Celibacy And Religion
Jesus giving communion at a shop in Pettah.
Recently, a scrap of ancient parchment was found where Jesus is quoted as saying ‘my wife’. You can read the research page at Harvard and some analysis at Andrew Sullivan. There were many gospels of Jesus and only a few fit into the canonical Bible. This adds to that diversity and, in itself doesn’t prove or disprove anything historical. It does, however, highlight some of the greater injustices of Christianity (mainly Catholicism) and religion in general. Namely, the exclusion of women and prescription of celibacy.
Women
In the Catholic church, women can’t be priests (the full ones), definitely not Pope. In Islam men and women can’t even worship together, and women are even more barred from the priesthood. Even in Buddhism, there are some people who say that a woman must be reborn as a man to attain Nibbana. These human practices are all, IMHO, all wrong. Saying that 50% of humanity has a limited access to spirituality or salvation is just incorrect.
Celibacy
Also, many religions insist on a celibate priesthood. This also doesn’t really work, or at least it doesn’t scale. While celibacy is a state that can lead to spiritual awareness, the idea that it’s a social circumscribed role misses the point. It has to be chosen by the individual and perhaps only for certain times for it to work on their individual awareness. When people have to be celibate to join a certain social strata (often one with benefits), they inevitably lie and the whole thing gets corrupted. The Catholic Church is the worst current example where a whole bunch of supposedly celibate priests became pedophiles with access and protection. The Buddhist clergy, however, is also rife with sexual abuse, just not really documented or talked about.
Many current religions have lay priests and even Buddhism has and had lay, married custodians of the faith. This is not to say that celibacy doesn’t have its place in religious practice, but it need not be the default. I mean, it isn’t. If you make it the default then you just get corruption.
Examples
In all of these cases the codified religion seems to have flowed out of the lives and teachings of its founders. With Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, the leaders of the faith were usually open to men and women, though they differed in terms of celibacy. The Buddha was celibate and Christ, according to current teachings, also was. This has largely determined the behavior of later priests.
Hence it’s so interest that this different picture of Jesus is emerging. Marriage is central to the American Christian faith, which is striking since Jesus Christ is not believed to have married. The celibacy emphasis was more from the Roman Catholic faith, mixed with a fair amount of other religions, and it’s not clear that it has such a central place in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Posted on Monday, September 24th, 2012 in Religion.
Mohsin Hamid, author of How To Get Filthy Rich In Rising Asia, has a nice 
I’m happy to be featured in Echelon magazine’s 40 Under 40 feature, profiling young people who contribute to the economy in some way, mainly in business but also in terms of innovation and thought leadership. It’s an interesting article not just in that I’m in it (mainly for work on indi.ca and 
I won’t add too much commentary, but just read I guess. The youngest Rajapaksa, Rohitha (Chi Chi) has given an amazing interview to the 
In 2009 this strange character appeared on the Sri Lankan Internet scene, getting angry, flaming, trolling whatever. Then he started naming anonymous bloggers, posting comments as people’s kids, nasty stuff, for which I removed him from 
There is no priesthood in Islam :)
I am sorry – correct me if I am wrong, who is a Mullah? & who is a Imam.
An Imam leads prayer, an Imam can be anybody as long as they are knowledgable enough about the rituals of prayer. An Imam is not a priest nor is there any organized priesthood which promotes Imams and so on.
A Mullah is simplay a man who is knowledgable about Islam. Again, this is not an official position. Anybody can be known as a Mullah if they are acknowledged to be a learned man. That too does not make him a part of an organized priesthood. Then any old uncle that you go to for advice would also could be considered a priest :)
Thank you Fahim for your precise & concise explanation. I really appreciate it. This how religions & philosophies can be explained to uninitiated people. Thank you again.
You’re welcome :) Always happy to help.
Are mullahs and imams not paid for their time spent leading prayer, preaching, etc?
A Mullah, since he’s just a learned man, is not paid – a Mullah could be anybody who’s learned. So unless you want to go around paying all the learned religious people you know, that would be a problem :)
The case of an Imam becomes a bit more troublesome in terms of payment because it depends on whether you mean an Imam who is selected at a general prayer gathering (where the Imam would be somebody who would lead prayers) or it’s an Imam at a mosque where I believe some mosques pay for an Imam to be a resident Imam. I know Imams who live in the mosque but continue to do business outside etc and others who don’t live in the mosque but come in to lead prayers. Some maybe paid, others aren’t. It seems to be arrangements based on what is convenient to the parties involved.
Christianity and Islam is joke religions. The curse of this planet are these Abrahamic religions. Look at Christianity. A religion where you are told believe in talking snakes and donkeys, virgin births, and people living in the belly of whales. Rubbish.
yes, because baby buddha walking and lotus flowers blooming at his feet spontaneously is more believable. this kind of meaningless “other religions are stupid, only mine is believable” is why i got out of this religion BS in the first place.
EVERY religion has its myths and legends and downright facepalm-worthy stories, to a greater or lesser degree. declaring another man’s faith to be ‘nonsense’ is just “uda balang kela gahanawa”.
how do u know he is a buddhist?
These human practices are all, IMHO, all wrong. Saying that 50% of humanity has a limited access to spirituality or salvation is just incorrect.
On what grounds? If you believe all the rest of that crap, like karma, reincarnation and Nibbana, with no empirical evidence, you might as well believe the rest of the empirically baseless crap they say.
Also, the fact that an idea is inconvenient or politically incorrect (like women have limited access to spiritual salvation) doesn’t make it false. (not saying it’s true)
Yes there is. Members are called Mullahs. And only males can reach such positions.
@Fahim Farook
No there isn’t :) Just because people come up with position like Ayatollah, or Mullah, or holy high priest doesn’t mean that Islam has it – just means that people have a habit of wanting others to lead them and will come up with some sort of position. Islam has no priesthood just because Islam is about discovering your path for yourself – not being led by somebody else who claims to know all. Just because people are lazy and create their own hierarchy doesn’t mean that “Islam” has a priesthood …
Yes there is. Many Muslims may claim that there is no clergy in Islam, but for all practicalities there is. Mullahs occupy an exalted place and what they say “goes” for their followers. They give sermons, lead prayers and are generally highly respected by lay Muslims. They have the power to pronounce fatwas, and bring out enraged Muslims onto the streets after Friday prayers (as happens in Sri Lanka as well). They are no different to priests that exist in other religions. The position is also open only to men.
I’m glad that you can speak for all of Islam since you appear to be someone of authority :D But pardon me if I don’t subscribe to your “Islam” since that doesn’t appear to be what is written in the Qur’an, which is what a Muslim should be following. But then again, why let a fact here or there get in the way of making a point, right? :)
The vast majority of Muslim communities have Mullahs whether you wish to accept them or not. And these Mullahs are largely revered by lay Muslim people, and have a leadership role in the community. They have a pre-eminent position above and beyond that of lay Muslims and run the show at mosques. They form a priesthood and perform all the rituals of priesthood, albeit in an Islamic setting.
As for the Quran it can be interpreted any way you wish.
Pardon me if I don’t take your word for the “vast majority” just because you say so :) You claim many things and talk as if you know all there is know of Islam and yet, I’d wager you only speak from your own opinions and imaginings.
A priesthood implies an organization, with a hierarchy, and a backing for this organization in the religion itself. There is no such organization in Islam. Sure, there are people who say they are “learned” and will claim to interpret religion for others and there are always those who, instead of thinking for themselves, follow the words of a “learned” man. Despit your assertions, that does not make a priesthood. Plain and simple.
Lol, Fahim, you are confusing what is in the Quran with the practices of Muslims. I could just as well say that Christianity has no priesthood because the Bible doesn’t tell Christians to have priests, popes, nuns, or whatever — only “leaders” and “teachers”, “prophets” and “apostles”.
