[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[Mister Agenda]

Well we and reforming Muslims are buggered then, if that is the case... (hence my question), and all reforming Muslims may as well piss in the wind.

The vast majority of Muslims never make the hajj. They are excused if the trip would be too arduous, and the farther away from Mecca you are, the more arduous it is, unless you have substantial means.

 

[A'isha]

The vast majority of Muslims never make the hajj. They are excused if the trip would be too arduous, and the farther away from Mecca you are, the more arduous it is, unless you have substantial means.

And Saudi Arabia has and enforces a hajj quota, so even if a given Muslim has the means and desire to make the hajj, there's still no guarantee that they'll be able to. It doesn't help that for the last few years the Saudis have substantially cut the quota, too.

Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, had an allowed quota of only 168,000 pilgrims last year, for instance. Indonesia has 204,847,000 Muslims. At the quota rate, it would take 1,219 years for every Muslim living in Indonesia to make the hajj (and even then only if Indonesia had zero population growth for that entire millennium and a quarter).

 

[ddt]

And Saudi Arabia has and enforces a hajj quota, so even if a given Muslim has the means and desire to make the hajj, there's still no guarantee that they'll be able to. It doesn't help that for the last few years the Saudis have substantially cut the quota, too.

I think that cut has to do with the fear of MERS. The table in wiki shows a steady increase over the years up to 2012. Your point about the quota of course still stands. Though that table suggests that a Saudi Muslim has the real opportunity to do hajj during their lifetime.

What's not quite clear to me is why hajj has to be performed at a specific date. Does it have to coincide with Eid?

 

[A'isha]

I think that cut has to do with the fear of MERS.

The quota reductions predate the MERS scare (the official reason is construction in and around the Masjid al-Haram).

What's not quite clear to me is why hajj has to be performed at a specific date. Does it have to coincide with Eid?

Other way 'round, really.

Eid al-Adha is the celebration at the end of the hajj. The actual hajj itself, the pilgrimage that's one of the Five Pillars of Islam, takes place every year during the 12th (and last) month of the Islamic Calendar, Dhu'l Hijjah, lasting from the 8th to the 10th of the month (Eid begins on the 10th).

One can visit Mecca and perform the ritual acts (like circling the Ka'aba and walking back and fourth between Safa and Marwah) at any time of the year, but this is known as 'umra ("visitation"), and is considered distinct from the hajj and therefore does not meet the obligation of "pilgrimage" as prescribed by the Pillars. You actually have to go to Mecca during the 8th, 9th, and 10th of Dhu'l Hijjah for it to count as hajj.

EDIT: As for why those specific days during that specific month of the Islamic Calendar, it basically boils down to tradition - the Arabian tribes had been going on an annual pilgrimage to Mecca and the Ka'aba on those particular days of the year since before Muhammad was even born, and after the introduction of Islam the timing and basic nature of the big annual pilgrimage remained the same.

 

[ddt]

EDIT: As for why those specific days during that specific month of the Islamic Calendar, it basically boils down to tradition - the Arabian tribes had been going on an annual pilgrimage to Mecca and the Ka'aba on those particular days of the year since before Muhammad was even born, and after the introduction of Islam the timing and basic nature of the big annual pilgrimage remained the same.

Ah, thank you! I was indeed looking specifically for an answer to that part, and could find none.

 

[Humes fork]

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.

It's freedom of speech. Something Islamic apologists have a complicated relationship to.

 

[A'isha]

It's freedom of speech. Something Islamic apologists have a complicated relationship to.

Hence all the calls in this thread for Wilders to be imprisoned for what he did.

Oh, wait.

 

[Chaos]

It's freedom of speech. Something Islamic apologists have a complicated relationship to.

It´s called painting with an extremely broad brush. Something "critics of Islam" have a very simple relationship to.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It's freedom of speech. Something Islamic apologists have a complicated relationship to.

It's also freedom of speech to call Wilders' and other Islamophobes utterances "Islamophobia". <snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 12

 

[ddt]

It's freedom of speech. Something Islamic apologists have a complicated relationship to.

The same freedom of speech that allows me to call Wilders an islamophobe, a fascist and a brownshirt. I agree.

Hence all the calls in this thread for Wilders to be imprisoned for what he did.

Oh, wait.

Indeed. No one's arguing for that.

There's another thing he might be prosecuted and convicted for, though. In March, there were municipal elections in the Netherlands. On election night, he asked at a meeting (with only party sympathisers (1)) three questions to the crowd:
- do you want more or less EU?
- do you want more or less Labour Party?
- and after saying people might file complaints, and liberal prosecutors might be licking their lips at the prospect, this third question.
There was a general outcry that Wilders had gone "a step too far". Various people have made the comparison with Goebbels' Sportpalast speech - especially in the German press. Many people have indeed filed police complaints, in fact, ostentatiously a couple of complete city councils have done so.

