As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
[Islam] -- Ever Heard of It ??
Hamurabi
MiamiRegistered User regular
MiamiRegistered User regular
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpcbfxtdoI8So, how ‘bout that Izz-lum. It’s a pretty big deal these days. The U.S. is, at last count, engaged in hostilities in approximately 1.5 hojillion countries in the Middle East and North Africa, and most of the residents of those countries are Muslim. Europe is also struggling, some would say, to cope with a massive influx of Muslim immigrants, and the attendant sociological and economic issues inherent in that kind of large demographic shift. This makes understanding Islam and Muslims critically important for the western world in basically all spheres of relations – security/military, cultural/spiritual, and politico-economic. Here are some interesting facts about the modern and historical Muslim world:
• As of 2009, over 1.5 billion or about 23% of the world population are Muslims.
• Of these, around 62% live in Asia-Pacific, 20% in the Middle East and North Africa, 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa and around 2% in Europe & Americas.
• 70% of world oil reserves, totaling 550 billion barrels, are in "Muslim countries." (U.S. Geological Survey & Oil and Gas Journal)
• The Muslim empires – counting the Mughal, Ottoman, Abbasid, Umayyad, Ayyubid, Almohad, Rashidun, Fatimid, etc. – were collectively the largest in history.
• While Europe was in the depths of the Dark Ages, the Umayyad Empire was busy plugging away at scientific, medical, mathematical, philosophical, and other intellectual advancements from approximately 700 – 1500 CE.
Doctrinal divisions within Sunni Islam
1. Ash'ari and Maturidi Schools: Sunni Orthodoxy
These two schools of doctrine are followed by the bulk of Sunni Muslims and differ only in minor details.2. Salafi School
- Ash'ari School: This school is named after the followers of the 9th century scholar Abu al Hasan al Ash'ari (874-936 CE) and is widely accepted throughout the Sunni Muslim world. They believe that the characteristics of God are ultimately beyond human comprehension, and trust in the Revelation is essential, although the use of rationality is important.
- Maturidi School: This school is named after the followers of the 9th century scholar Muhammad Abu Mansur al Maturidi (853-944 CE) and has a wide following in regions where Hanafi law is practiced. They have a slightly more pronounced reliance on human reason.
This school was developed around the doctrines of 18th century scholar Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (1703-1792 CE). Salafis have specific doctrinal beliefs, owing to their particular interpretation of Islam, that differentiate them from the majority of Sunnis, such as a literal anthropomorphic interpretation of God. Salafis place a great emphasis on literal interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, with skepticism towards the role of human reason in theology.
3. Mu'tazili School
This school was developed between the 8th and 10th centuries. Although it is traced back to Wasil ibn Ata (d. 748 CE) in Basra, theologians Abu al Hudhayl al ‘Allaf (d. 849 CE) and Bishr ibn al Mu’tamir (d. 825 CE) are credited with formalizing its theological stance. Mu’tazili thought relies heavily on logic, including Greek philosophy. Although it no longer has a significant following, a small minority of contemporary intellectuals have sought to revive it. Mutazilites believe that the Qur’an was created as opposed to the Orthodox Sunni view that it is eternal and uncreated. Moreover they advocate using rationalism to understand allegorical readings of the Qur’an.
Major Shi'a Theological Divisions:
- The Twelver School: The infallibility ('Ismah) of the Twelve Imams descended from the family of the Prophet (Ahl al Bayt) who are believed to be the spiritual and rightful political authorities of the Muslim community (Umma). The twelfth Imam, the Mahdi, is believed to be in occultation to return in the future.
- Isma'ili School: The Qur’an and Hadith are said to have truths lying with a single living Imam, descended directly from the Prophet. Also known as 'seveners' for their belief that Isma'il ibn Ja'far was the seventh and final leading-Imam of the Muslim community.
