Are American (or even non-Muslim Asian) cultures really more sexually repressed than Islamic cultures?
And I answered:
I'm not convinced that Islamic cultures (or, at the very least, Islamic culture here in SE Asia) are as sexually repressed as you might think. All these kids aren't delivered by stork, ya know! ;) However, Muslims generally believe that private matters between husband and wife stay within the family and are not discussed with others. And I think that this lack of discussion outside the family may be creating a perception among non-Muslims that Muslims are sexually repressed when we're not. (And the same reasoning may explain other groups, such as American conservative protestants who also have a perception of being sexually repressed.)
To which the followup question was:
How so -- isn't Islam pretty unequivocal about condemning homosexuality and sex outside of marriage?
Islam also requires a strict code of modest dress, and sex segregation is part of many Muslim cultures.
What definition of "sexual repression" are you using?
And my response is:
I don't view any of these things as being indicative of "sexual repression." Homosexuality and sex outside of marriage is forbidden especially so as to prevent the spread of various diseases; likewise, sex outside of marriage is forbidden so as to give any resulting child from any sexual activity the chance to grow up within a nuclear family, supported by both parents both emotionally and financially. As for gender segregation, this is done only to prevent improper behavior between the sexes.
The thing about "modest dress" and, indeed, the entire notion of "sexual repression" among Muslims is that what non-Muslims see is merely our public face, what we Muslims want you to see. What you don't see is the private face of Muslim life away from non-Muslims. The dress codes for both men and women are indeed about modesty, piety and avoiding improper behavior, but that has nothing to do with Muslim family life, when the hijab comes off. For me, sexual repression is about the fundamental attitudes people have toward sexual behavior: procreation only vs. procreation and pleasure vs. pleasure only. Islam definitely encourages the middle view: procreation and pleasure. We love to have sex for the pleasurable and loving experience, but we also love kids (and I think the demographic statistics bear that latter statement out; certainly the Christians are worried about Muslim birth rates).
So I would say, don't confuse what you see with reality. :) By this I mean, seek to understand the reasoning behind what the Qur'an and Sunnah command, whether that thing is allowed or forbidden. The biggest problem Islamophobes have in understanding Islam and Muslim culture is that they take almost everything at face value and react off of what they see. But they have little to no understanding of the deeper meanings or reasonings behind our concepts and behaviors. These people the Qur'an compares with the "lolling dog" (7:176) or cattle (7:179, 25:44, 47:12). The Qur'an really does expect Muslims to understand the deeper meanings, not just what lies on the surface.
Larry Reimer, a minister of the United Church of Gainesville, Florida, has decided to use selected verses from the Qur'an to preach in a sermon against the proposed Qur'an burning by the Dove World Outreach Center, also of Gainesville. His attitude is, "If they can burn it, we can read it." (Read the full story here.) Several other ministers have said they will join Reimer in preaching from the Qur'an as their way of protesting the Qur'an burning.
I had been thinking about what surahs and/or verses these ministers might use in their sermons. On the one hand, I'd want something that a Christian audience could well relate to but also something that provides some foundation for trying to understand Islam (such as could be provided in 10-15 minutes). If I had a lot of time, I'd be tempted to discuss Surah Yusuf, which is the story of the Prophet Joseph (pbuh). The Qur'anic text closely follows that of the Bible and would be a familiar story to a Christian audience; alas, it would probably take too long to cover, even in a very abbreviated manner.
So, keeping things short and to the point, I would first use Surah Al-Fatihah (#1), using the Pickthall translation, which I think is more powerful in its impact:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,
The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Owner of the Day of Judgment,
Thee (alone) we worship; Thee alone we ask for help.
Show us the straight path,
The path of those whom Thou hast favored; Not (the path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.
This surah has been rightly compared to the Lord's Prayer, and is the most important surah in the Qur'an, bar none. At least one author has written an entire book on this one surah alone. The remainder of the Qur'an is, in essence, a response, an answer to this surah. Each Muslim, if he or she does all five prayers required, will have recited this surah at least seventeen times each day.
The second surah I would use is Surah Al-Iklas (#112), "The Unity":
Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
He begetteth not nor was begotten.
And there is none comparable unto Him.
At a mere four verses, this surah is not quite the shortest surah in the Qur'an, but it is probably the second-most important, after al-Fatihah. It has been described as being equivalent to one-third of the Qur'an because of its focus on Allah (swt) and the Islamic concept of Tauhid, strict monotheism.
I would wrap up the sermon with a longer passage, an excerpt from Surah Mariam (#19:16-35):
Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.
She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (God) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear God."
He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed."
So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.
And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!"
But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): "Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;
"And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee.
"So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to (God) Most Gracious, and this day will I not enter into talk with any human being'"
At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!
"O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"
But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"
He said: "I am indeed a servant of God: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
"And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;
"(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
"So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!
Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.
It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
There have been some tensions in Malaysia due to a recent High Court ruling allowing the Roman Catholic newspaper, The Herald, to continue using the word Allah instead of the English-language God, which the Malaysia government would prefer The Herald to use. (Note: The High Court has issued a temporary injunction against The Herald until the Court of Appeals has judged the case.)
Some people, such as Juan Cole, are puzzled by the Malay response in West Malaysia (various protests and six churches either burned down or attempted to be burned down), noting correctly that in most other parts of the world, God and Allah are used interchangeably; for example, Arab Christians refer to God as Allah. However, this linguistic analysis, as correct as it may be, is not the point. The issue at hand is something completely different:
With all due respect to Dr. Cole, I do believe he is missing the point. His linguistic analysis of the word Allah is correct; however, that is not the issue at play in Malaysia.