Islam, the religion practiced by Muslims does indeed have a priesthood of full-time leaders who are paid and looked after by the Muslim community. If you wish to pretend that is not a priesthood, go for it, but you’re just being a hypocrite and making your religion look devious.
A priesthood doesn’t imply a hierarchy or anything of the sort; that is simply your definition in order to reinforce your pretense. If you have full-time religious leaders whose job is to lead and advise, they are priests — and a bunch of them together would be a priesthood, just like a crowd of buffaloes are a herd, regardless of what your definition of a buffalo is.
David, you’r confusing Islam with what is practiced by some Muslims :) Just because some Muslims do things which aren’t supported by Islam itself, that doesn’t automatically become a part of Islam. For instance, dowry is forbidden in Islam but a lot Muslims in Sri Lanka (and other parts of Asia) accept dowry. So does that make it an Islamic practice?
My concern here is being accurate about the religion – not about what some people choose to do because it’s convenient for them. This has always been my beef – that people confuse religion with what some members of a religion choose to do in the name of that religion. The two are not the same.
*Achtung. Pedantry ahead*
I think you meant “prescription” (“e” not “o”). The Roman Catholic church most certainly does not proscribe celibacy :)
indeed, thank you
Islam doesn’t have one coherent priesthood. Fahim’s right on that. What I mean is that women can’t lead prayers.
Indi, just to clarify a point, there is nothing in Islam which states that women can’t lead prayers :) A woman can definitely lead prayers when it’s for a group of women. It becomes more iffy when it’s a mixed group and my understanding is that it is more cultural rather than religious at that point since as far as I know, the Qur’an has no definite ruling on women leading prayer ….
I remember reading somewhere that once Mohamed appointed a woman to be the imam of her household. This in spite of the fact that there were men in the household.
Yep, I read that too yesterday while trying to verify the facts for myself :) So honestly, I think the women being excluded thing is another one of those “men being men” or “people being people” things rather than a part of religion.
You mean it’s not like Apartheid South Africa where Blacks could indeed be leaders; just not leaders of Whites? Thanks, Fahim, for clearing that one up.
David, you can see it as apartheid if you want to – that’s your prerogative to sit on a high horse :) I’ve given you the facts as I know them and have ascertained them to be. I have read of cases where the prophet has appointed a woman to be Imam over both men and women. So it is indeed permissible by Islam. Whether people (specifically men) want that happening or not is up to the individuals. And note that apartheid too is man-made in the sense people came up with (and continued to enforce) that kind of thing – not a religion.
“Even in Buddhism, there are some people who say that a woman must be reborn as a man to attain Nibbana.”
huh…Those people clearly haven’t done their home work. Woman can obtain nibbana and there have been plenty of woman who had done that.
But a woman can’t be a buddha.
On trains I’ve noticed, if a Buddhist monk enters the compartment, it’s usually a woman who offers him a seat (not the area reserved for priests). And any women who might have been sitting on either side also have to get up. But women cant attain Buddhahood. Maara wedak!
Catholic priests are treated the same way by Catholic devotees in Sri Lanka, who fawn and ingratiate themselves in front of the cassock. As a Sinhala Catholic you should be aware of this. Maara wadak is the position of woman in Christianity and the Bible:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
This is the teachings of the (male) God that Christians get down on their knees and worship..
If Buddhism is true, meaning that it describes reality, then you should realize that reality is not obliged to be politically correct. The fact that something is ugly and inconvenient alone doesn’t make it incorrect.
Buddhism is nonsense not because it’s politically incorrect (in fact it is politically more correct than most other religions), but because it just doesn’t describe reality.
I think it is a misinterpretation when people say a woman cannot be a bhuddha, because in Pali language what Buddha has said was a Kantha cannot be a buddha. Kantha is referred to a person who doesnt have the mental ability (wiseness) to become a buddha – a one who attains full enlightenment. I dont know how and when; but languages evolved and in sinhalese the word Kantha is referred to females.
I read this in somewhere and I feel this may be possible.
Mother Superior would surely throw a fit if she saw that photo of a photo in a shop window on the internet! Sister Principal would add yet another rule to the already too long list.
Thank you. I think you should be our Imam & Mullah, seriously b’cos you have given us a very precise explanation.
Thank you again.
Not being able to lead prayers is perhaps one of the least offensive aspects of Islam when it comes to women’s rights.
Surah 4:34′s an interesting place to start, but there are also problems in terms of women being worth only half a man’s testimony in court, only being entitled to half the inheritance of a male relative, only half compensation for a murdered woman and so on.
Them there’s how the religion is actually practiced in many Islamic countries. Being a woman in Pakistan or Afghanistan is pretty horrendous for vast numbers, the middle east is also incredibly discriminatory in many places like Saudi Arabia, and you have to go to somewhere like Turkey, which has a fiercely secular constitution to avoid the extremes of gender discrimination.
Either all these millions of people have the religion wrong, or Fahim has it wrong, because what he is able to see is not what others see, or practice.
Just like pretty much every other religion, the fact that it’s so easy and so common for so many otherwise good people to make morally bad decisions justified by their religion alone implies a failure of the ideology, not in their reading of it.
Given that your prejudices appear to compell you to take this discussion in a totally different direction about the rights of women (rather than the priesthood and women in Islam), I would suggest that you do some reading :) As I pointed out above, women are not barred from leading prayers. I am glad that you find so many issues with Islam and women but given that you didn’t seem to have researched whether women are allowed to lead prayer or not, I will take your opinions on the other stuff with a grain of salt …
I agree that women are not treated as they should be according to Islam in many Islamic countries. But neither are women treated equally elseshwere in the world. This is not an Islamic issue – this is an issue with human beings being …. well, human beings. Till people actually start to follow the spirit of each of their religions (or the dictates of their conscience) instead of thinking of “us vs. them” or “men vs. women”, this kind of behaviour will continue on.
To blame this on the religion and say good people make bad decisions because of their religion is just an excuse to villify the religion. (And note that people of all religions have done bad things in the name of their religion …) They can’t be good people in the first place if they do bad things in the name of religion – they either don’t think for themselves (which should be a pre-requisite for any religion) or they just want to do something and use religion as an excuse, perverting a part of the religion to suit their needs.
I am happy to uphold your right to have your own opinion but when you try to tell me that I’m wrong to have an opinion of my own because “millions of others must be right”, that just doesn’t sound right does it? Were millions of Germans correct when the Nazi party came into power? Or were thos who might have opposed them in Germany the ones in the right? Is the number of supporters the measurement for deciding what is right? Then where would we be?
Who knows what a founder of a religion “actually” meant anyway.
No religion is pristine. For an example close to home, the Nikaya system based on Caste, is upheld by all Buddhist monks in SL. And we all know that this has nothing to with “Buddhism”.
Catholic priests are treated the same way by Catholic devotees in Sri Lanka, who fawn and ingratiate themselves in front of the cassock. As a Sinhala Catholic you should be aware of this. Maara wadak is the position of woman in Christianity and the Bible:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
This is the teachings of the (male) God that Christians get down on their knees and worship.
Hi Fahim
As you might have been able to tell, I have done a fair bit of reading on this actually! I agree with you that women can lead prayers in Islam in principle (it even happens in some places like China, where the state controls some aspects of approved religions and women have lead prayers for women in the UK), but there are no more than a handful of places where it does happen, and I’ve never heard of a woman leading prayers for men. Please let me know if you have evidence to the contrary. The reality is very different from the principle, though. Effectively, the practice for around a billion people is that women are not able to (and do not) lead prayers. So, no need to take my opinions with a pinch of salt. My point is that, in the scheme of things, this isn’t what I’d be most upset about as a women living under Islamic law.
