Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Yep, but salafi aren't. Catholics are the majority of Christians (if you count Orthodox), do you think that means you can take what some Catholics say and generalize it to Christianity?
No, there are exceptions to any rule. From my limited understanding of Islam there seems to be a preponderance of conservative and traditional muslims. When I looked at moderate or progressive Islam there was not a lot of information. Although the shift from conservative to liberal started in the 19th century I could not ascertain how much ground the liberals had gained and that there was even discord between liberal and progressive trains of thought. Hence my asking Aisha whether in her opinion there was a chance of liberalism overcoming conservatism.
No, there are exceptions to any rule. From my limited understanding of Islam there seems to be a preponderance of conservative and traditional muslims. When I looked at moderate or progressive Islam there was not a lot of information. Although the shift from conservative to liberal started in the 19th century I could not ascertain how much ground the liberals had gained and that there was even discord between liberal and progressive trains of thought. Hence my asking Aisha whether in her opinion there was a chance of liberalism overcoming conservatism.
Yes, there's a chance. But the big problem is that salafism is pretty much Saudi Arabia's brand of Islam (hence why it's also called Wahhabiyyah, after Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who first established the sect in Saudi Arabia in conjunction with the great-great-great grandfather of the current Saudi king). And since Saudi Arabia is both awash in vast oil wealth and has a stranglehold on the hajj by virtue of their control of Mecca, salafists have kind of a distorting influence on the rest of Islam when it comes to exporting their particular ultraconservative religious ideology outside Saudi Arabia and forcing the rest of Islam to conform to it.
Fun fact: the progressive reformers of the 19th century also called themselves salafiyyah, and for the same reason the Wahhabiyyah did: both groups believed that what they were doing was returning Islam to the way it was during the time of the salaf, the pious ancestors of the early days of Islam, as opposed to the rigid, arthritic orthodox Islam of the Ottoman Caliphate. That's why you'll see some academic sources talk about "reformist salafism" and "traditionalist salafism", though these days the term "salafiyyah" is used almost exclusively to refer to the Wahhabiyyah and their related ideological offshoots.
Qaradawi isn't "the head of the Muslim Brotherhood and a leading scholar of Sunni Islam". He's an ultraconservative outsider cleric who is the leading theological figure in the Islamist group known as the Muslim Brotherhood, a group whose Islamist goals and desire to impose conservative religious law proved so popular among Muslims that something like a third of Egypt's entire population took to the streets in protest against to get them booted from power barely a year into their control of the Egyptian government.
"Moderate Islam" covers a pretty wide variety of worldviews between "modernist liberal" and "jihadi". He's more moderate than some in many areas (he issued a fatwa against FGM/C, for instance, and one declaring the permissibility of American Muslims to participate in the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11), but more conservative than others in most other areas (he is, after all, the ultraconservative theologian of the Muslim Brotherhood).
Also, why the obsession in this thread about Salafism/Wahhabism?
That's why you'll see some academic sources talk about "reformist salafism" and "traditionalist salafism", though these days the term "salafiyyah" is used almost exclusively to refer to the Wahhabiyyah and their related ideological offshoots.
Well, today´s salafism rangers from the nutters who cut off a guy´s **** because he was holding hands with his girlfriend in public, to a preacher in Nigeria who was the most vocal Muslim opponent of Boko Haram until they murdered him and his family.
May I assume that the former are probably Wahhabiyyah and the latter probably closer to the reformist "back to the roots" movement?
Let me present you Hans Jansen, a retired scholar of Arabic and Islam, and a supporter of Geert Wilders. He was fourth on the list of Wilders' PVV party, and thus elected to the European Parliament. Monday night, he was a guest on the Dutch talk show Knevel & Van de Brink. The part where he is interviewed is between the markers. I transcribed a few parts; I'll put the Dutch in spoiler tags to put the length of the post down.
First, Jansen is asked why he has changed his views since the early 2000s and now thinks Islam is a danger to Dutch society. He explains that since then, there has been a surge in what he calls "professional muslims".
10:30 min.:
Knevel: Waarom zijn die beroepsmoslims gevaarlijk?
Jansen: Omdat ze de Sharia willen invoeren, en onder de Sharia heeft iemand die geen moslim is geen rechten. Daar valt verder niets aan te nuanceren.
Knevel: Why are these professional Muslims dangerous?
Jansen: Because they want to introduce Sharia, and under Sharia, a non-Muslim has no rights. There is no nuance to that.
I'll leave it to the more knowledgeable poster to fill in the details, but I'm sure that Jansen is lying off his ass here.
