Lagrange,
Quote:
Well, you just question the moral legitimacy of your action. People start to wonder: am I right, is that right to do what I am doing, does god/gods allow what I am doing… just questioning the moral legitimacy of your action and that's basically what politicians (politic and religious leaders) do not want.
For me personally, when I chose these types of studies I knew it it would rattle my cage so to speak. In my opinion, that's how you know you're doing it right. A certain amount of questioning is normal, expected and healthy. However, if this line of work results in an existential crisis on a weekly basis- you're not cut out for it. I'm confident enough in my own faith, culture, etc. to do comparative work. Are my constructs of religion, culture, tradition, society perfect? No. Nothing is, but they are mine. While I'm not a Doctor of Religious Studies (yet), I have had enough education and professional training to be able to draw some lines.
I always thought it was rather pretentious of human beings to state that "God is on our side". Shouldn't we hope that what we do is on Its side?
Quote:
The only real defense then becomes: you're different so you cannot understand. Basically turning to "obscurantisme" (in French in the text).
If you do not understand you enemy that means he is wrong because normal people do think like you.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. It's a cop out and a poor one at that. I'm more inclined to following Levinas and Gadamer's trains of thought; The only two wholly Others are the Divine and Death. Everything else can be worked upon and in no way results in the Self or the Other being conflated. Understanding occurs via a Fusion of Horizons, which is ultimately part of the larger Hermeneutic circle. I will spare you all the dissertation on it, but if anyone is interested in hermeneutic theory, start with Hans-Georg Gadamer's Truth & Method. Well, maybe start with the wikipedia and then read Gadamer :D
Quote:
Most of the educated Muslim I know would say that Jihad is first the internal war in each man against his evil side. But as you say, there is almost as many Islam as there is Muslims. I am met people who were qualifying them selves as "the slaves of Allah" and pushing to have men and women equality. (You find the same crazy way of thinking with Christians. I know doctors who will tell you that AIDS is "a plague that God sent on earth to eliminate the sinful"…)
I'm not talking about mainstream Muslims. The Muslims I have been talking about are Salafis, Islamists and Jihadis who only acknowledge one jihad and that is war. The 'lesser' jihad, by it's usage in the Qur'an, is a violent 'struggle in the path of God'. Since every action is dictated by divine mandate laid down in the Qur'an and Shari'ah, and embodied in the Hadith and Sunna, struggle/war has a layer of 'religiousness' to it. I would not define jihad in a mainstream context as 'holy war', but in the context of the Taliban/al-Qaeda defines it in, it is exclusively Holy War.
Quote:
Khomeiny was saying that Human Rights were a western creation and therefore could not be applied in Muslim world. Unfortunately, Islam promoted women rights long before the Man and Citizen Rights declaration (which addressed only male rights at the very beginning by the way).
My point was just to point some contradictions you encounter.
Well, Khomeini was technically correct. Human rights really took off after the Enlightenment when more focus was placed on the Individual. Rights in Islam, according to prevailing fiqh only extends if one upholds certain conditions set out in Shari'ah. The individual is also downplayed and the welfare of the 'ummah is far more important.
I would like to note, however, the idea of 'everyone is equal' doesn't really float too well in any monotheistic religions, which are built around exclusion. While Islam certainly had the idea of women's rights long before the West caught on, in practice they were rather difficult to enforce. I would also argue that women in ancient Egypt and Persia faced a serious downgrade in terms of their rights in Islam.
Quote:
Religious text are a base but they are also interpreted. And with Sunny Islam, what complicates all is the fact that any Mullah can come with his personal interpretation. Sufi from West Africa are far away from Sufi from Turkey who are not that close with Sufi from Sudan
Any Mullah can technically, but if he has half a clue about his religious tradition, he'll attempt to find a tafsir to back himself up. Innovation (bid'ah) is considered a grave sin in those circumstances. Sufis typically have much more leeway, but even they have prevailing schools of thought and orders to draw from. I've found that some mystic orders can be far more restrictive in their interpretations than mainstream theological schools.
Quote:
Also, what I have experience is that in many places, people just do not know Qur'an. They know what they have been told is the right interpretation of a book they can not even read. (it is unfortunate but true in many places out of Middle East).
Unfortunate, but true.. Fatima Mernissi's book The Veil and the Male Elite explores that development because it wasn't always that way. Although her book is primarily about women's rights in Islam, I would highly recommend you guys check out the first chapter in the book called "Muslims and Time". It's phenomenal.
Quote:
And good luck if you try to change that.
No, I cannot change it and I am not naive enough to think I even could. Only they can and they'll change only as much as they want, when they want.
Cheers,
Graphei