All Islams are not alike

[Vic]

A short witty article drawing surprising parallels:

Christian Wahhabists
Barbara Ehrenreich
http://www.progressive.org/0901/ehr0102.html

[Ezra]

Like the Protestants of the sixteenth century, the Islamic fundamentalists are a relatively new and innovative force on the scene. Wahhabism--the dour and repressive creed espoused by Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden, and other Islamic fundamentalists throughout the world--dates from only the mid-eighteenth century.

This paragraph shows how ignorant is this lady.
"Fundamentalists" goes back to 40 years after the death of Muhammad (i.e. around 750 ad). They weren't known by the same name, however, they assissinated Ali Ibn Abi Taleb who was the 3rd Khalifah for the Muslims. Things got even worst around 1000 a.d. when reformers like Ibn Rushd appeared and his ideas were of a great threatening to the religion-powered people (i.e. fundamentalists).

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Vic
A short witty article drawing surprising parallels:

Christian Wahhabists
Barbara Ehrenreich
http://www.progressive.org/0901/ehr0102.html

I think Ehrenreich is one of the more witty American columnists writing, and she has some good points, but this article seems a little glib. (I read a lot more of her stuff a few years ago, and my impression then was that she was excellent at pointing out problems but less solid on solutions.)

But back to the article. "Christian Wahhabists like Ashcroft " - not quite. I have a really hard time defending Ashcroft, but in this case I must do so (even if I choke). The fact is he is in no way suppressing freedom of thought and freedom of religion in America as is done in Saudi Arabia. He himself plays the piano and sings - both of which are forbidden by fundamentalist Islam. From what I've read, Ashcroft has no difficulty working with a staff with multiple beliefs (although some did complain of being encouraged to attend his prayer meetings). In other words, Ashcroft is nowhere near as draconian in action or belief as a Wahhabist. Undoubtedly Ehrenreich could find a tiny Christian sect that was so, but Ashcroft is not in it.

Another quote: One, represented by the Islamic and Christian fundamentalists--as well as by fascists and Soviet-style communists--is crabbed and punitive in outlook, committed to collectivist discipline, and dogmatically opposed to spontaneity and pleasure. -

Fundamentalist Islam clearly favors spontaneous pleasure (just not in this lifetime!.) In fact, though, many life pleasures are not forbidden to fundamentalist Muslims (at least male ones). No music, pornography, or alcohol - but that still leaves a few things. Even if somewhat discouraged, a man can have four wives, and be continually revolving dozens of women through the cycle of marriage and quick divorce (like the emir of Kuwait did). Luxuries are quite acceptable.

Fundamentalist Christians in the US manage to enjoy life a great deal, I think, despite various restrictions. (They, at least, get the music.) Counterexamples to this idea of no spontaneity and pleasure abound.

As for fascism and communism, of course the ultimate manifestation is something like Orwell's 1984 .

(I should also add that I really doubt there is any identifiable group that is 100% in favor of spontaneity and pleasure. The whole point of a society is to limit one's impulses. If you are a serious environmentalist, you will have severe restrictions placed on your lifestyle, etc.)

Ehrenreich does bring up a good point about Calvin not believing in a church-state divide. His execution of Servetus is still overlooked today by most people.

If as Max Weber indicates, Calvinism brought capitalism (I'm not sure I entirely agree with this), Wahhabism is certainly not likely to have any such effect.

The main point, though, is not whether Wahhabist Islam is functionally equivalent to Calvinism. Just because religious repression was the order of the day four hundred years ago in Europe does not lessen the ghastliness of Wahhabism.

In addition, Wahhabist Islam is not the only repressive form of Islam. Hanafi Islam is another stream of Sunni Islam that is repressive. There are others also.

What I would take from this article: focus on the repressive and dangerous aspects of an ideology, rather than its name.

(Edit to also add: I don't think Sufism was ever as prevalent as Roman Catholicism in their respective societies, by a long shot.)

[Vic]

A new discovery of mine: a rather queer site, striving to stress the difference between "good" and "bad" Islam: http://www.omdurman.org .
"Militant Islam" is an oxymoron, like "kosher pig."Simplistic, to put it mildly, which may be due to the fact that it seems to be associated with the Israeli settler movement (cf. the links).

[Mr. Pumps]

I guess all holy books (Koran, Torah, Bible) has verses in the them that are interpreted as hatred and feeling superior to others.

But Christians and Jews don't directly try to convert others by force,

[James]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
I guess all holy books (Koran, Torah, Bible) has verses in the them that are interpreted as hatred and feeling superior to others.

But Christians and Jews don't directly try to convert others by force,

And we don't kill non believers if they choose not to convert.
It's ok to build a Mosque next to a religous building but not for the religous building next to a Mosque! You tell me, what religion
is dangerous to our health?

[elke]

Originally posted by Vic
A new discovery of mine: a rather queer site, striving to stress the difference between "good" and "bad" Islam: http://www.omdurman.org . Simplistic, to put it mildly, which may be due to the fact that it seems to be associated with the Israeli settler movement (cf. the links).

It seems to me, they are on the right track for mass consumption: simple, short sentences, easy to understand "soundbites". A little more color and animation, or something like that, and this could be a winner! :)

[Ezra]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
I guess all holy books (Koran, Torah, Bible) has verses in the them that are interpreted as hatred and feeling superior to others.

But Christians and Jews don't directly try to convert others by force,

Have you read all these 3 books before saying that?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
I guess all holy books (Koran, Torah, Bible) has verses in the them that are interpreted as hatred and feeling superior to others.

But Christians and Jews don't directly try to convert others by force,

The Torah has the story of the Amalekites but that's about it and probably not a good case. Even Exodus doesn't have anything bad to say about the Egyptians, really. The Prophets make frequent reference to the evil of both Jews and non Jews but even they don't condemn the Babylonians generally. In fact Jeremiah is very sanguine about his own people and reserves his choicest criticism for them and not their captors. That's simply not mankind's role to play or within the grasp of his justice to meter out.

Furthermore there are numerous references to individuals like Jael who killed individuals (Sisera) for specific reasons (and Jael wasn't even Jewish) but again there is no blanket condemnation of a class or group. Maybe you could make a case in some of Judges, like the story of Samson but I think that's weak.

You have to go all the way back to Abraham's failure to find even a few righteous men in his search for Lot to get a sense of a whole tribe or group that is unworthy as opposed to criminally culpable.

By the way, from what I've studied of the Tao there isn't much reference to history or 'peoples' at all - that has been eliminated from the text and context on purpose.

[Mr. Pumps]

Originally posted by Ezra


Have you read all these 3 books before saying that?

Look around the Internet! there you will find Pro-Islamic sites mentioning quotes of the Bible and Torah.

Same for the Koran and Anti-Islamic sites.

[Ezra]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps


Look around the Internet! there you will find Pro-Islamic sites mentioning quotes of the Bible and Torah.

Same for the Koran and Anti-Islamic sites.

Mr. Pumps,

I don't care about what other says. YOU said "I guess all holy books (Koran, Torah, Bible) has verses in the them that are interpreted as hatred and feeling superior to others.", so I'm asking if YOU (YOU, not the people on the internet) read these books?

I don't mean to criticize you, but I don't think that looking around at opinions on the internet is sufficient to make a sound opinion.

[cerulean]

Ezra, I agree. You have to look at the text yourself and also look at what the commentators who belong to that religion say and then look to see how the ideas are implemented in practice.

[Micah]

Agreed, all antisemetic, antichristian, and antiislamic sites seem to exaggerate and take things out of context. They seem to put words into the mouths of people they don't even know about.