Then we get to the topic of Le Pen. Wilders' PVV party takes part in a European political alliance with various other parties, notably the Belgian Vlaams Belang ("Flemish Interest") and the French Front Nationale (FN). Though domestically, the FN under leadership of daughter Marine le Pen has tried to sound less extreme, father Jean-Marie le Pen still wields considerable influence in the party, and he is MEP (member of the European Parliament). The last part of the interview deals exclusively with this. Inside the spoilers is full Dutch transcript, with the translated parts color-coded.
16:30 min.:
V.d. Brink: Een ding dat vaak gezegd wordt is dat de PVV gaat samenwerken met het Front Nationale van Marine le Pen, maar ook van haar vader. Hoe ziet u dat voor zich? U kunt naast hem in de bankjes komen zitten.
Jansen: Nou, ik heb op Google opgezocht, of op internet opgezocht wat hij nou precies gezegd heeft.
V.d. Brink: Gaat u dat relativeren?
Jansen: Ik raad iedereen aan om dat ook te doen om te kijken...
V.d. Brink: We hebben dat gedaan. Moet ik het voorlezen?
Jansen: Ja doe maar. V.d. Brink: Ik zeg niet dat de gaskamers niet hebben bestaan. Ik heb ze niet gezien, ik heb de vraag ook niet specifiek bestudeerd. Maar ik geloof dat de gaskamers maar een detail zijn in de geschiedenis van de Tweede Wereldoorlog.
Jansen: "Voetnoot΅ staat er in het Frans.
V.d. Brink: Ja, "detail", "voetnoot". Ja. Is dat minder erg?
Jansen: Ja, een malle uitspraak van een dwaze oude baas die laatst ook een ongepast grapje maakt over Ebola en de sterftesnelheid daarbij. Dat is natuurlijk vreselijk. Maar als je moet kiezen tussen Hamas en de plannen die die hebben met joden en Israeli's en zo'n vermoeide oude heer, dan vind ik de keuze niet moeiliijk.
V.d. Brink: Maar zou u naast hem willen zitten?
Jansen: Ja, ik heb wel naast ergere mensen gezeten die er vromer uitzagen dan hij, laat ik het zo zeggen. Knevel: Maar, wat mij - dat mag u niet zeggen. Wat u niet mag zeggen, vind ik - ja, u gaat over uw eigen woorden he - maar dat u zegt, ik vind Hamas erg en dus is Auschwitz ook even erg ongeveer. U moet afstand nemen.
Jansen: Nee dat zeg ik niet.
Knevel: Dit kunt u niet maken.
Jansen: Maar dat doe ik ook niet.
Knevel: Nee, zeg nog eens precies wat u wil zeggen, want anders weet ik niet goed wat u zegt.
Jansen: We hebben voor Europa de keuze. We laten ons...
Knevel: Nee, het gaat over die Auschwitz-uitspraak. De rest geloof ik wel van u.
Jansen: Nee ik wil even naar de toekomst kijken. Willen we een Europa met nog meer moslims, met nog meer beroepsmoslims, die antisemitisch zijn, anti-Israëlisch en ga zo maar door, of willen we proberen met behulp van andere groepen in Europa de boel te rationaliseren, en open en transparant te zijn.
Knevel: Ja, dat begrijp ik van u. Maar toch even dat punt van u dat u zegt: we hebben Hamas, dus Auschwitz...
Jansen: Dat zeg ik helemaal niet.
Knevel: Oké. Jansen: En het is trouwens ook nog eens een keer zo dat Hitler pas bedadcht heeft dat het de joden naar Palestina deporteren, dat dat niet zo'n goed plan was, op advies van de Mufti van Jerusalem, en daarna is pas de Holocaust opgestart. Dus die Hamas-mensen zijn echt heel erg. En als ik moet kiezen of ik met een oude baas van boven de 80 in de bankjes zit... V.d. Brink: U hoeft helemaal niet te kiezen.
Knevel: Ik zou dat niet doen.
Jansen: Dan heb ik u verkeerd begrepen.
V.d. Brink: Nee, wij vroegen niet te kiezen tussen Hamas en Le Pen. We vroegen waarom gaat u naast Le Pen zitten?
Jansen: Oh, nou, u heeft gewonnen.
V.d. Brink: Het is geen wedstrijdje. Het is gewoon een vraag.
Knevel: We wensen u veel sterkte in de komende vijf jaar.
V.d. Brink: U wilt er niet meer op reageren?
Jansen: Ik snap niet waar ik op reageren moet. Ik zeg toch heel duidelijk dat - het mooiste zou natuurlijk zijn als Le Pen Sr. niet bestond. Het mooiste zou zijn als Hamas niet bestond. Maar die bestaan allebei, en die zullen morgen uw leven gaan beïnvloeden. En zo niet morgen, dan overmorgen. Kiest u maar welke u het liefste wil steunen.