- Zaidi School: The infallibility of the Twelve Imams and the notion of occultation are rejected in favor of accepting the leadership of a living Imam. The Imamate can be held by any descendant of the Prophet (Sayyid). Also known as 'fivers' for their belief that Zayd ibn Ali was the fifth and final leading-Imam of the Muslim community.
General Ideological Divisions:
- 96% of Muslims fall under the umbrella term "Traditional Islam". Also known as Orthodox Islam, this ideology is not politicized and largely based on consensus of correct opinion—thus including the Sunni, Shi‘a, and Ibadi branches of practice (and their subgroups) within the fold of Islam, and not groups such as the Druze or the Ahmadiyya, among others.
- 3% of the world's Muslims could be called "Islamic Fundamentalists". This is a highly politicized religious ideology popularized in the 20th century through movements within both the Shi‘a and Sunni branches of Islam—characterized by aggressiveness and a reformist attitude toward traditional Islam.
- Only ~1% of the world's Muslims could be classified under the moniker of "Islamic Modernism". Emerging from 19th century Ottoman Turkey and Egypt, this subdivision contextualized Islamic ideology for the times — emphasizing the need for religion to evolve with Western advances.
The Four Mathaahib (Schools) of the Shari'a
- Hanafi (45.5%): Named after the followers of Imam Abu Hanifa (699-767 CE/ 89-157 AH) in Iraq.
- Shafi'i (28%): Named after the followers of Imam al Shafi'i (767-820 CE/150-204 AH) in Medina.
- Maliki (15%): Named after the followers of Imam Malik (711-795 CE/93-179 AH) in Medina.
- Hanbali (2%): Named after the followers of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (780-855 CE/ 164-241 AH) in Iraq.
Source: http://thebook.org/files/500.pdf
To wit: a quote from a relatively well-known Muslim...
On 4 June, 2009, US President Barack Obama said the following at Cairo
University:
As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam—
at places like Al Azhar—that carried the light of learning through so many
centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment.
It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of
algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens
and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can
be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires;
timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of
peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated
through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial
equality.
I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first
nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of
Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, 'The United
States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or
tranquility of Muslims.' And since our founding, American Muslims
have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have
served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started
businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our
sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the
Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected
to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same
Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers—Thomas Jefferson—kept
in his personal library.
Political Islam
A lot of discussion of Islam and of Muslims these days centers on whether or not Islam is “inherently violent” based on daily headlines coming out of the Middle East. This is not a totally unfounded question if all you know about Islam and Muslims is what you see on CNN.
Historically, Islam has been more “political” (ie. concerned with how best to govern a political community, how to rule, who should hold power, how scarce resources should be distributed, etc.) than the other two Abrahamic traditions, and that owes a lot to its founding. During the time of Islam’s premier prophet, Muhammad, who was born on or around 570 CE, the Arab tribes were factious and warlike. Muhammad was able to unite them into a collective group (though they were still deeply rooted in the tribal lineage paradigm) and eventually the first Islamic empire. It’s this ability to unite disparate groups of people under a common banner that shaped Islam’s role as a politico-religious movement.
Modern day Islam draws on that heritage, as well as later advancements in Islamic law (Sharia) that govern how a Muslim state ought to function. It’s important to note, though, that Islamic jurisprudence is a highly subjective, decentralized process, and there are a number of sects and schools of interpretation that have developed in the last 1500 years. There is no “official,” codified body of laws known as Sharia; there are instead the collected works of respected Islamic jurists (members of the ulama) who have gained large followings, and so Islamic law is effectively based on scholarly consensus. The actual hierarchy for the priority of deference in Islamic law is as follows:
• The Qur'an
• The Hadith/Sunna (sayings and actions, respectively, of the prophet)
• Consensus of the Ulama
• Analogy (known as qiyas; ie. if alcoholic intoxication is forbidden, intoxication through the use of marijuana must also be forbidden)
• Local/regional practice
With that historical background in mind, we can move onto discussing how Islam shapes the politics of Muslims in various parts of the world. There’s been a lot of focus, especially after 9/11, on something called “Islamist” groups. There seems to be a widespread stigma attached to this label; any mention of it seems to conjure images in the popular psyche of bearded men stoning women to death, of intolerance towards other faiths, and of virulent anti-Westernism.
