Ibn Warraq on Imam Rauf

[Earthborn]

Of course, if all evil had some other evil things that caused it, one wonders if we don't have an infinite regress here...

Not if lesser evils can sometimes provoke greater evils...

 

[Taarkin]

Not if lesser evils can sometimes provoke greater evils...

You're very clever, young man, very clever. But it's Muslims all the way down.

 

[Pardalis]

You're very clever, young man, very clever. But it's Muslims all the way down.

Nice try, but according to you guys it's always the US' fault, the rest of the world can never do wrong unless it has been coerced by the Evil US.

 

[Cleon]

Nice try, but according to you guys it's always the US' fault, the rest of the world can never do wrong unless it has been coerced by the Evil US.

And according to you guys, puppy rape should be legal and encouraged.

See? I can make **** up, too!

 

[Thunder]

wow, all this irrational Muslim-bashing is starting to really remind me of anti-Semitism.

 

[Praktik]

And according to you guys, puppy rape should be legal and encouraged.

It sickens me to see this idea bandied about so often in conservative circles. I think it's part and parcel of the unraveling of the American Moral Fibre and I, for one, won't stand for it!

 

[A'isha]

Okay, but that could mean anything. What isn't a religious issue in a Muslim country? For example, where would honor killings fall?

The difference is in who is bound to obey the faqih when he makes a ruling: just members of the Muslim community who treat that faqih's rulings as authoritative, or everyone in the country, Muslim or not, accepting of the faqih's authority or not.

Iran, of course, is of the latter type. If you're in Iran, and the Guardian Council rules on something, you gotta obey. And if you don't, the Iranian government will make sure you do, via official Iranian governmental organizations like the police and courts.

In secular (like the US) or religious but non-Muslim countries (like Israel), if a faqih makes a ruling, the only enforcement is voluntary within the community. The faqih of a Muslim community here in the States can't call up the cops in Poughkeepsie to, for instance, have a woman arrested for not wearing the hijab, no matter what his religious rulings may say. Where religious rulings and secular laws conflict, the community has to make accommodations to account for what the secular laws say about doing/not doing a particular thing (because they apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, whether any of them like it or not).

The aforementioned Ayatollah al-Sistani, in addition to being a leading religious voice in the Iraqi shia community, has a following among shia worldwide. As linked above, he even has his own website, and has often issued fatwa for members of his community who live in non-Muslim countries and often contend with some very modern Western issues in their lives there, and the issue of obeying religious laws vs. obeying secular laws is a very real one for them.

For example, al-Sistani, unlike his Wahhabist Sunni counterparts in Saudi Arabia, thinks it's perfectly okay for women to drive. However, he also thinks that women should not spend time alone with men in public, and should wear hijab, the head covering that leaves faces visible, in public (al-Sistani, while possessing some views that could be called "moderate" on some issues, is definitely not even close to being a "moderate Muslim" in the sense that Rauf is).

However, in the US, in order to get a driver's license, you have to learn to drive and take a driving test. Driving instructors are usually male, the test is very often given by a male tester, and you can't wear anything that covers your face and head in the driver's license photo (there have been court cases about this here). To resolve that conflict, al-Sistani issued the following rulings:

Q110: Is she allowed to have a picture of herself taken without the hijab to place on a passport, for example?

A: If she is forced to place the uncovered picture on her passport or other official documents, then it is permissible. But, the one who takes her picture must be her husband or her mahram [basically, one's relatives of the opposite sex]. However, should the need arise, it is permissible for her to have the picture taken by a non-mahram photographer

Q118:Is it permissible for a woman to learn to drive a car with a non-mahram man, which necessitates being alone with him and going with him to places appropriate for practice, when these places are normally free from traffic?

A: This is permissible for her provided that she is safe from falling into a forbidden activity.

Of course, this cuts both ways. Al-Sistani believes, as most fundamentalist Muslims do, that a divorce only happens when the man divorces the woman. If he does not want to divorce her (or can't be bribed to divorce her - and believe it or not, those are special named subtypes of Islamic divorce), they're still married, whether she likes it or not. However, in the US, any woman, even a Muslim woman, can phone up a divorce lawyer and get an American court to declare that she and her husband are divorced. So what if our hypothetical Muslim wife does that over the objections and refusals of her husband for a divorce?