V.d. Brink: Liever allebei niet.
Jansen: Nee precies, maar dat kan dus niet. Een van de twee - ze bestaan allebei.
V.d. Brink: Maar je hoeft er niet tussen te kiezen toch?
Jansen: Deze discussie is al vele malen gevoerd. Het wordt de PVV zwaar aangerekend dat ze de gevaren van de Islamisering in de toekomst groter achten dan de dingen die in het verleden gebeurd zijn. Ja, dat begrijp ik.
Jansen claims he actually googled Le Pen's statement about the Holocaust and then Van de Brink reads it:
Van de Brink: "I'm not saying the gas chambers didn't exist. I haven't seen them myself. I haven't particularly studied the question. But I believe it's just a detail in the history of World War II."
Jansen: It says "footnote" in French.
Van de Brink: "Footnote", "detail" - does that make it less offensive?
Jansen: Yes, a silly statement by a silly old boss who lately also made an inappropriate joke about Ebola and its speed of mortality. That is of course terrible. But if you have to choose between Hamas and their plans with Jews and Israelis and a tired old gentleman, I think the choice is not hard.
Van de Brink: But do you want to sit next to him?
Jansen: Yes, I've sat next to worse people who looked more pious - let me put it that way.
Jansen is a liar. First of all, his nitpick about the exact wording of the quote is wrong, as you can easily check. Secondly, Le Pen was not old when he first made the quote: he was 59 years old, in 1987; and he has repeated it at least twice since. Thirdly, he equivocates "sitting next to" literally, while the host meant they were to share one political group in the EP. Then the other host chimes in:
Knevel: But - you can't say that. Of course, you decide what you say. But I think you can't go around saying Hamas is bad and thus Auschwitz is about as bad. You have to distance yourself.
Jansen: No, I don't say that.
Knevel: You can't do that.
Jansen: But I'm not doing that.
Knevel: Then say again precisely what you want to say, otherwise I don't understand well what you're saying.
Jansen: We have a choice for Europe. We let us...
Evasion noted. The second time during the interview Jansen could have equivocally distancecd himself from Le Pen and the second time he doesn't actually do it. Knevel tries to get him back on track and then we get this gem:
Jansen: And by the way, Hitler only concluded that shipping the Jews to Palestine was not a good idea on advice of the Mufti, and only started the Holocaust after that. So those Hamas people are really bad news. And when I have to choose between sitting next to a 80 year old boss in the benches...
You can have a field day with what's wrong with this statement. The suggestion that it's somehow the Mufti's fault that poor misunderstood Hitler had to wipe out the European Jews, and that this had nothing to do with nearly 2 millennia of Western anti-semitism, Hitler's own ideas he had long written down before he had even heard of the Mutfi, and, simply, his inability to ship off Jews to Palestine because it was British-controlled at the time, that all doesn't matter when your apparent only objective is to blame the Muslims for all that's wrong with the world.
His last sentence is, of course, a false dichotomy, which doesn't escape the host:
Van de Brink: You don't have to choose.
Knevel: I wouldn't do that.
Jansen: Then I misunderstood you.
Van de Brink: No, we didn't ask you to choose between Hamas and Le Pen. We asked you why you're going to sit next to Le Pen?
Jansen: Oh, well, you've won.
Van de Brink: This is not a match. It's just a question.
Knevel: We wish you luck the coming five years.
Van de Brink: You don't want to give another reaction?
Jansen: I don't understand what I have to react to. I say clearly - it would be nice if Mr. Le Pen didn't exist. It would be nice if Hamas didn't exist. But they both exist, and they'll influence your life tomorrow. Or the day after tomorrow. Choose which you want to support.
Van de Brink: Neither.
Jansen: No, but you can't. One of the two - they both exist.
Again the false dichotomy. And of course, Jansen knows this is a false dichotomy. And after this, it's time for the next guest.
Never during the interview has Jansen unequivocally condemned Le Pen for his anti-semitism and Holocaust denial. The only conclusion that remains is the Jansen is not only islamophobe, but a liar and an apologist for anti-semitism and Holocaust denial. Keep that in mind when next you'll find references to his works or quotes, and he cloaks himself in the guise of a "scholar".
And since Saudi Arabia is both awash in vast oil wealth and has a stranglehold on the hajj by virtue of their control of Mecca, salafists have kind of a distorting influence on the rest of Islam when it comes to exporting their particular ultraconservative religious ideology outside Saudi Arabia and forcing the rest of Islam to conform to it.
Does the hajj have to be Mecca? Could those not supporting SA, choose another destination? If I am right, and probably not since I am a renounced catholic of some 40 years, but I always thought in RCism other pilgrim sites are deemed as worthy, i.e. it need not be Rome. Santiago de Compostella today, for example, and Canterbury was one too.