Islam was incredible in terms of the rights it gave to women, including some inheritance, the right to divorce and so forth. But that was compared to the rest of the world 1400 years ago. Times have moved on rather since then, so if you are to be taken seriously you might want to explain Surah 4:34 (which I did include above). Further, the laws regarding inheritance, a woman’s testimony in court, how she asks for a divorce, what happens to the children after divorce and so on are all highly discriminatory and come from the Koran and the Hadiths. They cause great suffering in places like Pakistan. You don’t address them. You say that people should ‘follow the spirit’ of their religions (which I agree is what a lot of very nice religious people do), but how does that square with a prescriptive (and proscriptive) religion? 2:106 demands that not one verse of the Koran is wrong and (controversial to some followers), if it is wrong the doctrine of abrogation applies, so how can one only follow the spirit and not the actual commands?
You are not wrong at all to hold an opinion of your own, and I’m very pleased that you do. Your example doesn’t support your argument, though. Millions of people did support the Nazis and their policies and they were at that time Nazis themselves. Those who opposed them did not support or believe in Nazi policies and so they were not Nazis. The ones who did not believe in Nazi principles were always morally right, it’s not like they were the good Nazis following the ideology in spirit. If people say they belong to a religion and choose to ignore prescriptive elements of it, that’s up to them, but the Koran takes a dim view of it (16:106) and the Hadiths are pretty clear about the punishments for introducing new ideas into the faith.
It’s not much fun for us non-believers, try these Surah out for starters: 8:12, 8:15, 9:29, 9:38-39, 9:73, 9:123, 25:52, 33:60-62, 47:3-4, 48:29, 61:9, 66:9
But, as you are quite right and I have taken this down a different path, please let me do so again. There are some wonderful parts of Islam that should inspire us all and I’ll leave on some of those:
2:83, 2:195, 2:215, 2:220, 4:86, 4:114, 4:135, 5:8, 7:199, 41:34.
I’d have to go through all the versese you mention to see how they apply and to be honest, I don’t have the time nor do I think anybody would be interested :) (No I’m not being dismissing, I’m being serious here). But if you do want to carry on a serious conversation, let me know and we can take this to e-mail.
I can give you an example of a woman leading prayer for men from the prophet’s time. I personally don’t know of any such instances. But as I’ve said before, let’s not confuse the religion with how people decide to practice it. Those are two different things.
As far as non-believers go, I personally don’t think I have to agonize over how they are to be treated – I have the example of the prophet who always dealt with everybody fairly. He dealt with other religions with courtesy and allowed others to practice their own religion. I hear people from the US talk about dhimmis, and about how followers of other religions have to live under the heel of Islam if Islam came in to power. But since I take the prophet’s example for how I should deal with other religions, I don’t see how this can be an issue.
I do grant you though, that how other people practice Islam sometimes is totally different from how the prophet himself behaved. And if these people came to power, they probably would try to subjugate other religionst. But that’s not Islam, that’s just how people seem to behave when they have power. I do not agree with that and all I can hope for is by engaging in dialogs like this, more and more people (on both sides of the question) come to understand things better …
Well done Carasek, some solid references at last. Fahim, it didn’t take me half an hour to look up those paras in a few translations.
The fact of the matter is that Mohammed was a man of his time. The problems start when people try to apply 5th century social organization to the 20th.
BTW i want to point out few things here,
1. If you think some one studied in a relegious school, then there are many girls madrasas and students get graduated as moulaviya (moulavi : male)
2. In those madrasas women leading prayers
3. Women not allowed to lead prayers but they can join prayers with males,. But its not a must to pray in mosques for women
4. Fatwa is not a giving ruling or exemptiön on their own. Its a process to find out what Quran and prophet told on a issue (or a similar situation). So any one can give fatwa as long as they know the subject. Hence a women too can do that.
ALL THESE THINGS HAPPENING EVRYWHERE INCLUDING SRI LANKA. You can verify it
That’s why I’m no longer a Catholic, Ruki. I only use the Church. I do. I’d like to be more Christian in nature, but without denomination, which is not happening either. I’ll read that article when I have some time.
What I meant was that lowly women who dont merit Buddhahood are expected to help protect an exalted (male) monk’s very weak hold on his chastity, by not even sitting next to him. It’s not about Buddhism, it’s about our society.
That’s why I’m not Catholic anymore, Ruki. I only use the Church. This I do. I’d like to be more Christian (without denomination), but that’s not happening either. I’m a sinner who’ll end up in hades with all the other interesting sinners. At least it wont be dull!
What I meant was that lowly women who dont merit Buddhahood were expected to help an exalted male monk maintain his weak hold on chastity, by jumping out of his way. Not about Buddhism, just our society.
That’s why I’m not Catholic anymore, Ruki. I only use the Church. This I do. I’d like to be more Christian (without denomination), but that’s not happening either. I’m a sinner who’ll end up in hades with all the other interesting sinners. At least it wont be dull!
What I meant was that lowly women who dont merit Buddhahood were expected to help an exalted male monk maintain his weak hold on chastity, by jumping out of his way. Not about Buddhism, just our society
What happened? This is for Jiminy.
Fahim, I have lived in 3 Muslim countries and traveled through several more. All of them had Mullahs in one form or another. And judging by all the news reports from other countries in the Arab world/Pakistan they also have Mullahs. You must rid yourself of the notion that non-Muslims have no idea about Islam.
A priesthood does not necessarily have to imply an organisation with a hierarchy. You could very well call someone who officiates at religious functions a ‘priest.’ Or someone whom the others (the lay people) revere and/or respect because of the exalted position they have in that religious practice. In any case Mullahs do have a position in Muslim societies that is exalted, and they are most certainly revered; they have the power to influence their followers, and they have the power to interpret their religion. For example, the Muslim on Muslim violence we see in Sri Lanka from time to time is the result of different Mullahs demonizing different groups of Muslims and inciting their followers to violence. Mullahs from the Salafi groups claim “grave worshiping” is shirk whereas Mullahs from the traditional sects of Islam in Sri Lanka would claim differently.
You certainly have no idea of Islam if you confuse Islam with what some Muslims do :) As I mentioned above several times, I’m talking about Islam – I cannot sepak for those who claim to be Muslims but do things which are not prescribed in Islam. There are many things that people who claim to be Muslims do (like killing innocents in the name of religions, making a huge brouhaha over things as if taking up arms for their religion instead of striving to be better people makes them martyrs etc.) that go against both the teachings of Islam and the example of the prophet. To say that this is representative of Islam, the religion, is just false.
You can argue about a priesthood as much as you like but usually, a priesthood is a connected organization of priests. Buddhist clergy are a prisesthood. Catholic priests are a priesthood. A poosari/poojari at a kovil can be a priest but I don’t believe he’s part of a priesthood since I don’t believe they have an organization for poosaris. They are simply selected by the community – or at least, that’s my impression. I do acknowledge that I might be wrong.
In the same sense, if you want to consider an Imam a priest, you can though it would still be wrong since an Imam doesn’t really perform the same functions as most priests do. But even if you do consider him a priest, there’s still no priesthood since the Imam too is usually selected by the local community and there is no greate organizaiton of Imams to create a priesthood.
And that’s leaving aside the fact that Islam, the religion (not how people practice it in one country or several countries), does not have anything about priests. As I mentioned before, I believe this is intentional because people tend to become sheep when they are led. It’s better to think for yourself and find out how to practice your own religion. The sad thing is that a lot of Muslims prefer not to do this. But don’t blame the religion for that :)
“And note that people of all religions have done bad things in the name of their religion” – There’s a pretty obvious conclusion to make to that statement.
;)
Which one would that be? You might say “That means all religions are bad!” and I might say “People are bad and will pervert any good thing to their own ends.” So there’s at least two obvious conclusions there – and I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody else finds a third …
The reality is that morality does not spring out of religion unless you cherry pick scriptures. I’m not that familiar with Islam but am more familiar with Christianity. There is no morality in the bible, just a confused mish mash of various things including polygamy, sacrifcing children, etc, etc. I’m assuming it is a similar story with Islam.