In reality, modern Islamist groups comprise a wide spectrum of political (and sometimes apolitical) groups. One key distinction – though not the only one – between these groups is whether they view Islamic law as the source of guidance, versus a source of guidance. Here is a broad overview of Islamist categories, separated into Sunni and Shia groupings:
Sunni
• Traditionalist/”mainstream” (al-Azhar University in Egypt)
• Reformist/modernist (Muslim Brotherhood)
• Literalist/fundamentalist – Salafi or Wahabbi (Gamaa al-Islamiya, al-Qaeda, Taliban)
• Sufi/mystic
Shia
• Quietist/”mainstream” (Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Iraq)
• Activist (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini)
Like I said, there are a lot of different categories, which reflect vastly different aims and methods. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, for instance, was basically apolitical from about the 70s on because of the brutal oppression of Islamists by Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak; they focused mainly on charitable work and proselytizing. An offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which would name itself Hamas, had a somewhat different vision for its role in politics.
Quick article on the basic differences between Sunni and Shi'a sects (courtesy of @enc0re).
Reliable Sources for Information on Islam:
- Pew Forum on Global Religious Landscape (2012)
- Pew Forum on the Future of the Global Muslim Population
- Encyclopedia of Islam (three volumes dating from 1900, but all behind paywalls afaik)
- Oxford Islamic Studies Online (another paywall, but you may have uni-based access)
What This Thread is For
• Discussing the various aspects of one of the major world religions, and how those aspects directly affect us over on this side of the world.
• Asking frank questions in an open environment; I don’t claim to be an Islamic scholar, but maybe someone else will have an answer.
What This Thread is DEFINITELY NOT For:
• Talking about how terrible Islam or Muslims are.
• About how terrible all religion is.
Legitimate and earnest criticism is fine, but I don’t intend for this thread to be an up or down vote on Islam or on organized religion generally; you’re welcome to start your own thread if you’re that committed to discussing those things.
DISCLAIMER: No, I’m not a Muslim, and this isn’t a thread for promoting Islam. The intent here is to have an open discussion about a subject I personally find fascinating, and that I know from first-hand experience at least a couple of other people around here do also.
Hamurabi on
0
Posts
Rigorous Scholarship
Not really, and lumping them all together as 'Muslim Empires' is really not a useful thing to do if you're interesting in Muslim history and the origin of modern states and Muslim philosophies.
Actually it came crashing to a stop in 1200s with the Mongol invasion (we also have to thank the Mongols with destroying the high Chinese intellectual and commercial culture of the Song, and brutalizing Russia into a bunch of paranoid authoritarian dicks). Also 'Dark Ages' is pretty much crap invented by renaissance writers with a hard-on for the Romans and Greeks, there were significant technological and social advancement in Europe during that period.
There's someone who hangs around here and who I know in person who is quite observant, albeit not entirely orthodox, but they're not inclined to get into religious debates. You probably wouldn't guess at their background if not for their manner of dress and the food restrictions.
I stand corrected. Thread successful!
Re: "Muslim Empires"... Frankly, that was a contrivance (that I was skeptical of even as I wrote it) to make a neat bullet-point. Islamic empires have been very important historically, though.
Some of that (though I can't guess how much -- I don't know your friends, etc.) might be because a particularly observant / "religious" Christian or even Orthodox Jew is kind of just a cultural aberration for most people, and is at worst kind of off-putting because of the political connotations of Evangelical Christianity.
A really observant Muslim in this country, though -- that is, someone who prays five times a day, wears a taqiyah / hijab, and makes frequent religious references -- is seen by a lot of people as overtly or vaguely threatening.
I was up at Harvard for three days last week and got to have a sit-down with Ahmed Ragab, who specializes in Islamic science, among other things. His work might be worth looking into if you're really interested in the subject.