Wilders has defended himself saying he only meant criminal Moroccans (2), and that his party had three planks to do so:
(a) retract Dutch citizenship from convicted felons with dual Dutch/Moroccan citizenship;
(b) limit immigration from Morocco and other majority-Muslim countries;
(c) encourage "return home".
This is obviously a lie as only (a) targets criminals specifically.

In the couple of days after that, 2 MPs defected, 1 MEP defected and another said they would not be re-electable, and a couple of provincial councillors defected, some giving up their seat and others continuing as independents. However, collapse of his party did not happen.

I don't think that Wilders has done something really new here. People who didn't know he thought this way must have been living under a rock. But hey, if it's a valid reason to try him under Dutch hate speech laws, fine with me.

(1) You can't call them members because Wilders is the only member of his party. Democracy for you in action.
(2) It is a fact that people of Moroccan ancestry, especially male young ones, are overrepresented in crime statistics.

 

[Belgian thought]

And Saudi Arabia has and enforces a hajj quota, so even if a given Muslim has the means and desire to make the hajj, there's still no guarantee that they'll be able to. It doesn't help that for the last few years the Saudis have substantially cut the quota, too.

Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, had an allowed quota of only 168,000 pilgrims last year, for instance. Indonesia has 204,847,000 Muslims. At the quota rate, it would take 1,219 years for every Muslim living in Indonesia to make the hajj (and even then only if Indonesia had zero population growth for that entire millennium and a quarter).

How does the religion reconcile the fact that the vast majority are not able to fulfil one of the fifth pillars of their faith?

 

[mijopaalmc]

How does the religion reconcile the fact that the vast majority are not able to fulfil one of the fifth pillars of their faith?

Seriously? Do you not bother to read what people post?

The vast majority of Muslims never make the hajj. They are excused if the trip would be too arduous, and the farther away from Mecca you are, the more arduous it is, unless you have substantial means.

And Saudi Arabia has and enforces a hajj quota, so even if a given Muslim has the means and desire to make the hajj, there's still no guarantee that they'll be able to. It doesn't help that for the last few years the Saudis have substantially cut the quota, too.

Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, had an allowed quota of only 168,000 pilgrims last year, for instance. Indonesia has 204,847,000 Muslims. At the quota rate, it would take 1,219 years for every Muslim living in Indonesia to make the hajj (and even then only if Indonesia had zero population growth for that entire millennium and a quarter).

I mean A'isha quoted Mister Agenda in her post about the hajj quota that you in turn quoted in you most recent post. I would go a long way to making your participation in this thread appear to be more honest if your posts seemed to assimilate the information contained within posts that you quote.

 

[Chaos]

Seriously? Do you not bother to read what people post?



I mean A'isha quoted Mister Agenda in her post about the hajj quota that you in turn quoted in you most recent post. I would go a long way to making your participation in this thread appear to be more honest if your posts seemed to assimilate the information contained within posts that you quote.

Huh?

He raised a valid point. Muslim are supposed to go on the Hajj - it´s one of the five pillars of Islam. However, even beyond the monetary constraints, Saudi Arabia places an additional obstacle in the way of willing and able would-be pilgrims.

So, what is the general opinion among Muslim clergy about Muslim who could not make the hajj due to Saudi Arabia´s restrictions on the number of pilgrims per year?

 

[A'isha]

How does the religion reconcile the fact that the vast majority are not able to fulfil one of the fifth pillars of their faith?

Because of the caveat that a Muslim is only obligated to go if he/she is able to. And even with the hajj subsidies often provided by the governments of Muslim-majority countries, most Muslims can't afford the time and expense of the hajj.

Though that hasn't stopped complaints that the Saudis are needlessly restricting non-Saudi Muslims from carrying out one of the five pillars of their faith - or even that they're using their control over the hajj to exert political influence on other Muslim countries. In 2012, for instance, there was a lot of speculation that when the Malaysian pro-democracy and anti-corruption Bersih 3.0 rally resulted in the organization of similar rallies in Mecca and Medina, the Saudi government basically threatened Malaysia's hajj quota unless the Malaysian government promised that no Malaysian pilgrims would organize or participate in any future rallies inside the Kingdom.

 

[A'isha]

So, what is the general opinion among Muslim clergy about Muslim who could not make the hajj due to Saudi Arabia´s restrictions on the number of pilgrims per year?

Mostly "shut up about it, otherwise you'll ruin it for the rest of us".

 

[Belgian thought]

Because of the caveat that a Muslim is only obligated to go if he/she is able to. And even with the hajj subsidies often provided by the governments of Muslim-majority countries, most Muslims can't afford the time and expense of the hajj.