At the end of the day religions are a human reaction to the unknown, which is what science is there for. Science certainly doesn’t have all the answers but it certainly has more than any religion. You can come up with whatever justifications you want but religion has been the cause of ignorance (blind faith is opposed to reason and research) and much suffering. The only way humanity will survive in the long term is if it grows up, discards these childish notions of a supreme power and human centric view of the world promoted by religions and realize that we are but a small part in a complex system.
*complex natural system, not the dumbed down version of the earth that is shown by most religions.
You’re entitled to your opinion and I do agree with you about one thing – ware are indeed a small part in a complex system. The only difference is that you believe science is at the core of the system and I believe that God created the system :) Scripture is a funny thing – people see what they want to see there. And I guess that in a way does justify your stance :p
But honestly, as long as people believe in something (whether it is science or God or whatever) that isn’t about harming other people, does it matter? I’ve studied most of the main religions (I won’t call myself an expert on them, mind you …) and I see good in all of them and I do believe religion can help a person be a better person. So long as we all learn to get along, that should be enough, right?
My point (which seems to have escaped you) is that your pompous comment that women can be imams and mullahs is totally absurd, given that the only people women are allowed to be imams and mullahs of is other women :D Whereas men are allowed to lead everybody. In a discussion of this nature, your anal retention of the fundamentals of Islam which run contrary to the everyday practices of the majority of Muslims is just plain silly. No one is arguing about scripture here; but rather how it is practiced. It is not scripture that is the great crime of religion, but the interpretation and practice of scripture. If you cannot see that that is the actual debate, you have very poor comprehension; or you’re blinkering yourself to the actual debate.
David, I’m not sure where I was being pompous but I’ll leave you to your opinion. If you read back, you will note that what I originally said was that there is no priesthood in Islam (note the words “priesthood” and “Islam”) – to which I got a several responses saying “Yes, there is because Muslims in some places do it”. Which isn’t what I said initially. Just because you (and others) want to equat practices in some places with Islam the religion doesn’t necessarily make it so. You might wish it was so but it isn’t :)
As far as any comment about women being Imams or Mullahs (your words, not mine) – I simply said that there is no proscription against women leading prayer. Which is the truth. Just because you want the practice (which is shaped by men) to be the religion (which according to my belief) comes from God, doesn’t mean that I have to accept your view that the practice of some equals the religion. Doesn’t matter how many times you might repat it, it just isn’t so :)
And to say that the interpretation and practice of religion is the great crime of religion again seems to imply that the religion is at fault for how it is interpreted or practiced. Given that a religion is a set of rules (or guidelines or laws depeding on the religion) and the people who interpret it are humans, how exactly do you come to the conclusion that the fault lies with the religion?
Lol, a religion isn’t just what is written in scripture, Fahim. I’m surprised you seem not to understand that. A religion is as much in its practice as in its doctrine. If it were only scripture that defined Christianity, the Roman Catholics wouldn’t even be considered Christian. So you cannot ignore what the vast majority of adherents practice in favour of what is written down. If that were the case, you would have to take the Quran’s commands to kill apostates and adulterers and other sundry sinners as the be-all and end-all of Islam. Is that what you’re saying? This is as absurd as taking the Bible’s command to kill homosexuals as the true Christianity and not the tolerance practiced worldwide by the vast majority of Christians. I hope you will address these points instead of pondering on my mindset and other irrelevances.
For some reason the comments are not nesting in the proper threads, but will try again:
My point (which seems to have escaped you) is that your pompous comment that women can be imams and mullahs is totally absurd, given that the only people women are allowed to be imams and mullahs of is other women :D Whereas men are allowed to lead everybody. In a discussion of this nature, your anal retention of the fundamentals of Islam which run contrary to the everyday practices of the majority of Muslims is just plain silly. No one is arguing about scripture here; but rather how it is practiced. It is not scripture that is the great crime of religion, but the interpretation and practice of scripture. If you cannot see that that is the actual debate, you have very poor comprehension; or you’re blinkering yourself to the actual debate.
If someone is paid or compensated for their time and/or efforts, it is a job. And the job is that of a priest. You can call him a mullah, poosari, reverend, or whatever, but it’s still a priest. Not sure why you have difficulty in admitting this, Fahim, but perhaps it’s the only point available to defend.
Again, you seem to see only the part where *some* Imams are paid. Most are not. So does that mean that those who are not paid are also doing a job and so it has to be that of a priest? And again, note I did not dispute the “priest” part – I did mention somewhere in there that if you want to call an Imam a priest, fine, up to you. But that still doesn’t make the Imams a part of a priesthood nor does it mean that the paid position of Imam as priest is prescribed/sanctioned by Islam.
Islam, the religion, does not have priests and that’s what you seem to have a hard time accepting because that goes against what you want to believe :)
It is not SOME Muslims, Fahim. It is the MAJORITY of Muslims. Can you show us ANY MUslim community that allows women to be mullahs and imams in charge of men? There is no evidence of that. This debate is NOT about what the scripture says, but about what the adherents of Islam (or any other religion) are actually doing; ie rioting, making nasty movies, going on crusades, etc. Thee is no debate on the scripture; all you need do is open the books and read.
If you were to say a majority of Mulsims do not allow women to lead prayers, yes, I would agree with you. But that was not what was stated – what was stated was that “Islam does not allow women to leade prayers”. And that just isn’t true. I cannot speak for other Muslims, but I certainly can speak for Islam. And while I would be accused of nitpicking or splitting hairs, the difference is significant to me.
If we can agree that there’s a difference between Islam and what some Muslims might do, then I don’t think we have an argument :)
Fine, so let’s say the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not allow women to have the same rights as men. Glad we cleared that up.
You seem confused. First you say: “And again, note I did not dispute the “priest” part – I did mention somewhere in there that if you want to call an Imam a priest, fine, up to you,” then go on to say: “Islam, the religion, does not have priests”.
Whether Islam has priests or not doesn’t matter in the least to me, so don’t derail the debate into commenting on what I want to believe. Let’s stick to the facts. Islam allows its followers to choose imams and mullahs to lead prayer, preach scripture, and advise on religious and social matters, administer property used for religious ceremonies, etc. Please explain how this is different from what a priest in Christianity or Hinduism does with regard to what defines a priest.
Once we settle that, we can move on to what a collection of such Islamic priests are to be called.
You say “Islam allows its followers to choose imams and mullahs to lead prayer, preach scripture, and advise on religious and social matters, administer property used for religious ceremonies, etc.” – can you please show me where in Islam it is said that an Imam is a spirtiual leader who preaches scripture, advices on religious and social matters, administers property etc.? There is no such provision that I’m aware of. An Imam is simply somebody who leads prayer. Anybody can do it if they know what is needed to lead prayer. I have done it myself on occassion. Does that mean that I’m a priest and that everybody should listen to me and I can make pronouncements about Islam and how it is to be followed by others? Not really … There is no such authority granted to any person by Islam, the religion.
You seem to believe that just because some people, give such powers to certain individuals, that this has to be part of Islam. And becasue you can’t let go of that notion, we keep going round and round in circles :)
“can you please show me where in Islam it is said that an Imam is a spirtiual leader who preaches scripture, advices on religious and social matters, administers property etc.? There is no such provision that I’m aware of.”
So are you saying that the preaching of scripture by imams and mullahs, the giving of advice, and the administration of religious affairs is un-Islamic?
“Anybody can do it if they know what is needed to lead prayer. I have done it myself on occassion.”
So are you an imam?
“There is no such authority granted to any person by Islam, the religion.”