Q93: Civil divorce between a man and a woman is finalized according to Western laws, but the man refuses to grant shar'i divorce or provide maintenance to his wife, and refuses to accept shar'i mediation. What is the position of the wife knowing that her patience in this situation is absolutely a cause of hardship?

A: Her case should be taken to al-hakim al-shar'i [ie, the judge of a sharia court] or his representative who would advise the husband to abide by one of the two options -- either he provide maintenance or implement the shar'i divorce -- even if it is through a representative other than himself. If he refuses both options and it is not possible to provide maintenance for her from his property, then the hakim or his representative can divorce her.

In other words, the Western divorce is considered binding as a true dissolution of the marriage, even over the objections of the husband.

Regarding honor killing specifically, I can't find where al-Sistani has said anything one way or the other, though his predecessor in the position of Grand Ayatollah of Najaf, al-Khoei, did rule that the penalty for adultery was death. The big list of subjects that al-Sistani's religious rulings cover is virtually identical to that of al-Khoei's, and while some decisions are the same, others are different. That makes the complete absence of adultery rulings rather curious, but I can't say whether it implies al-Sistani agrees or disagrees, since with only a few other exceptions, on every other topic he gives his own ruling even if it's the same as al-Khoei's.

However, as revealed above, al-Sistani doesn't think that religious rulings should become government rulings, so even if he did support honor killings as a religious decision, someone who committed an honor murder, per al-Sistani himself, would still be subject to prosecution and punishment under the secular law.

I personally find that rather unacceptable, so I hope either al-Sistani doesn't support honor killings, or says something like "well, the penalty should technically be death, but if that's illegal where you live, don't do it" (which is still pretty vile, though at least it's a little bit less likely to result in actual murders).

 

[I Am The Scum]

Isn't it interesting though how the Imam is claiming Islam is a religion of peace and that it's only extremists who are giving it a bad name. But then has to warn that Muslims will make violent protests as a reaction to people trying to stop a Muslim related building from being built in a certain area?

Bit of a mixed message.

If you wanna state that rioting over perceived discrimination labels one an extremist, you can go that route, but a fair comparison is in order.

Is the United States more violent than the Middle East? I'll water it down, a bit. Let's exclude the US military from the equation. We'll focus only on the general populace. You may be inclined to say that people of the Middle East are more violent. However, in the United States, people riot over sports.

 

[Serafim Svensson]

I didn't say Rauf said Khomeini creates the principle of the rule of law.

I know you didn't, but isn't that a consequence of your reading? I mean, if he really did mean the general principle of the rule of law, he was saying that it was created by Khomeini in the 1970s.

I'm saying Rauf is talkign abotu contracting the courts Khomeini did create -- which were at least nominally devoted to the rule of law -- to the notoriously corrupt courts of the Shah.

Yes, he is contrasting the current Iranian courts with the corrupt legal system of the Shah. I agree on that point. And I see your point about the rule of law. But again, he is not talking about the general principle of the rule of law. He really does speak about Islamic rule of law. The Guardianship of the Jurists that he refers to was - according to Rauf - created by Khomeini. Khomeini, he says, "created the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih [...] This institutionalizes the Islamic rule of law". "The Council of Guardians", he says, "serves to ensure these principles". He is clearly talking about Vilayet-i-faqih as understood and imposed by the current Iranian leadership.

I am not saying Iranian justice is fair (it's not), I am not saying that is is not draconian (it is).

I know you're not

The statement comes from a longer statement in a 2009 Huffington Post column that he wrote in support of the people demonstrating against the rigged Iranian elections. His statement was advising Obama to exhort Iranian government to live up to its ideals.

In an article in which Rauf is speaking out in support of the demonstrators and in opposition to the iranian regime, Rauf is not calling for a system in which Shia sharia law is made the law of the land. You have been misled by people who are deliberately distorting Rauf's message.