Well, the "Muslim empires" can be lumped into a few categories, you've got your Arabian-controlled Caliphate and its successors (abbasid, Umayyid, etc), your turkic based ones (ottoman, Khwarsim, etc), and the Mughals and similar types of states that raided India and central asia for a hundred years or so after the Mongols. Oh yeah, and your Shi'ites like the Fatamids & Mamluks and later the Persians.
Speaking of which, yeah, damn Mongols crushing most of the major enlightened states beneath their hooves. Guess I shouldn't be too annoyed, because hey, rise of Europe, but still, they were kind of dicks.
Rigorous Scholarship
For those of you living near NYC, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has just opened a new gallery dedicated to the art of Islam and Arab culture. I'm going to go soon. Looks really cool.
http://blog.metmuseum.org/newgalleries2011/en/
Well, from what I recall, there were a few things.
First, the Abbasid Caliphate put a huge premium on scholarship and funded the crap out of the arts and sciences. They also focused on collecting and translating ancient texts.
Second, at the time the Islamic world was a bit more tolerant of religious diversity than Christian Europe, so combined with the promise of patronage led to an influx of Jewish and other Western scholars (and texts) into the Islamic world.
Later on, the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople led to a huge wave of Byzantine scholars fleeing westward, bringing ancient Greek texts with them.
Another route of entry was Spain. Muslims conquered much of Spain in the early 700s, and were only completely expelled in the lat 1400s. Muslims weren't as intolerant as you may expect, and there were cities like Toledo that had Christian and Jewish populations living alongside the Muslims. This allowed for a great deal of Arabic science, math, medicine, architecture and so on to be translated and spread to the rest of Europe. This included works from ancient Greeks (who inspired many of the Arab thinkers) that had been lost to Europe for centuries. This certainly contributed to the Enlightenment era.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
A lot of the oil rich states haven't done a good job of investing their oil revenues into infrastructure and education that would allow them to be economically succesful once oil dries up. Places like Saudi Arabia have spent their money mostly on providing basics for their regular population and bling and hookers for the elite.
Rigorous Scholarship
I can picture all those royals just packing up and leaving while everyone else eats each other.
Ibn Al-Haytham (otherwise known as Alhazen) is a medieval arabic scholar that is worth reading about. He helped pioneer the principle of linear perspective (i.e. light travels in straight lines from a source other than our eyes or random objects), and was one of the early developers of the camera obscura device which was revolutionary both for science (astronomers could safely view solar eclipses without burning their eyes out), and art (artists, who had the chops, could make preparatory sketch outlines of their subject via the camera obscura for hyper-detailed works). See the Hockney-Falco thesis, and studies of people like DaVinci and Vermeer for more on the art aspect. One of my current pet projects has been studying the relationship of the Byzantine Empire and the rise of the Islamic world during the Middle Ages. Fun fact, the Dome of the Rock's interior paintings of Qu'ran scripture were likely (at least partially) designed and painted by byzantine artists!
This is really something best taken to the Middle East Thread, but in short: the Middle East will be fucked once the oil does finally dry up. The oil-producing countries' economies are textbook cases of Dutch Disease/the Oil Curse. They collect zero taxes, which has the tangential consequence of letting them get away with a relatively minimalist administrative apparatus compared to "normal" countries; think about how much information on you the state needs to collect in order to tax you, and all the manpower required to assess that information and to follow up with collection. The Saudi state basically exists as a means to distribute oil wealth to citizens, and doesn't do much else (because all facets of actual governance are covered by the royal family).
There have been some diversification efforts, with Dubai being the standout example. Saudi Arabia's idea of "diversification" is to vertically integrate their oil production operations, so they're not just drilling and transporting the oil, but also making downstream products from it... which of course still leaves them dependent on oil. The only real bright spot are the growing Sovereign Wealth Funds, but even those are "only" valued in the hundreds of billions -- not really enough to last the oil producing states for more than a couple of years, given their generous social programs.