Though that hasn't stopped complaints that the Saudis are needlessly restricting non-Saudi Muslims from carrying out one of the five pillars of their faith - or even that they're using their control over the hajj to exert political influence on other Muslim countries. In 2012, for instance, there was a lot of speculation that when the Malaysian pro-democracy and anti-corruption Bersih 3.0 rally resulted in the organization of similar rallies in Mecca and Medina, the Saudi government basically threatened Malaysia's hajj quota unless the Malaysian government promised that no Malaysian pilgrims would organize or participate in any future rallies inside the Kingdom.

Thank you. Does this caveat appear in the Koran?

 

[metacristi]

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.

The crucial point is that there is still no moderate islam in the western acceptation of the word (no Islamic counterpart of moderate Christianity and Reform Judaism) and one can make the even stronger point that islam cannot actually be reformed along these lines.

Personally I agree partially with Daniel Pipes' view in the sense that I think islam can indeed be reformed in such non trivial ways but at the same time there is little doubt that a moderate islam will have quite little in common with the mainstream islam of today (contra Pipes I don't think there is an obvious internal logic in the basics tenets of islam, unlike Christianity and even Judaism, which to lead to symbolic interpretation or historical contextualization of the problematic parts of islam; muslims modernize islam along these lines because this is what Rationality indicates but ultimately this is because they want so for the quran teaches directly that human reason means almost zero in religious matters, only the holy book and tradition really count*).

Some liberal muslims (in the western acceptation of the word, accepting that even the quran is fallible, supporting secularism and so on) do exist no doubt but they are few and unfortunately at the moment they are far from being in command of the future of islam (conservative forces are at the helm at the moment, I include here many of so called 'progressives' of islam, considered 'moderate' in the West, who only 'scratch the surface', in reality much deeper reforms are needed than what they advocate).


*

"It's not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and his messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and his messenger, he is indeed strayed into a plain error." (33-36) (Quran, Hilali-Khan's translation)

"But no, by your lord, they can have no faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission." (4-65) (Muhammad is the eternal example for all muslims, the perfect being whose deeds deserve emulation at all times)

"Then do you believe in a part of the scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of his world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment." (2-85)

 

[mijopaalmc]

Huh?

He raised a valid point. Muslim are supposed to go on the Hajj - it´s one of the five pillars of Islam. However, even beyond the monetary constraints, Saudi Arabia places an additional obstacle in the way of willing and able would-be pilgrims.

So, what is the general opinion among Muslim clergy about Muslim who could not make the hajj due to Saudi Arabia´s restrictions on the number of pilgrims per year?

It was that had already been answered in the post that he had quoted: one is excuse from the obligation to go on the hajj if it is too "arduous" too do so–which, I would imagine, would include being prevented from entering Sa'udi Arabia by the hajj quota.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The crucial point is that there is still no moderate islam in the western acceptation of the word (no Islamic counterpart of moderate Christianity and Reform Islam) and one can make the even stronger point that islam cannot actually be reformed along these lines.

Personally I agree partially with Daniel Pipes' view in the sense that I think islam can indeed be reformed in such non trivial ways but at the same time there is little doubt that a moderate islam will have quite little in common with the mainstream islam of today (contra Pipes I don't think there is an obvious internal logic in the basics tenets of islam which to lead to symbolic interpretation or historical contextualization of the problematic parts of islam, muslims modernize islam along these lines because this is what Rationality indicates so, ultimately because they want so).

Some liberal muslims (in the western acceptation of the word, accepting that even the quran is fallible, supporting secularism and so on) do exist no doubt but they are few and unfortunately at the moment they are far from being in command of the future of islam (conservative forces are at the helm at the moment, I include here many of so called 'progressives' of islam, considered 'moderate' in the West, who only 'scratch the surface', in reality much deeper reforms are needed than what they advocate).

Yes, we understand that you are again Islamism and fundamentalism in Islam, dear. How does the existence to Islamism and fundamentalism in Islam demonstrate that Islam in toto is, by its very nature, incompatible with Western society, especially given the fact that Dominionists and fundamentalist Christians in the US are systematically working to dismantle the checks and balances that allow secularism to remain in place there?

 

[A'isha]

Thank you. Does this caveat appear in the Koran?

Q 3:97 - "In it are clear signs, the standing place of Ibrahim, and whoever enters it shall be secure, and pilgrimage to the House [ie, the Ka'aba] is incumbent upon men for the sake of Allah, (upon) every one who is able to undertake the journey to it; and whoever disbelieves, then surely Allah is Self-sufficient, above any need of the worlds." (Shakir translation - Pickthal and Mohsin Khan translate "able to undertake" as "able to afford", the Arabic is is'taṭāʿa, to be capable of doing something).