Maybe if allowed, this would be a good starting move to get past this stranglehold.
Does the hajj have to be Mecca? Could those not supporting SA, choose another destination? If I am right, and probably not since I am a renounced catholic of some 40 years, but I always thought in RCism other pilgrim sites are deemed as worthy, i.e. it need not be Rome. Santiago de Compostella today, for example, and Canterbury was one too.
Maybe if allowed, this would be a good starting move to get past this stranglehold.
Errrr...I think you're missing the point that the hajjis defined as "the pilgrimage to Mecca" and is one of the fundamental obligations of Islam. Pilgrimage–and more specifically pilgrimage to a specific place–is, as far as I can recall from my now-long-ago Catholic high school days, not a such a central obligation in Catholicism.
You might as well be proposing that Muslims amend the Shahada.
Errrr...I think you're missing the point that the hajjis defined as "the pilgrimage to Mecca" and is one of the fundamental obligations of Islam. Pilgrimage–and more specifically pilgrimage to a specific place–is, as far as I can recall from my now-long-ago Catholic high school days, not a such a central obligation in Catholicism.
You might as well be proposing that Muslims amend the Shahada.
The fact that Dawkins and Harris can, at some times, be insufferably rude doesn't preclude them from being, at other times, insightful and informative.
Errrr...I think you're missing the point that the hajjis defined as "the pilgrimage to Mecca" and is one of the fundamental obligations of Islam. Pilgrimage–and more specifically pilgrimage to a specific place–is, as far as I can recall from my now-long-ago Catholic high school days, not a such a central obligation in Catholicism.
You might as well be proposing that Muslims amend the Shahada.
The fact that you can't change fundamental belief without fundamentally changing the the religion doesn't mean that the religion can't be reformed in ways that are not related to the fundamental belief.
Have you ever considered that the wealth of Banu Sa'ud has more to do with the vast petroleum reserve in their territory rather than the centrality of Mecca to Islam?
(Though I can understand how it wouldn't be advantageous to you to acknowledge that the disproportionate power and the exposure that the Wahabiyyah have is not due to the monetary support of all the world's Muslim dependent on a belief intrinsic to Islam but rather the economic support of the West dependent on a natural resource essential to the West.)
The fact that you can't change fundamental belief without fundamentally changing the the religion doesn't mean that the religion can't be reformed in ways that are not related to the fundamental belief.
Have you ever considered that the wealth of Banu Sa'ud has more to do with the vast petroleum reserve in their territory rather than the centrality of Mecca to Islam?
(Though I can understand how it wouldn't be advantageous to you to acknowledge that the disproportionate power and the exposure that the Wahabiyyah have is not due to the monetary support of all the world's Muslim dependent on a belief intrinsic to Islam but rather the economic support of the West dependent on a natural resource essential to the West.)
Actually, that's not quite as farfetched as changing the destination of the hajj - Sunnis and Shias already have different versions of the shahadah. The Shia version adds the phrase "and Ali [the fourth Caliph and the son-in-law of Muhammad] is the wali of God" after "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Prophet".
Actually, that's not quite as farfetched as changing the destination of the hajj - Sunnis and Shias already have different versions of the shahadah. The Shia version adds the phrase "and Ali [the fourth Caliph and the son-in-law of Muhammad] is the wali of God" after "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Prophet".
Yeah, I was aware of the "wa ʿalīyyun walīyyu-llāh" and that respective sects of Islam consider the concept to be definitive of True Islam™. However, I was thinking more a long the line of an alteration that made Islam henotheisticWP.
I'd be more inclined to refer to my Muslim friend from way back in high school as an ordinary, decent, mainstream Muslim. At the time, he was more politically and socially progressive than I was. When we were discussing homosexuality, I still had some residual homophobia in me, and said I don't like it when gays flaunt their way of life. His point of view, on the other hand, was that he doesn't like it when they hide it. In other words, he believed people should just be themselves, regardless of how society may prejudge or condemn them. We shared the same birthdate, but he was years ahead of me in many respects. His family lived like any other American family. He spoke openly about his beliefs, but only when asked, and it was never about trying to convert anyone. My hometown is so culturally diverse that everyone is taught from a young age to appreciate this cultural diversity. We were friends because we shared common interests (he was a major Star Wars geek). The issue of religion hardly ever came up and never came between us.
Speaking about that... in December last year, Wilders produced a sticker (and/or a postcard) with the Saudi flag - but then altered, with the Shahada removed and replaced by a text reading "Islam is a lie, Mohammed is a criminal, the Koran is poison". Somehow, though the Dutch government clearly distanced itself from it at the time, this has developed into a diplomatic spat.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