Which brings us back to the point on whether religion is just its doctrine, or whether it is made up of both its doctrine and its practices. I believe it to be the latter. It is an unfortunate reality for those attempting to justify the evils of religion, because it prevents one from simply quoting scripture and ignoring reality. For example when Martin Luther protested against the Christian church and split away, his issue wasn’t based just on doctrine; he essentially accepted the same scriptures; but what he took issue with was the practices of the Christians. It was for this reason that Protestantism can have the same scripture as the Roman Catholics but with a different interpretation and practice, and be almost a different religion. It is your inability to understand this which is taking us in circles. This is an abstract concept, and you need to grasp it instead of accusing me of having negative notions of Islam. Ad hominem reasoning just shows you to be loading your bases in the face of defeat.
“So are you saying that the preaching of scripture by imams and mullahs, the giving of advice, and the administration of religious affairs is un-Islamic?”
That would require me to pass judgement on how somebody else decides to practice Islam wouldn’t it? As I’ve said before, Islam is meant to be followed by each person by understanding what Islam is. So if some people decided to be lazy and follow the advice of somebody else insteead of thinking for themselves, it would depend on what they follow the advice on as to whether it is un-Islamic. If they do something good, that would be within the bounds of Islam. If they follow the advice and kill somebody or do something bad, that would be un-Islamic. How is one to say that simply the fact of following somebody else’s advice is un-Islamic? That takes up back to being un-enlightened people as you seem to accuse a lot of Muslims of being :)
So are you an imam?
I was an Imam when leading prayer. An Imam isn’t a position that you get granted for a lifetime or while you wear the cassock or whatever. It is basically “prayer leader” for the duration of prayer. But you (and others) seem to think that this grants you some sort of Islamic authority beyond leading prayer. And that is not correct. But you won’t take my word for that, will you? :)
Which brings us back to the point on whether religion is just its doctrine, or whether it is made up of both its doctrine and its practices.
A religion is what it was originally preached to be. If people take the religion and add in their own practices, then that is no longer the original religion, is it? You might think that Muslims define Islam but then which Muslims do you take to define Islam? I am a Muslim, I believe in the rights of women, I believe in the rights of other religions to practice their own religion, I believe in not harming any other human beings. All of this comes from my belief in Islam. Does that mean that I define Islam? If so, then all your arguments fall by the wayside.
But you seem to argue based on the theory that what the majority practices is Islam. I am not quite sure even about this since how do you count the majority? Do you count what is highlighted in the news as the majority? Do you count what you know as the majority? Do you actually take statistics into account? I am certain each one would give you a differnent profile for Islam.
“That would require me to pass judgement on how somebody else decides to practice Islam wouldn’t it?”
No, it would require you to take a stand. You have already passed judgement on what IS Islam; so why now shy away from stating what isn’t? If you feel unqualified on the latter, how are you qualified on the former?
“As I’ve said before, Islam is meant to be followed by each person by understanding what Islam is.”
My point exactly, that a religion is defined also by how it is interpreted. Ie in its practice. Thank you for acknowledging that. This debate would be far more straightforward and honest if you would do so from the outset instead of wriggling until trapped.
“So if some people decided to be lazy and follow the advice of somebody else insteead of thinking for themselves, it would depend on what they follow the advice on as to whether it is un-Islamic.”
But if each person should decide for themselves, why have mullahs and imams to advise and preach? Why have any discussion or interpretation?
“If they do something good, that would be within the bounds of Islam. If they follow the advice and kill somebody or do something bad, that would be un-Islamic. “
But if the Quran commands its followers to kill apostates and adulterers, and an imam or mullah interprets it more tolerantly, should the common Muslim then follow the Quran and kill or be lazy and follow the interpretation? And if he followed the Quran and killed, would he then be within the bounds of Islam, given that you have declared above that to kill would be outside those bounds?
“How is one to say that simply the fact of following somebody else’s advice is un-Islamic?”
Where have I said such a thing? My question to you was, if Islam doesn’t tell Muslims to have preachers and teachers, is it un-Islamic to have them? You seem unable to make a decision on this. Is it that you just don’t know? If you don’t, that’s fine; no one can know everything about a faith, but it will be useful if you’re honest.
“But you (and others) seem to think that this grants you some sort of Islamic authority beyond leading prayer. And that is not correct. But you won’t take my word for that, will you?”
Rather than add smiley faces, it would be better if you could show me where I have said anything of the sort. I just asked you a simple question. Why so defensive? I also pointed out that Islamic leaders lead, preach, advise, and administer. This is a fact, is it not? I then asked you to explain how this is different from priests of other religions, since you have a problem defining Islamic leaders as priests.
“A religion is what it was originally preached to be.”
Who knows what it was originally preached to be? We have scriptures written down by men, copied and transcribed over generations and centuries.
” If people take the religion and add in their own practices, then that is no longer the original religion, is it?”
Why are you talking about “original” religion? Religions change over time. In the timeof the prophet it was preached that apostates and adulterers must be killed. So to not do so, would be an “added practice” of tolerance, would it not? Therefore, are you saying that anyone who doesn’t believe in killing the aforementioned isn’t following the “original” (I assume you mean “true”) Islam? Or would you now duck this too by claiming to be unqualified to judge the practices of others? ;) Do you believe in killing the aforementioned, since you claim to be a Muslim, and the “original” religion preaches that? Or have you “added practices” such as tolerance for adultery, apostasy, homosexuality, etc?
“I am a Muslim, I believe in the rights of women”
So do you attend a mosque that allows women to exercise that right of equality and have the same role as men in a religious context?
“Does that mean that I define Islam?”
It would, if you were the only Muslim. But your definition of Islam must be taken alongside that of all other Muslims. Since I’m sure you’re not saying that your definition is the best one. But you must also see that your definition of what the practices of Islam must be, do not fall into that necessarily preached at the time the religion was formed and preached. But Islam today is a combination of that scriptural teaching and your practices, the latter tempered by your intelligence, culture, environment, etc.
“But you seem to argue based on the theory that what the majority practices is Islam.”
Where have I said such a thing? What I did say was that the scriptural doctrine of Islam together with the practice of Muslims defines what Islam is today. A religion is more than a book.
But my question is, “What’s that got to do with it?” I never disputed that. A majority of men anywhere don’t want women to have the same rights as them. If you think otherwise, then you’re more deluded than you think I am :) But that comes not from religion but because humanity seems to thrive on lording it over somebody, in subjugating someone. That’s the pure and simple truth.
” A majority of men anywhere don’t want women to have the same rights as them.”
What’s that got to do with it? We aren’t talking about men everywhere; we’re talking about believers of a particular religion, in this case Islam, who in the 21st Century, absolutely do not allow women to be in any position of religious leadership over me. It’s absolute, unless you can show us some instances where women hold such positions. Therefore it is pretty easy to conclude that male chauvinism is far higher than the global average. Why is that, Fahim?
“If you think otherwise, then you’re more deluded than you think I am”
Oh, I never said you were deluded. I believe you are being intellectually deceitful in your defense of Islam.
I think it is a misinterpretation when people say a woman cannot be a bhuddha, because in Pali language what Buddha has said was a Kantha cannot be a buddha. Kantha is referred to a person who doesnt have the mental ability (wiseness) to become a buddha – a one who attains full enlightenment. I dont know how and when; but languages evolved and in sinhalese the word Kantha is referred to females.
So a Kantha can be a male or female.
I read this in somewhere and I feel this may be possible.
What it’s got to do here David is the fact that you keep confusing the believers of a religion with the religion itself :) Just because somebody claims to be a Muslim doesn’t make it so that they actually follow the teachings of Islam. Islam doesn’t say anything about a woman not being able to lead prayer. And since there is no religious leadership in Islam, your statement “, absolutely do not allow women to be in any position of religious leadership over me” (I assume you meant “men” rather than “me”) makes no sense.
But since we’ve gone several rounds on this with you landing back at “Islam doesn’t allow women to lead prayer” (or something along the same veins) and me saying “Islam says no such thing” and then you following up with “But Muslims don’t allow women to lead prayer..” we get nowhere.
