the Ethiopian Orthodox and the Copts had a common organization--including bishops of the Ethiopian Church being appointed from Egypt, etc. Not sure as to how exactly they fell out, though.

dear boys,

if you can access aqoul, you can access the wikipedia. here are the relevant articles:

- Coptic Christianity
- Eritrean Orthodox Tewahdo Church
- Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

it's really not that hard.

--raf*

well, true, but wikipedia says nothing about what the kharijites called themselves. if anything. so i'll still hope for an answer here.

(both copts & egyptian orthodox are oriental orthodox, thus mia/monophysite. and, interestingly, wikipedia points out the origin of the word "tewahido" - arabic tawhiid, for one united nature of christ: miaphysitism.)

"if you can access aqoul, you can access the wikipedia."

If I wanted to do the work, I wouldn't ask. And certainly not at a place I've posted countless lies.

Kidding, o gods (of single nature) of wikipedia.

The conventional alternative to monophysites/miaphysites, ie the view held by more standard west and east Xtianity, isn't "stereophysites", I take it.

Well, just to continue the mono/miaphysite question a bit further, are the Melkites and other Middle Eastern uniate Xian churches still mono/miaphysites, notwithstanding their current allegiance to Rome?

I did check wikipedia in advance on this, btw.

Nope. Full communion implies hewing to the same theological line. (The Melkites themselves never were mono-thingies anyway, since they split off from the Greek Orthodox church. The Maronites used to be monoTHELites, which is of course COMPLETELY different from mono/miaphysitism.)

Yep, once you commune with Rome, you have to accept the Vatican-validated creeds. And put up Pope photos in your churches to supplement the icons. But you are free to scoff at the use of Latin.

Why am I suddenly compelled to hum Tom Lehrer? "When in Rome, do like the Roman/Make a cross on your abdomen."

You can also still have married priests.

I like your article, it is so typical of western muslim in denial about their own religion and history.

Wafa Sultan is telling gross but plain truths.

How did Islam spread? By the sword.

What did happen since then? Not much.

As the lights of the great civilisations conquered by the Arabes fainted out, the arab and muslim world stalled into the middle-ages.

As the 2004 United Nations Report on Human Development in the Arab world highlighted so painfully, Spain translated last year more books than the whole Arab World for the last ... 1000 years.

That's a hard fact.

Here is another: Islam is a deadman walking.

Regards,

dear victor,

and the answer is: yaaaaaawn.

you have no knowledge about history ... AT ALL.

there is a long list of works on history in our "books & media" section. enjoy.

--raf*

Agreed, raf. Boring and unoriginal bigotry at best. Perhaps he read a pamphlet.

"Perhaps he read a pamphlet."

Naw, more likely someone read it to him.

Islam spread by the sword? Now there's news! Gosh no one knew that before. Every western muslim I ever met said it was spread by email.

Now, now:
I like your article, it is so typical of western muslim in denial about their own religion and history.

I didn't like your silly comment, as (i) the authors here are hardly all Muslims although for the sheer novelty value, we're all educated in and about the region, (ii) your comment is gross and pedestrain idiocy.

No denial about any own religion or history.

Wafa Sultan is telling gross but plain truths.

Eh, bother, he's

How did Islam spread? By the sword.

By conquest, sometimes. Sometimes not.

Just like Xianity.

This is relevant to what?

What did happen since then? Not much.

Since when?

Initial Islamic conquests?

The "golden age"?

Colonial era?

Hand waving rot, whinging hand waving rot by a bigot.

As the lights of the great civilisations conquered by the Arabes fainted out, the arab and muslim world stalled into the middle-ages.

False, sadly false. What is it with bigots? Have to run about denying this, denying that to boost themselves?

As the 2004 United Nations Report on Human Development in the Arab world highlighted so painfully, Spain translated last year more books than the whole Arab World for the last ... 1000 years.

And?

That's a hard fact.

Here is another: Islam is a deadman walking.

Fact? Bigot wishful thinking and posturing. Afraid the major religions will have to live with each other for centuries more, like it or not.

Well done. BTW that "human development report" was well answered by the late Edward Said.
Orientalism is alive and well.

Face to face debate on Islam is not the approach, this is a very big subject especially when you have limited time. I would like to propose a written debate between Dr Ibrahim al-Kouly and Dr Ali Sina of Faithreedom org. Can anyone help to arrange for the debate ?

dear eugene,

(1) contrary to (it seems) popular belief, we at 'aqoul do not have extensive connections to the global network of muslim clerics in general, or to al-azhar in particular. that would stem mostly from the fact that we have "issues" with them on a personal level. hence - we can't help you in this regard.