I'm afraid I have to disagree again

I don't think I have been misled. I did read the Huffington Post column in its entirety (but thanks anyway for the link!). I don't see that he wrote it in support of the demonstrators. Rather, he is reassuring the Iranians (especially the youth) that their voices were "heard and respected", because Khamenei - the Supreme Leader - says so.

Raufs words again:

Many Iranians who were so hopeful and so engaged in the election now fear their votes did not count, Obama said. "And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected."

Khamenei indicated that the voices have been heard and respected.

All that set the right tone.


And Rauf is not asking Obama to exhort the Iranian government to live up to its ideals. Rather, it is the people of Iran that should live up to its ideals. That's what he says. The people of Iran.

Obama should express his administration's respect for the Khomeini-style principle of the rule of law in order to reassure the Iranian public that the election has "confirmed the legitimacy of the ruler". Because the legitimacy is based on said principle.

That's my reading anyway.

 

[Serafim Svensson]

That's probably why Rauf gave the simplified description he did in his essay - he had neither the space to go into detail regarding Vilayet-i-faqih, nor the need, since all he was trying to do was tell Obama how best to butter up the Iranians in a way that would make the opening of diplomatic relations easier.

I think you're being much too generous here. If he didn't want to say what he said, he could have said what he wanted to say in the same number of words or even in fewer words. He could have left out the bit about Khomeini having created Vilayet-i-faqih. Or he could have said "advanced" instead of "created". And it's not a detail whether Obama should express his and his administration's respect for the rule of law or for the principle that (Iranian) society should be governed by those who are the most knowledgeable about Sharia.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

If you wanna state that rioting over perceived discrimination labels one an extremist, you can go that route, but a fair comparison is in order.

I'm sorry, but killing people and burning down businesses because you think you are being discriminated against is not extreme to you? Or is this a joke? His argument about the concern for people who hurt others and cause damage in the name of Islam are extremists and don't represent mainstream Islam. So using his definition they are indeed extremists.

Is the United States more violent than the Middle East? I'll water it down, a bit. Let's exclude the US military from the equation. We'll focus only on the general populace. You may be inclined to say that people of the Middle East are more violent. However, in the United States, people riot over sports.

This question has nothing to do with anything I am talking about. Quite the non sequitur. Did I say people of the middle east are violent? Did I say people of the US are not? Why do people always mix up religion and state?

People who riot over sports are extremists. They take something that should be peaceful and take it to extremes. That's kinda what the word means. Are you suggesting that people who burn buildings and hurt others over the outcome of a sports game are moderate?

 

[GreNME]

And Rauf is not asking Obama to exhort the Iranian government to live up to its ideals. Rather, it is the people of Iran that should live up to its ideals. That's what he says. The people of Iran.

Obama should express his administration's respect for the Khomeini-style principle of the rule of law in order to reassure the Iranian public that the election has "confirmed the legitimacy of the ruler". Because the legitimacy is based on said principle.

That's my reading anyway.

And that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, as long as said interpretation is first assuming the worst about the speaker to begin with.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If it was any other Imam trying to build the same project, it would still be opposed. This talk about Rauf is just a red herring.

 

[Serafim Svensson]

And that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, as long as said interpretation is first assuming the worst about the speaker to begin with.

So what precisely is wrong with it?

 

[GreNME]

So what precisely is wrong with it?

For someone who is seeking a reason to cast aspersions on Rauf, nothing.

 

[Serafim Svensson]

For someone who is seeking a reason to cast aspersions on Rauf, nothing.

I was hoping you would read Rauf's column in Huffington Post and point out where I have misquoted him or misconstrued his message, because that's certainly possible (although it wouldn't be on purpose), but apparently that was too much to hope for.

 

[rwguinn]

I was hoping you would read Rauf's column in Huffington Post and point out where I have misquoted him or misconstrued his message, because that's certainly possible (although it wouldn't be on purpose), but apparently that was too much to hope for.