According to you:
Muslims = Islam
While this should be the case, it just isn’t so. Neither is that the case for Christians, or Buddhists or anybody. A lot of people of each faith do not follow the precepts of their religion, they just follow what’s convenienti and make up the rest. That is not the fault of the religion. This is simply the point I’ve been making over and over again.
I have no need to be intellecutally deceitful. In fact, I’m not quite sure how you can be intellectually deceitfiul since if you are being intellectual, my personal opinion is that you have to speak in terms of truth. But perhaps you mean that I’m being a sophist? If so, I’d say that that’s a different kettle of fish but that’s also a different argument :)
“What it’s got to do here David is the fact that you keep confusing the believers of a religion with the religion itself”
No, that’s your assumption. I have repeated this several times, but I will do it again for the record, since you are arguing from an assumption. What I said was that doctrine/scripture and the practices of the believers define the religion.
“Just because somebody claims to be a Muslim doesn’t make it so that they actually follow the teachings of Islam. “
Of course not, but on the point of women being able to lead prayer, I asked you to give us an example of it, so that we could see at least ONE Muslim obeying the Quaran in this matter.
“And since there is no religious leadership in Islam, your statement “, absolutely do not allow women to be in any position of religious leadership over me” (I assume you meant “men” rather than “me”) makes no sense.”
Yes, I’m glad to see you’re paying attention to syntax. If only you would pay equal attention to the debate ;) And this was my original quote, which you conveniently truncated to make finding a response easier: “we’re talking about believers of a particular religion, in this case Islam, who in the 21st Century, absolutely do not allow women to be in any position of religious leadership over me.” This is what I mean about intellectual deceit (which you self-flatteringly call sophistry, which it is not). Please don’t be dishonest and misquote me. So my point is that NO Muslims anywhere allow women to be in positions of religious leadership. I hope you are able to read and comprehend English. Instead of misquoting me and then saying it makes no sense.
“But since we’ve gone several rounds on this with you landing back at “Islam doesn’t allow women to lead prayer” (or something along the same veins) and me saying “Islam says no such thing” and then you following up with “But Muslims don’t allow women to lead prayer..” we get nowhere.”
Again, I would urge you to comprehend what’s being said to you instead of skimming over it and claiming you don’t understand. I have asked you repeatedly to show us where on this planet Muslim women are allowed to be in positions of religious leadership over men as the Quran permits (or rather you claim). You are unable to do so. I have then asked you if it is un-Islamic to thus disallow this. You then fudge it and claim a lack of qualification :D
“According to you:
Muslims = Islam”
Repeating nonsense won’t make it true, Fahim. What I said was Scripture + Practice = Religion. Do you get it now, or would you prefer a cartoon? ;)
“A lot of people of each faith do not follow the precepts of their religion, they just follow what’s convenienti and make up the rest. That is not the fault of the religion. This is simply the point I’ve been making over and over again.”
Lol, how can a religion be faulted? It is an inanimate thing; a belief system, a doctrine, created by human beings thousands of years ago. Are you suggesting that the people who told us not to eat pork and to slay the Caananites man, woman, and child somehow have more credence than we do today? Do you believe in killing adulterers, or do you believe in tolerance? Do you do so because that is convenient, or because you are rational?
“I have no need to be intellecutally deceitful.”
I cannot speak for what your needs are, but can only point out your acts, such as misquoting me. As I said, don’t worry yourself about motive, but focus on the debate.
“Of course not, but on the point of women being able to lead prayer, I asked you to give us an example of it, so that we could see at least ONE Muslim obeying the Quaran in this matter.”
Just to clarify since you accuse me of misquoting you, I did not claim anywhere that the Qur’an says anything about women leading men in prayer. If you go back and check, you will note that what I said was that as far as I know there is no *prohibition*. And I can give you an instance where the prophet himself installed a woman as the Imam of her household. But I assume that would not satisfy you since you want an example from today?
And how exactly do you prpose I do that? :) If I knew of somebody like that today, this wouldn’t be a discussion as to what Muslims *generally* do vs. what Islam permits would it? I keep saying Islam has no prohibitions and you keep saying show me some Muslims who do so now. And you accuse me of intellectual deceit? :)
As far as your claims that I’m misquoting you, my apologies if you think that that was what I intended. Your quote in question is: ““we’re talking about believers of a particular religion, in this case Islam, who in the 21st Century, absolutely do not allow women to be in any position of religious leadership over me.” And since I’ve said multiple times that my assertions are about Islam and not about what some (or even most) Muslims do, I did not see any relevance to requoting that entire section. The relevant point there is that there is no religious leadership, so what exactly are we going round and round in circles about?
“Repeating nonsense won’t make it true, Fahim. What I said was Scripture + Practice = Religion. Do you get it now, or would you prefer a cartoon? ;)
Yes, let’s have the cartoon, perhaps that’ll help me see what you mean when you say scripture + practice = Religion. As far as I can see you’re saying Qur’an + people who practice it (Muslims) = Islam (in this particular context), true enough? (I mean from your perspective?)
If so, you’re basically saying what people practice is equivalent to the religion, am I correct?
And that still doesn’t explain how you equate Islam (which I practice) with the Islam that most of these other Muslims you take to be the posterchildren for Islam practice. Can you explain that to me? :)
Lol, how can a religion be faulted?
And isn’t this exaclty what I’ve been saying all along? You seemed to imply that the religion somehow has to enforce people behaving according to the precepts of the religion. If women were not allowed to lead prayer by men, then somehow the religion was supposed to police this – at least, that’s what I got from your argument. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Fahim – I’ll post at this point as it’s easier to scroll to the bottom than find a comment in the middle now! If you wish, I could continue the conversation via email, but others may be interested, too.
I appreciate that you are willing to engage in debate, you seem to be very level headed and not prone to anger and that you have thought about the issues a lot. These things I think are rare in the world of blog comments, especially regarding religion. However, what I don’t quite accept is the following point (that you have indeed made a number of times!):
“A lot of people of each faith do not follow the precepts of their religion, they just follow what’s convenienti and make up the rest. That is not the fault of the religion. This is simply the point I’ve been making over and over again.”
This point is, of course, true to some extent. But it’s also inadequate when you look at the discrimination and violence implicit in much of the Old Testament, some of the New Testament and a good deal of the Koran. I mentioned Surah 4:34 because it’s a very common passage that is very difficult to defend for devout Muslims who (a) don’t think men are better than women, (b) don’t think that women must be obedient and (c) don’t agree that women should be beaten under any circumstances. I have read scholarly justifications for it, but none have been convincing and all have been grabbing at straws to try to explain away the words used.
You seek to defend your religion by saying that ‘Muslim’ does not equate to ‘Islam’ and back this up by saying, “how other people practice Islam sometimes is totally different from how the prophet himself behaved”. Yet there is no contemporaneous evidence for how the Prophet Mohammed behaved, indeed there’s even no historical evidence for the early years after the birth of Islam itself (Channel4 produced an interesting documentary on this recently). No, for information on how the Prophet Mohammed behaved and how he commanded others to behave one has to go to the Hadith, which are (a) not contemporaneous and (b) not consistent. The religion comprises the Koran and (depending on what sect you’re from) certain numbers of Hadith, so in fact it is the ‘religion’s fault’ that Islamic practice is open to considerable interpretation.
Beyond this, though, it’s curious that you won’t take the little time to look up the few passages that I did quote above, as you profess to be a follower of Islam not by practicing what millions do, but by following the scriptures. I have read most of the Old Testament (and was mostly horrified), most of the New Testament (and was partly horrified, mostly bemused with how inconsistent it is) and most of the Koran (which was wonderful and terrifying at the same time). As an atheist to a religious person, I encourage you to read these texts in full (and via horizontal chronology for the New Testamant). To paraphrase Hitchens (and others), it’s not what I didn’t understand that upset me, it’s what I did understand.