(2) professor al-khuli of al-azhar is not the person you want anyway - he's an average al-azhar prof and of neither importance nor particular standing. if you want someone to debate anyone from faithfreedom.org (although that's like asking someone from harlem debating someone from the KKK) you'd have to go somewhat up the ladder, like getting a grand mufti or tariq ramadan ...

--raf*

FEMINISM = ZIONISM = COMMUNISM = SATANISM :

MEMRI is the abbreviation for Middle East Media Research Institute, a pro-Israel organization with headquarters in Washington DC and its Media Centre in Israel - "... a non-profit in Washington DC that specializes in translating and circulating mainly Arab-language materials, selected to display the Arab world in a poor light, to the advantage of Israel."

The MEMRI debate was very much truncated, and the full debate had the scholar for the most part patronizing her, and not taking her seriously.

Her arguments were just too childesh to take seriously, and the audiacity of her facile questioning for the most part seemed like trolling rather than engaging in debate.

The showing for the scholar was hardly as bad as MEMRI makes it look...

This may enlighten you about their organisation .......
Fake Saddam Interview Put Out By MEMRI : SF Bay Area Indymedia

Anyone with a 3rd grade history lesson would have told you wafa was completely wrong. Proto-Zionist’s in Palestine and Europe have blown up anyone or anything that challenged the establishment of a Zionist safe haven. The Bask have had a long war with Spain (which is still alive and well), the Tamil tigers have had more suicide bombings than all other nations combined including the ones in occupied Palestine. The illegal occupation of Iraq and Vietnam by the United Hates of America are nothing compared to the massacres of Pawnee, Lakota, and 300 other Native American nations and cultures over a time span of 400 years. Oh and by the way I’ll stay away from the enslavement, rape, and killing of over one hundred million Africans just so you don’t say I am playing the race card. And let us not forget the most recent tragedy of all the war casualties of WWI and WWII. You racist ethnocentric xenophobes make me sick. Anyone who wants to preserve their way of life or practice their beliefs or culture is not a threat to you it is you who are a threat to them. The Anglo-Yiddish a.k.a. Ashkenazi and Anglo-Saxon war machines are well know for their long running campaigns and treaty breakings.

Unfortunately, the clip has been edited to remove the professor's responses. Not surprising, since the source is notorious Mossad-backed propaganda shop MEMRI.

Furthermore, Sultan makes several blatantly false claims towards the end of the clip, when she claims (paraphrase) that no Jew ever blew up a church or killed someone for religious reasons.

Just a few weeks ago, a pair of Jews in Israel set off explosions in a church there, and there have of course been numerous examples of nutball Jewish extremists killing for religious reasons. Baruch Goldstein's massacre would be one notorious example; other examples abound.

Wafa Sultan’s Lies already Refuted :
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/wafa_sultan.htm

I am afraid I am not particularly fond of "answering" sites - in fact I don't believe any of my co-authors are.

The link posted hardly encourages me, I'd prefer to see less..... well let me simply say I think our response to Madame Sultan is better than the response you linked to.

"Anglo-Yiddish War Machine"? I'm picturing a bunch of little old ladies with bowls of matzo ball soup descending on the West Bank like a plague of locusts.

When I see a mosque, I see trojan horse. I kno

FEMINISM = ZIONISM = COMMUNISM = SATANISM

And 2 + 2 = 6 = a horse = the big bang theory

1.0 There is absolutely nothing wrong with MEMRI and what the do. To me they are mearly protecting them self, considering the hard facts that everyday there are countless Arab anti-Jews sites all over the world churning out anti-Jews garbage, daily sermon from mosque all over the world where the mufti or mullah perform their rhetoric of anti-Jews & anti-infidel lies. I'm a Christian live in an islamic country,I know all those.
2.0 Regarding Dr Sultan's debate with the scholars, there is no need to harp on whether the text is full or edited & who edited them. First of all the debate should not have been taken place in TV with limited time. Debate on TV or public debate is for showman, this is absurd. Religion is a very heavy subject, one need a lot of preparation & research, it could take days, weeks or months.Therefore let's forget about those technical details but focus on the message she was trying to tell the world, that Islam is not a relion of peace but a cult which teaches voilence, terror, lie and domination. When she said that no Jew ever blow up a church or killed soneone for religious reason, in general she is absolutely right. Yes there are nutcases in all religion. Those who make you believe in absurdities make you commit atrocities.However I am not talking about the conduct of the believers but the teachings of the founders. The core of Christianity is not violent. It is love and forgiveness. This does mean Christians have always live up to that standard. People have done horrendous things in the name of religions. But when you look at Islam you see that violence and terrorism is part of the teaching. Muhammad himself was a ruthless terrorist. He set the example. On the other hand the life of Jesus ( which I believe is mythical) is full of saintly example.Jesus says love thy neighbor. Let just say Jesus was a liar. So what ? What is so bad about loving your neighbors, forgivness of sins.
Practically in every Muslim spiritual Hadj, the holiest time and holiest site in all of islam, are muslims screaming for the death and mutilation of all infidels, but specfically Americans & Jews. They cry to their god for our hands to be chopped off and to be murdered while thaning allah for his greatness.. . . . . I am not asking you to believe in what I say, just go read the Quran, the Hadith & Sira and use your brain.

