Paper: Rethinking Role of Religious Conflict in Doctrine

[William F. Owen]

Why on earth is anyone trying to differentiate Religion from Politics? Religion, in terms of a policy (what you wear, who you must worship etc) is Political. You can only have wars when you politics. Nothing else creates wars.

What don't folks get?

[slapout9]

Why on earth is anyone trying to differentiate Religion from Politics? Religion, in terms of a policy (what you wear, who you must worship etc) is Political. You can only have wars when you politics. Nothing else creates wars.

What don't folks get?

Wilf, it's a good point but I think the confusion is Politics are done by man whereas Religion is done by God using people as his vassals so it is harder to argue with God as opposed to a Politician. But you are right in that Religion is just man manipulating a population but supposedly with divine guidance given to a select few.

Hey, why I got you on the phone here is it true that it is immoral/illegal for A Jew to charge another Jew Interest on Money?

[graphei]

Okay, since I'm sure you were all pining for me while I was spending a day whopping ass at Mario Kart Wii, making snowmen, and generally being, to quote my 4 year old nephew, "The bestest auntie in the whole, wide Universe", I'll come play with you fine folks.

Anyway, what is religion? Here. I'll make it crystal clear. Religion is ...
You folks got that? Good.

One of my Professors of Religious Studies (Eliade was his advisor at Chicago during when he did his PhD) said that it is wrong to ask how many Christians or Hindus or Muslims there are in the world. It is much more accurate to ask how many Hinduisms, Christianities, and Islams there are because no two people believe in the exact same way.

Marc, when I hear definitions like that I weep the same kind of weep as when I'm trapped next to a televangelist follower on a 7+ hour flight who has figured out I study religion based upon my books. As far as Ghazali goes, I can take or leave him.

jmm, it is clear now. I completely missed the bus and thought you wanted to keep insurgency and remove global. Much confusion on my part. Wax on. Wax off.

Monsieur Lagrange,

Finally, knowing the enemy is a danger for most of the ideologist (on all sides). If you can understand the intellectual process of the enemy, then you start to question your legitimacy. This leads to internal chaos.

Quoi? Legitimacy in what sense?

In a practical approach, knowing religious leaders and their personal philosophy is helpful to understand the politic and sometime the military actions that go with. But it is not the only ingredient. Knowing the economic resources of this warlord and his family connections will most of the time be more useful, in a purely military approach. In a global approach, as in small wars per definition, knowing each gang chief religious background helps a lot to understand why he is doing so or against you and conduct diplomatic actions. But it is not enough.

I agree with you on many points. My issue is that when dealing with religion, it's effect is often greater than the sum of its parts. It is not the only thing going on behind the scenes, but when things start getting done in the name of God- little red flags need to go up because . People tend to ignore/dismiss/downplay the role religion has in current affairs. In 2000, one magazine cover declared religion dead. It's something you do at home. In other parts of the world, it is a mode of being.

In regards to the greater and lesser jihad. While there is a hadith that floats around where those terms came from, it contradicts a few verses in the Qur'an on the same matter. I'm not sure how that hadith checks out in terms of accuracy, but I might be able to get ahold of the 'isnad and check it that way. In sum, the jury is out theologically.

In terms of some radical Muslims wanting the burqa and women's education, I don't see what the big deal is. Many of Muhammad's wives were literate, Khadijah ran her own freakin' business for crying out loud, and all were modest to the nth. Who knows, maybe those groups spent a lot of time reading the sunnah? yes i know wishful thinking on my part, but the prophetic example is there.

Alright- I'm off to bed so I can catch a few precious zzz's before a 4 year old boy comes springing on my bed at 5:30 for cereal

Cheers,

Graphei

[William F. Owen]

Hey, why I got you on the phone here is it true that it is immoral/illegal for A Jew to charge another Jew Interest on Money?

Immoral or illegal??? Never heard that one, but there's a very active banking industry here in Israel.... - with a lot of religious folks working in it - so it's probably moral if done in a moral way = sensible rates.

[M-A Lagrange]

Graphei,

Quoi? Legitimacy in what sense?

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.
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. Once again, back to Foucault and the dictatorship of the Norm. See Deleuse also on this. Some interesting thoughts on Culture as a weapon and tool to diffuse American way of life as the unique Norm in Atlani-Duault too.

In terms of some radical Muslims wanting the burqa and women's education, I don't see what the big deal is. Many of Muhammad's wives were literate

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"…)
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. 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…

In regards to the greater and lesser jihad. While there is a hadith that floats around where those terms came from, it contradicts a few verses in the Qur'an on the same matter. I'm not sure how that hadith checks out in terms of accuracy, but I might be able to get ahold of the 'isnad and check it that way. In sum, the jury is out theologically.

I am not qualified enough to say if you're wrong or right. All I know is that Jihad is not just making war in a literal sense of the term, what ever surate/verses/hadith may say.
My point was just to say that reducing Jihad to a "Crusade" (a military operation legitimated by a religious end and conducted according a religious policy) is too restrictive.
Focusing on lesser Jihad leaves room to "obscuratisme" and the basic argument: you cannot understand.
Taking Jihad as a whole and having an intellectual understanding of it (imperfect and with limits) reinforce your position and the legitimacy of your arguments. But you need to know the texts before for sure.
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).
So you face a total communication breakdown as you are trying to argument and debate with people who will just speak of something completely different, which sometimes does not even exist out of their village/clan/family/members of their Mosque.
And good luck if you try to change that...

[slapout9]

Immoral or illegal??? Never heard that one, but there's a very active banking industry here in Israel.... - with a lot of religious folks working in it - so it's probably moral if done in a moral way = sensible rates.

Thanks, I was doing some research on money and that came up, but wasn't sure how accurate it was. Basically the Christians and Muslims outlawed interest on Money and so did the Jews to other Jews.... but no to Christians and Muslims. Again not sure of the accuracy of that

[graphei]

Lagrange,

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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