To ignore the horrible, violent parts of the scriptures is to be dishonest and fraudulent. I know a great many wonderful, kind and peaceful Christians and Muslims who are simply unable to explain away the nasty parts of their religions. For example (as I referenced above), how can one have a religion of peace and love that demands apostates to suffer a dreadful penalty (Koran) and execution (Hadiths)? Any religion which demands such vicious punishment for any follower who no longer believes in the religion has a lot of explaining to do.
Sam Harris is a great thinker, has written great books and is well represented on the internet. I encourage you to hear him out, though bearing in mind Surah 16:106 it’s very important for your safety that you do not allow your mind to be convinced by his arguments. Here’s one of his remarks, apt for this moment:
“Cherry-picking is a good thing and it’s to be hoped that Muslims will eventually cherry-pick as well. But the Qur’an, virtually on every page, is a manifesto for religious intolerance. I invite readers of your website who haven’t read the Qur’an to simply read the book. Take out a highlighter and highlight those lines that counsel the believer to despise infidels, and you will find a book that is just covered with highlighter.”
Thank you for the thoughtful response – I appreciate discussing this kind of point in a way where neither party has to be antagonistic :) It was early morning here when I read your post (might have been around 5:30am) and I really did not have the time to look up the verses. I still have not looked them up – I should have, no excuse for that. Will do so and respond at length perhaps tomorrow since I do believe in Islam and believe that quite often certain parts of the Qur’an are taken out of context. Not saying that this is the case with the verses you mentioned, just that that’s what I’ve gotten in the past especially with the “Kill the infidel” verse that everybody (both Muslims and non-Muslims alike) appear to be so fond of quoting :)
The religion comprises the Koran and (depending on what sect you’re from) certain numbers of Hadith, so in fact it is the ‘religion’s fault’ that Islamic practice is open to considerable interpretation.
I don’t agree with that interpretation but let’s agree to disagree on that one :) I believe that like Abou Ben Adam, a Muslim’s first precept is to love his fellow human beings. If God made all of us, then we should first of all be kind to our fellow humans. So anything that people preach as part of religion that goes against that, I view with suspicion.
Yes, there are conflicting things in most religions if you look at historical events. The Muslims did go to battle against those who opposed them. So some say “holy war” is the path. But they don’t look to see what led to the battles, what the situation was for each battle. Just because they had battles against the non-believers does not mean that you have to battle non-believers today. That is my belif.
Sure there are plenty of Muslims who’ll quote verses from the Qur’an about “Beware the Christians and the Jews” and so on. But those verses again were revealed for a specific situation. So if you read about the events that led to the revelation of that verse and take the verses in context, you realize that these are not general guidelines.
This is not to say there aren’t violent parts to the scriptures. There are. But the question is do those apply to how you conduct your life daily? Or did those apply to a specific event?
I won’t know about the verses you mentioned till I look them up. Will respond once I have actually done so :)
Thanks, Fahim. No need to specifically answer each or indeed any referenced verse, but it would be good if you at least read them and thought about them yourself.
Yours are valid questions indeed, but they highlight the problem – if part of an ancient text was written for a time, but not for all time (so it has to be read in context) then your position demands interpretation of scripture.
Some say there can be no interpretation other than what the scripture provides. This is a major problem with the Old Testament as most of it is completely mad. Just read it if you doubt this statement. It gets a bit better for the New Testament, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of contradictions which makes the task tricky. The Koran is categorical – there may be no interpretation, save where a passage written later contradicts one written earlier (so god made a mistake?), see at 2:85, 18:27, 2:106, 16:101 and elsewhere.
Strict adherents to the Abrahamic faiths would likely see anyone who thinks differently as a non-believer, or at best one who has to be brought back to the right path, and there are severe consequences for being a non-believer. This is disproportionately important in the Koran, where are many, many sections devoted to bad things being done to non-believers (as well as some tolerance thereof). Others will say that it is open to interpretation, look to a Hadith and then demand that all others follow that interpretation. Again, they will likely see anyone who disagrees as a non-believer. Others still will say that one has to go to an Islamic scholar for advice as to the correct interpretation and so on. What you get is lots of interpretations and everyone saying that the others are not following the ‘true’ faith.
No wonder imams and mullahs have sprung up all over the place. With more people than ever following the faith, and certain sects following the faith differently from others, large enough sects demand guidance and justification for their particular form of religious practice, each sect confident that the others are just not quite practicing the faith properly. This has led to the death of hundreds of thousands in places like Iraq, where competing visions of Islam somehow justify people blowing up completely innocent people, all of them ostensibly considering themselves Muslims.
At least I prefer your version, Fahim – preach love and be suspicious of anything that contravenes loving others – even if I don’t accept that can be squared with any of the Abrahamic faiths.
Still haven’t gone through the verses, just waking up here but will do so sometime today. But wanted to address this quickly:
Yours are valid questions indeed, but they highlight the problem – if part of an ancient text was written for a time, but not for all time (so it has to be read in context) then your position demands interpretation of scripture.
Sorry, I didn’t mean that the text had to be interpreted in the context of the times, I meant the text had to be taken as a whole – not just that particular verse. For example, a friend of mine who was a non-Muslim, who was curious how I reconciled Islam’s (as he saw it) bloodthirsty exhortations to kill the infidels, sent me a bunch of verses from the Qur’an which said just that in various forms – “kill the unbelievers”.
I went through each of them and in each case, the verse was a part of a specific situation like where the Muslims were about to go to battle and a verse was revealed which indeed said “kill the unbelievers” as you face them in battle etc. If you take that verse alone, yes, it says “kill the unbelievers” but if you read the whole surah it becomes clear that it was about this particular incident. So as far as I can see, there shouldn’t be an confusion – if you think about the whole thing based on what you know of Islam.
Of course, there are many Muslims who take the same verses and say that they should be killing infidels. But that only means that they don’t really understand Islam themselves, nor have they bothered to.
The prophet has shown by his actions that he didn’t kill the infidels just for being infidels. He dealt fairly and justly with people of other religions. And I know you mentioned the fact that there is no contemporaneous evidence for how the prophet behaved. But would it makes sense for a bloodthirsty people to make up behaviour for somebody where that person was merciful and just? Wouldn’t it make better sense, if the later accounts were either fictional or not quite accurate, to portray him as having been harsh with infidels? So that leads me to believe that his actions (which were merciful and just even by today’s standards) exemplify Islam and that’s the path I should follow.
That’s my reasoning, at least :)
There is a very simple metaethical problem with god given morality that was obvious to even the ancient Greek philosophers, which religions just can’t answer.
Suppose morality comes from god, that god is the source of morality. Or suppose that there is a morality external to god, of which the god knows. Why is it moral for humans to be moral?
If this is not clear, replace morality with law. There is a law that states killing people is illegal. But what law makes that law legal?
If it’s still not clear, consider this. There’s an alien who doesn’t know about rationality. They are irrational creatures. How are you going to persuade him to be rational? Whatever your arguments are, the process by which they become convinced in rationality is not rational.
Buddhism doesn’t answer the question at all. The answer to the question why is it immoral to kill a man isn’t otherwise you’ll go to hell, just like the answer to why is the law that states killing people is illegal, is legal, isn’t otherwise you’ll go to jail.
So again, why is it moral to be moral?
Jeez, I’m totally going to write a five thousand word long post on this
My apologies but I’m afraid that I haven’t had any time to go through all the verses today – it’s been a rather hectic day for me :) But since you mentioned verse 4:34 several times I did look it up quickly. I can see how it would look if you take the words as “commandments” or “rules”. But they aren’t. The Qur’an is a lot of things – it’s at times a historical account, at times it’s advice on how to live your life, and at times, it’s laws that you have to follow and obey. If you take everything in the Qur’an as commandments, I now see for the first time (and I’m being honest here) how others might see Islam the way they seem to.