eugene,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

that's me laughing at you and pointing a finger as well.

for a moment i thought of pointing out the errors (of content and argumentation) in your comment but as almost EVERY sentence of yours is ridiculously erroneous ... i decided that it's simply not worth it.

you're one of those who've made up their minds and won't even consider any worldview that is different from their own.

i pity you.

--raf*

Eugene --

I'm a Christian . . . .the life of Jesus (which I believe is mythical)

I do think you have significant concept-confusion issues.

I need amusement so let me play with Eugene (an oddly appropriate name).

So we have your typical American Right Bolshy ideologue whankning on about things he actually knows fuck all about.

Nothing particularly interesting about that, there are literally thousands - hundreds of thousands of such whankers online and tens of millions otherwise. I or so I guess for no particular reason other than my bad humour.

First, idiot boy says There is absolutely nothing wrong with MEMRI and what the[y] do.

Wrong?

Philosophically? Practically?

Philosophically, no.

Practially, shouldn't be except their translations end up spun and their selection of material is also spun.

In short, they give mouth breathing cretins such as yourself agitprop playing to your baser instincts, ignorance, and generally prejudices.

Lucky for them, if not for the world or anyone with a reasonable understanding of the region, ignoramuses such as you -as well as generally uninformed persons not afflicted with your cretinous state - can tease out the fact that MEMRI is engage in agitprop to spin its anti-Arab agenda for pro-Israeli purposes.

Now, before I get to your rubbish, I should note that this is entirely undertandable, and certainly the Israelis should be in many ways respected for an excellent move. I only wish my Arab (Xian and Muslim) colleagues who are so tediously obsessed with Israel could be half as motivated, organised and well-focused in playing the same game.

To me they are mearly protecting them self, considering the hard facts that everyday there are countless Arab anti-Jews sites all over the world churning out anti-Jews garbage, daily sermon from mosque all over the world where the mufti or mullah perform their rhetoric of anti-Jews & anti-infidel lies.

Merely. Please do try for basic literacy here. Not spelling hard or obscure words in English is fine, but a simple word like merely, I have hard time mustering even a faint hint of respect.

Luckily for us, I am mean and like mocking, so I will continue despite your fundamentally pedestrian comment.

Substance.

Every day there are countless anti-Jewish Arab sites.

Well, this is.... irrelevant to MEMRI, unless we're playing childish "you do bad, I do bad and all is good" games.

As to the rest of your statement, well, since you're a monolingual American basing your ideoglurge bleating on MEMRI spin and your pre-existing prejudices, how can I possibly take your assertions about "anti-Jews and anti-infidels" bleating seriously?

Well, I can't as I know them to be untrue.

I'm a Christian live in an islamic country,I know all those.

No, you don't. I need only run a trace to confirm that. You might be in Malaysia, that hotbed Islamic radicalism (ahem, no), certainly given the provider, on a expat phat package...

I'm sure, of course, you are Capital C "Christian" - just like the Takfiri extremists are Capital M Muslims - but you know fuck all about what is being said in mosque, my dear monolingual, and I am not terribly inclined to credit your fearful whinging on.

2.0 Regarding Dr Sultan's debate with the scholars, there is no need to harp on whether the text is full or edited & who edited them.

Certainly not for religious bigots such as yourself that are only concerned with reinforcing their preconceptions and fanning the flames of your bigotry.

Of course, for anyone interested in teh actual, real content and context, the selective editing and translation are highly problematic - that is to say they present a fundamentally false image.

First of all the debate should not have been taken place in TV with limited time.

Eh?

Eh?

What the bloody fuck does this even mean?

Debate on TV or public debate is for showman, this is absurd.

No, it's the medium.

TV debate, like any other format, requires particular skills.

That is simply the reality of any medium. Direct, indirect...

Religion is a very heavy subject, one need a lot of preparation & research, it could take days, weeks or months.

Religioun "heavy subject" "need" much hard think. Ugh, ugh.

Are you a complete retard, or are there subjects where you are capable of some joined up thinking?

Obviously any serious subject requires, well, actuall knowledge and preparation.

Rather typical of a standard level of knowledge say, for someone with a modicum of expertise. That is, the kind of background and preparation one would expect.... wait for it.... from someone speaking in public.