As it happens, I recently wrote a short paper on the Gulf oil monarchies' dependence on oil (that I'll post when I get home, because my Macbook is being dumb.
I think many Arab states, especially around the Gulf, aren't really countries in the traditional sense. They're just tribes that ended up with some real estate and resources.
Rigorous Scholarship
I think it's a little more complicated than that. For example, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo are countries with a majority that practice Islam, and have all been recognized as potential candidate countries. Turkey has to align it's laws with the EU acquis communitaire, but it is yet to do so (Wikipedia has a useful table here). Turkey is obligated to open it's ports to Cyprus (an EU member), which it refuses to do so and is another major stumbling block for their accession.
I'm going to grab onto this quote since it's a lot more reasonable the the one I was about to post.
The EU isn't stalling on giving Turkey membership because we hate brown people, but because of the huge problem of integration. As far as I know, all EU countries have problems integrating Islamic immigrants, so it would be nice to be sure some of the bigger problems are taken care of before they are accepted as members. In the end I have a hard time seeing Turkey not becoming a member.
The way I see it, much of the culture clash in Europe is because it's mostly the poor and generally uneducated that immigrated in the hope getting a better life. This is generally also most religious part of society, which end up causing conflicts when secular Europeans don't respect that religion. My guess is that the same problems would arise if there was an equal sized immigration from the bible-belt in the US.
.
Island. Being on fire.
Plenty of poorer people have immigrated from the poor parts of the EU to the wealthier areas, with relatively few problems. Many of those poorer folks tend to also be more religious. For whatever reason, Muslim immigrants in Europe have led to more conflict than any other immigrant group I can think of.
Rigorous Scholarship
Europe has a lot more Muslim immigrants because it's right next to Africa and the Middle east, it has nothing to do with Islam. We're not talking a few thousand Poles or Greeks moving to the wealthier regions, we're talking hundreds of thousands over the past few decades. This is something that the europeans haven't really dealt with... the last major migrations were the population swaps in the first half of the 20th century, which were handled for better or worse over a few decades way back when.
As opposed to what, states that were wholly constructions of colonial powers? Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey are the only states in the Middle East not created out of whole cloth by self-interested and capricious European powers.
I don't feel like the Who Is and Is Not a Real Country™ Game is very productive.
Here's the link to that paper on the Gulf oil monarchies, btw.
The European model is an interesting case. As an outsider looking in, it seems like the idea was just to let the ethnic minorities have their own ostensibly autonomous ghettos in major cities (did they actually let Muslims use Sharia law for personal status matters in the UK, or was that a myth?). The result seems to have been to make those minorities basically second-class citizens, alienating them from the rest of society, as well as creating ideal conditions for radicalization.
Allowing the creation of what are essentially no-go areas for non-Muslims is just a disaster waiting to happen. But, many of the French ghettoes were designed with urban control in mind. Effectively cutting off those areas wouldn't require much governmental effort in a crisis situation.
I don't know, I guess I'm pretty pessimistic. But the European history of dealing with unpopular minorities isn't great.
Rigorous Scholarship
That said, what is the alternative? The American system, in my humble opinion, works largely because the U.S. has a hegemonic hold on "modernity" (the prime modernity, in grad-school IR speak), and so to become Americanized if in effect to become modernized. Speaking strictly for my own experiences, Pakistani immigrants in Miami see it as progress when they land a job where they can wear a suit to work, or are able to save up enough to get their own small business and start building capital. They work to assimilate as quickly as possible economically, and eventually culturally (learning idiomatic English, making American friends, sending their kids to good/private schools, etc.).
The impression I get (again, as an outsider looking in) is that the generous social welfare programs and poor prospects (from living in an insular community with poor access to opportunities) in Europe hamper the integration process to some degree.