You gotta remember
Atheist= antiChristian
Islam is a culture and opposition to it is therefore bigotry, or racism
At least, that is the impression I get from the posts here

 

[Chaos]

The difference is in who is bound to obey the faqih when he makes a ruling: just members of the Muslim community who treat that faqih's rulings as authoritative, or everyone in the country, Muslim or not, accepting of the faqih's authority or not.

Iran, of course, is of the latter type. If you're in Iran, and the Guardian Council rules on something, you gotta obey. And if you don't, the Iranian government will make sure you do, via official Iranian governmental organizations like the police and courts.

In secular (like the US) or religious but non-Muslim countries (like Israel), if a faqih makes a ruling, the only enforcement is voluntary within the community. The faqih of a Muslim community here in the States can't call up the cops in Poughkeepsie to, for instance, have a woman arrested for not wearing the hijab, no matter what his religious rulings may say. Where religious rulings and secular laws conflict, the community has to make accommodations to account for what the secular laws say about doing/not doing a particular thing (because they apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, whether any of them like it or not).

The aforementioned Ayatollah al-Sistani, in addition to being a leading religious voice in the Iraqi shia community, has a following among shia worldwide. As linked above, he even has his own website, and has often issued fatwa for members of his community who live in non-Muslim countries and often contend with some very modern Western issues in their lives there, and the issue of obeying religious laws vs. obeying secular laws is a very real one for them.

For example, al-Sistani, unlike his Wahhabist Sunni counterparts in Saudi Arabia, thinks it's perfectly okay for women to drive. However, he also thinks that women should not spend time alone with men in public, and should wear hijab, the head covering that leaves faces visible, in public (al-Sistani, while possessing some views that could be called "moderate" on some issues, is definitely not even close to being a "moderate Muslim" in the sense that Rauf is).

However, in the US, in order to get a driver's license, you have to learn to drive and take a driving test. Driving instructors are usually male, the test is very often given by a male tester, and you can't wear anything that covers your face and head in the driver's license photo (there have been court cases about this here). To resolve that conflict, al-Sistani issued the following rulings:





Of course, this cuts both ways. Al-Sistani believes, as most fundamentalist Muslims do, that a divorce only happens when the man divorces the woman. If he does not want to divorce her (or can't be bribed to divorce her - and believe it or not, those are special named subtypes of Islamic divorce), they're still married, whether she likes it or not. However, in the US, any woman, even a Muslim woman, can phone up a divorce lawyer and get an American court to declare that she and her husband are divorced. So what if our hypothetical Muslim wife does that over the objections and refusals of her husband for a divorce?



In other words, the Western divorce is considered binding as a true dissolution of the marriage, even over the objections of the husband.

Regarding honor killing specifically, I can't find where al-Sistani has said anything one way or the other, though his predecessor in the position of Grand Ayatollah of Najaf, al-Khoei, did rule that the penalty for adultery was death. The big list of subjects that al-Sistani's religious rulings cover is virtually identical to that of al-Khoei's, and while some decisions are the same, others are different. That makes the complete absence of adultery rulings rather curious, but I can't say whether it implies al-Sistani agrees or disagrees, since with only a few other exceptions, on every other topic he gives his own ruling even if it's the same as al-Khoei's.

However, as revealed above, al-Sistani doesn't think that religious rulings should become government rulings, so even if he did support honor killings as a religious decision, someone who committed an honor murder, per al-Sistani himself, would still be subject to prosecution and punishment under the secular law.

I personally find that rather unacceptable, so I hope either al-Sistani doesn't support honor killings, or says something like "well, the penalty should technically be death, but if that's illegal where you live, don't do it" (which is still pretty vile, though at least it's a little bit less likely to result in actual murders).

Oh, cool - an opinion formed through examination of reality.

I really can´t wait for amb or someone else to post a bunch of inane drivel that completely invalidates your post and proves that all muslims are still vile terrorists.

 

[johnny karate]

You gotta remember
Atheist= antiChristian

No, atheist = anti-religion.

However, U.S. Constitution = equal application of the law for all Americans.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, atheist = anti-religion.

However, U.S. Constitution = equal application of the law for all Americans.

I thought the first amendment only applied to Christians. That's what fox news tells me.