I've done that.

Speak in public.

Before other sober human beings.

Live.

And yes, it took:
(i) a modicum of a background in the subject (thus the invite)
(ii) some telegenic aspects (not being snaggle toothed)
(iii) Capable of joined up speech without excessvie drooling.

Afraid on point three I did not do quite so well, but what can one say.

Moving along we have this statement:
Therefore let's forget about those technical details but focus on the message she was trying to tell the world, that Islam is not a relion of peace but a cult which teaches voilence, terror, lie and domination.

A cult that teaches violence, terror, lie [sic] and domination.

I find myself oddly unimpressed by your foray into religious criticism.

It may be your lack of a basic literacy such that we can trust you have even the most basic graps, in translation, of Islamic texts, or further to that, the history of Islam.

No.

We have some semi-literate whanking by some bigot whose understanding is at best informed by MEMRI but in fact I would say merely informed by old fashioned bigotry.

The whole false god/heathen type play.

Simply because I am bored:
When she said that no Jew ever blow up a church or killed soneone for religious reason, in general she is absolutely right.

Well, in "general" Sultan was wrong. the phrase "ever", my dear sub-literate,has a meaning. Ever, as in in all time. Or reasonably, in recent times.

Insofar as one can with trivial ease come up with examples of Jews violating the statement (never mind the more controversial issues of official Israeli action that may be more legitimately put in a defence of state point of view.

But for your pea brain, the observation was completely refuted as it was stated in an absolute form.

Yes there are nutcases in all religion.[sic]

Religions.

Well, glad you acknowledge the same, but rather undermines your general train of thought (if we can dignify the incoherent rantings as thought).

Those who make you believe in absurdities make you commit atrocities.

Frankly, this makes zero sense.

However I am not talking about the conduct of the believers but the teachings of the founders.

Ah, the go to the source excuse making

The core of Christianity is not violent.

As reported, no it should be all love and flowers.

And turning the other cheek.

Rather obviously that is not quite what happens.

It is love and forgiveness. This does mean Christians have always live up to that standard.

I suspect a not should be in there, it would make more sense.

People have done horrendous things in the name of religions.

Ah the shuffle and vague "religions" to skip by the Xian issue with barbarity to focus on your bogeyman.

Very convincing that. To a retarded idiot.

But when you look at Islam you see that violence and terrorism is part of the teaching.

So says our man who knows no Arabic nor fuck all about the religion.

But you will feel free, based off superficialities that would offend you were they reversed and directed to Xiantity, to whank on about how a competing religion is "evil"

Muhammad himself was a ruthless terrorist.

Boring.

He was a hard nosed leader of early Muslims, in a tribal environment.

Terrorist in this context is ... painfully anachronist as well as false.

He set the example.

Yes, but you've skipped over even the most elementary proof of your string of assertions.

Rather like some ignoramus pissing on while his fat ass is one a bar stool.

On the other hand the life of Jesus ( which I believe is mythical) is full of saintly example.Jesus says love thy neighbor. Let just say Jesus was a liar. So what ? What is so bad about loving your neighbors, forgivness of sins.

Well, other than suggesting you've a rather impoverished concept of the life of Jesus, what was the point? AFter you make an assertion re Muhammed based on nothing more than your vague blithering on, you would like someone to be impressed by an infantile and superficial 'summary' of Xian ... well mythology I guess.

Practically in every Muslim spiritual Hadj, the holiest time and holiest site in all of islam, are muslims screaming for the death and mutilation of all infidels, but specfically Americans & Jews.

Should I send a whinge doctor to take you away on the whingerubulance?

Not that it's ever struct me that that Hajj is dominated or even rationally characterised by screaming for the death of Americans or Jews.

Perhaps if one could work for a general Jihad against dimwits,...

They cry to their god for our hands to be chopped off and to be murdered while thaning allah for his greatness.. . . . .

Your imagination runs away with you.

I am not asking you to believe in what I say, just go read the Quran, the Hadith & Sira and use your brain.

No, you're whanking on with copy paste glurge from various bigot sources. Worse, it's simple minded, superficial glurge that is largely simply annoying for its stupidity.

Muslim brothers and sisters, don't argue with these unbelievers, the Quran warns of arguing with these people is like arguing with a cow, because they will never believe in God, they will never recognize the signs of God, and not to get decieved by their struttering about the land, trying to impress people. Turntoislam.com, and many other web sites on the internet, show how fast Christian, Jews and other believers are joining Islam at a fast rate, these unbelievers are jealous. Please read the Quran to find answers for dealing with all these hateful evil people.

Idiot. Typical religious bigot idiot. Fuck off.