In regards to Sharia law, it is allowed for mediation and arbitration of cases (if both parties consent), similar to the Beth Din structure that has long existed for the Jewish community in the UK. It is used in situations where neutral arbitration would be carried out anyway, and both parties want the arbitration carried out in accordance with their spiritual teaching. In regards to ghettoisation, poor people tend to live in poor areas that are affordable. There is an agglomeration effect for ethnic minorities, particularly due to familial ties, common language and the advantages to establishing businesses and services (a small community supports a shop, the presence of the shop makes the area more attractive to future immigrants, who built a place of worship, etc.).
I was just making sure we were differentiating between ghettos where people are compelled to live and ghettos where people choose to live.
Then, in the 60's a lot of especially Turks came here to work while our economy was expanding exponentially and needed workers, and nobody though about integrating them when they sent for their families, so they were left alone. Then the unemployment hit in the 70's and 80's, and resentment for the "foreigners" receiving social benefits started.
One of the things Americans usually underestimate is the fact that you culture is a mash-up of many different ones, where Europe tend to be more homogenized. Imagine the "natives" hatred of the Irish immigrants amplified by a few hundred years homogenization and the complete lack of free and cheap land for the immigrants to set up their own miniature societies.
I also think the advancing mass media in the last 50-80 years have helped amplify the differences and problems.
.
Island. Being on fire.
The stated reasons have more to do with legal problems (e.g. Cyprus, Turkey's awful attitude to civil rights) than nebulous 'integration' issues.
People might actually fear integration problems, or just be bigots who don't like brown people, but I think we can't assume either without dismissing those very real legal issues.
He'a probably right to say that the problems are comparable to what would happen with a similar-sized immigration of Bible-belters. Plenty of muslims get on in European (certainly British) society just absolutely fine thank you very much. They get up, go to work, do a good job, and don't have a glass of wine or a beer with their dinner, and everything is fine with everyone.
The ones that try and act like they're still living in rural Pakistan only with cooler weather, and think the laws about selling their 14 year old daughter into a marriage contract carry over from there to here, and don't bother to let their children learn the language, yeah, not so much. They're about as welcome as the red-faced westerners who think it's OK to shout Fuck Allah and get drunk in public, and act shitty to waiters who don't speak english are in sharia-law countries and for pretty much the same reasons.
Kind of yes, kind of no. Let's get one thing straight: sharia law has absolutely no primacy over British criminal law whatsoever. If you get caught stealing a loaf of bread, you're not getting your hand cut off. Not does it have primacy over civil law either. All that has happened is the allowance of allowing a sharia judge to arbitrate over civil arbitration matters like divorce settlements, hedge disputes and so forth, and only where both parties have requested such ajudication. A sharia judge can't find anyone guilty of anything.
Much as the Daily Mail would love you to believe that LOONEY LEFTY JUDGES WILL ALLOW NASTY BROWN-PEOPLE JUDGES TO MAKE IT LEGAL FOR NASTY BROWN-PEOPLE WHOREMONGERS TO SELL YOUR DAUGHTER FOR SIX CAMELS IN YOUR OWN HOME WHILE YOU SLEEP*, it's simply an optional alternate rule set for low level civil matters. And it's mostly not even a radically different rule set from the western judeo-christian one either. (In fact it's amusing to note that the very people who yell the loudest about sharia law are also the ones that advocate polices most like the caricature of sharia they rail against.)
*Which is kind of a shame because what am I going to do with these 6 camels now?
Indonesian Muslims throw off the yoke of a 30-year military dictator and no one cares, Egyptian Muslims do it and everyone goes crazy.
Indonesia gets along well with its Muslim and non-Muslim neighbors in Asia, as well as the West (especially the US and UK), yet Turkey is always trotted out as the model "good Islamic country."
I bring up Indonesia all the time when talking about Islamic demography. The people who talk the loudest about Islam are usually the ones who are really caught off guard to learn where most Muslims live. India also has hundreds of millions of them, and Africa has a very large amount as well. All too often, and in US media especially, Muslim=Middle East=Arabs.