Mind you, this is just my first impressions on reading the verse and the translation. I would need to look up what others have said about the same verse, try to verify if the meaning of certain words have the same connotation in English etc. But if you start out with the knowledge (I’m speaking as a Muslim, and for myself alone here) that God wants to be the best person you can be and that the greatest gifts he’s given you (besides the Qur’an and the example of the prophet) is free will and a brain, I don’t think it’s too hard to figure out what my course of action with regards to that verse should be.
The prophet never struck any of his wives. In fact, it’s known that he never even said an unkind word to his servants. When I have that knowledge, I know that verse 4:34 is advice – you can do as the verse suggests, or I can try a different approach that feels right to me. It is not something that I *must* follow. That’s my opinion :)
I’m not entirely sure I agree with the suggestion there was a fair and just treatment of ‘infidels’ – there were different tax rates, for example, even in peaceful times. Further, as Islam was an extremely expansionist ideology, the wars and battles fought were largely on the offensive (i.e. aggressive, not defensive), so one would have to take a lot more into context than simply dismiss these very many passages as merely pre-war speeches. Besides, why not just leave the infidels alone and not go and kill them?
However, it doesn’t matter much if we agree on whether the tenants of Islam are based on mercy (which can of course be a patronising concept employed by the winners of expansionist wars) or justice (this term is ideological and does not have a universal definition). There are contradictory passages about slavery, for example, but no outright prohibition, which seems odd for a just religion. One cannot eat a pig, but one is permitted to keep a slave? How just are the Abrahamic faiths to homosexuals? If god had meant to say that you must ‘beat your wife lightly’ in Surah 4:34, why wouldn’t he have said just that? Why does he not say it’s never permitted to beat your wife? I could go on, for the examples are plentiful.
I fear on many of these aspects the fundamentalists are more accurate in their understanding than the apologists. In my view, a kind person who wishes to do well by others needs no religion at all and might do well not to propagate any religion where terrible things are easily justified according to either instruction or straightforward interpretation.
You would think that a diving being who took the trouble to create a whole world (of course the solar system is not mentioned) would at least take the trouble to write a clear manual to stop terrible things being done in his/her/its name? Personally though I would love to see how anyone can explain away these lines from what is considered god’s word: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
Look I’m sure you’re a nice person, as Carasek mentioned you are a fairly reasonable sounding chap. But I know plenty of people like you, good, honest people who were just unfortunate enough to be born to a religious family and buy into the doctrine. If you were born into a christian family you would be arguing from that angle, so I find religion to be rather pointless looking at it from that angle.
The issue with your central argument of us just getting along is that is not how it works in practice. If everybody practiced their religions privately and kept things to themselves then yes the world would be fine and dandy but the reality of it is that religion has stood in the way of science and learning about the world around us for millennia. What I really find amusing is when religious people cherry pick science the way they cherry pick their religions. For example evolution is bad, but antibiotics are good. If people really believed in divinity then they should roundly reject all that science has to offer from medicine to the internet. I am yet to meet people who will follow through on their beliefs that thoroughly.
P.S. science is not the opposite of religion, science can be used for good and evil but doesn’t claim to provide any kind of moral compass unlike religion absurdly does.
@Realist
Personally though I would love to see how anyone can explain away these lines from what is considered god’s word
I did look at some (not all) of the things from the list for the Qur’an and I what I can tell you is that some of it is taken out of context or the list seems to paraphrase some things changing the meaning slightly in the process. Am I denying those verses exist? No, of course not. But you do have to read the whole thing, read the discussions about each verse to understand what is going on. Remember, this is an English translations of an Arabic text. And this is where I again mention that it’s important to be exact :D A translation can lose the meaning totally if you use a word a with a slightly different connotation.
If you were born into a christian family you would be arguing from that angle, so I find religion to be rather pointless looking at it from that angle.
I read the bible before I read the Qur’an. I’ve studided Buddhism before I was taught Islam in school. So no, I’m not arguing because I was born into Islam but because I believe in it :)
The issue with your central argument of us just getting along is that is not how it works in practice. If everybody practiced their religions privately and kept things to themselves then yes the world would be fine and dandy …
(I’m leaving out the rest of the sentence not because I want to misquote you but because that isn’t relevant to what I wanted to say here). I agree that it doesn’t work that way in practic but I wish it did. None of us have to impose our religion on somebody else. Religion is a personal thing between you and your God. It should be you follow your beliefs, I follow mine and we all get along. Unfortunately, it isn’t. But I personally believe that it isn’t so because we are who we are – we want to group people together into “us” vs. “them”. That’s how we’ve always been. I hope we change but I see no signs of it happening any time soon …
What I really find amusing is when religious people cherry pick science the way they cherry pick their religions. For example evolution is bad, but antibiotics are good. If people really believed in divinity then they should roundly reject all that science has to offer from medicine to the internet.
Isn’t that assuming that everybody thinks that science and religion are opposed? I personally don’t think so. But getting into that argument is going to lead down a path where people (not necessarily you) bring up evoloution and whether I believe in it and how if I don’t believe in a part of science then I am rejecting all of science and so on :)
I’m not entirely sure I agree with the suggestion there was a fair and just treatment of ‘infidels’ – there were different tax rates, for example, even in peaceful times.
I’m not trying to refute you here but could you provide me with some references to the different tax rates and other differences in treatement of infidels? I want to read on this a bit more to understand and see how that jells with my understanding of Islam …
Besides, why not just leave the infidels alone and not go and kill them?
If we are speaking generally, then, my understanding and interpretation of Isalm is that we are supposed to do just that. Live and let live. And as far as the battles go, as far as I’m aware, the battles during the prophets time were all (most? I hesitate to say “all” without verifying this) defensive. The expansionist part I again lay at the door of humanity rather than religion since people have this tendency to foist their beliefs on others – sort of get them to join the club.
If god had meant to say that you must ‘beat your wife lightly’ in Surah 4:34, why wouldn’t he have said just that? Why does he not say it’s never permitted to beat your wife?
Because, obviously, there is no prohibition against beating your wife. I’m not saying that it’s a good thing to beat your wife but it isn’t prohibited and as you pointed out, the Qur’an does advice a husband to do that if found necessary. Does that mean that you *have to* beat your wife? No. It’s up to you to decide what course of action you want to take …
In my view, a kind person who wishes to do well by others needs no religion at all and might do well not to propagate any religion where terrible things are easily justified according to either instruction or straightforward interpretation.
But that would indicate that I want to propagate my religion :) I am not interested in propagating my religion. I will defend it, yes. But I don’t think I have to try and propagate my religion and get others to “join the club”. I believe people are free to do what they want to do, and what they want to believe. So I’m certainly not in the business of telling them “hey, join my religion it’s great!”. To me my religion is between myself and my God. That’s as far as it goes.
Which is why I normally don’t participate in these debates but every once in a while I like a discussion to see how other people see things. And this one certainly has been enlightening at least in one respect. Let’s leave it at that :)
“Because, obviously, there is no prohibition against beating your wife.”
Don’t you have a problem that the scripture doesn’t prohibit what is today a criminal act, and in fact encourages it? Your attempt to dismiss it by pointing out that one is not commanded to commit a crime, but simply permitted and encouraged to do so, flies in the face of your stand on Islam being moral.
Hi Fahim
I appreciate that you’re not trying to convert anyone here (!), and I suppose I am not trying to do the same. However, both Realist and David Blacker highlight pretty clear problems. I do understand that for you, the core of the faith is entirely positive. For me, if you have to do a lot of rationalisation, consider a great deal of wider context and not act on scripture literally, then that’s a recipe for bad things being done by those who don’t share your personal interpretation.
One matter that doesn’t leave much room for interpretation is this: what does the religion have to say about apostates (those who choose no longer to believe)? I’d be amazed if you can find a positive spin on that punishment (as I referenced above).
Happy to leave it at that, but as you asked for it, here’s one reference for the inequality of non-believers in Islam:
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-5.html