The real issue at hand is with respect to conversion to Christianity. The Malaysian newspaper in question, The Herald, is published by the Catholic Church. That newspaper is published in several different languages, but the paper written in Bahasa Melayu, the Malay language, is only distributed to the Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak, on the island of Borneo. The problem as Malays in West Malaysia (the Malayan peninsula) see it is that the Malays and aboriginal people in East Malaysia are less educated, who lead simpler lives*, and they might become confused in reading a Christian newspaper that prints the word Allah, thinking that The Herald is a Muslim newspaper when it is not. This is a valid concern. IMO, the arguments made by The Herald are smoke screens, trying to hide the newspaper's ulterior motive which, indeed, is to convert people to Catholicism. This is what is making some people so angry that they are committing arson against various churches. As a Muslim, I don't condone this behavior, and I think the Malaysian government and political parties have responded properly to this situation. However, I do think the Catholic Church in Malaysia is being provocative and somewhat disingenuous. IMO, they share some of the blame for what has gone on so far.
* In all fairness, the same argument (not well educated, simpler people) applies to many Malays in West Malaysia as well; however, between the two sides of the country, West Malaysia is more advanced.
One of the regional magazines I occasionally read, Marketing, has a cover story for the month of August about religious marketing, entitled "Selling Salvation." (Unfortunately, the article is not online.) The basic theme of the article is that "marketers have much to learn from religion"; more specifically, how religious institutions market themselves, especially to gain new followers. Most of the article focuses on two evangelical Christian megachurches (which is somewhat ironic, considering that Christianity is very much a minority religion here, behind both Buddhism and Islam). However, there is some interesting information about the various marketing methods the three main religions here use. More commentary follows at the bottom.
Muslims:
Islamic groups inform the public about upcoming religious events by advertising in Malay-language newspapers, paid for by travel agents which [sic] arrange travel plans for the Hajj, the annual Muslim pilgrimages [sic] to Mecca. Posters to encourage young Muslims to attend seminars, lectures and fun camps are hung outside mosques, where leaflets are distributed to promote a better understanding of Islam among non-Muslims.
Buddhists:
Buddhist organizations ... engage young people through cultural activities such as lion dances, charity shows and martial arts training, and through youth groups... Buddhists are active in universities, too, with religious societies set up in all the major high education institutions.
Christians:
First time attendees ... are ushered to the front of the queues that amass ... before each of four services on Sundays. After the service, new members are led to a "welcome room" where a white-shirted "server" takes down personal details and gives them a welcome pack.
Inside the pack is a booklet on the values of the church, a directory with information on services, meetings and contact details of cell group leaders, an introductory CD of sermons..., and a church magazine...
Outside the auditorium is a gift shop where CDs, DVDs, postcards, posters, books ... and other memorabilia are on sale. ...
Critics also like to point out that [the pastor's] teachings have such appeal because they push the "prosperity message" of financial and material gain. ...
...
A use of topical language delivered with local humor is combined with what observers say is these churches' most effective marketing platform: music.
"The evangelical Christian churches have been brilliant at drawing the young crowd with good-looking, witty pastors with sharp suits and gelled hair... But the secret is music. [Another church] is like one big karaoke session - a sort of religious version of Singapore Idol..."
[Both churches] have their own music publishing businesses that have propelled them into mainstream culture. Associations with celebrities have helped too.
An offshoot [of the second church] reportedly has plans to quite literally put its brand at the heart of the mainstream by building a mall with a church in the middle, and shops, cinemas and restaurants positioned around it.
High visibility and "mainstream appeal" has ... enabled the evangelical churches to attract affluent, upper-middle class Singaporeans who help the church expand faster (and spend more on marketing) thanks to the generosity of their donations.
The article continues with a brief section on how all three religions are taking advantage of the Internet, including Facebook, Twitter, blogs and Youtube. The article also describes how both Islam and Christianity have been using similar methods:
A strategic focus of Islam ... has been to instill moral values among youth, build self-esteem and temper the rise in delinquency and unwanted pregnancies. This is a worry for Christians too, and both religions have started to address the issue using the same marketing tool: cell groups.
"Youth are at an impressionable phase in their lives where they are discovering and building their identities. Religion is able to fulfill many voids that they might feel at this point ... Cell groups play a support function allowing them access to a trusted group that they can turn to for advice, encouragement and comfort."
The last column of the article has some of the best information:
"The peer-to-peer networking structure that religion employs, empowers followers on every level to be an advocate." ...
The value of the "feel good" factor is something else brands can learn from religion.
"One almost always feels good after going to the church/temple/mosque and making a donation because they believe they're earning good karma... This is a particularly important lesson for brands in light of the current economic situation where many are losing their jobs and have to tighten their belts. Those who have may feel guilty when they spend."
Brands can alleviate this sense of guilt by adopting CSR [corporate social responsibility] initiatives linked to the consumer experience. ...
One of religion's most successful strategies has been its immersion in local communities. Religions support local activities, raise funds for charities and set up schools. ...
Probably religion's biggest allure is that it gives consumers values they can live by. Brands should follow suit. ...
"The values that religions preach are open to interpretation, allowing followers to make it their own. In this way, they don't feel like they are buying blindly into something, but rather adopting a belief system that they genuinely aspire to and abide by in their daily lives." ...
"Religion helps people in their quest for a deeper level of fulfillment. This is their secret."
What the article doesn't mention regarding Islam in Singapore is that Muslims also employ a number of the other marketing tools that the Christian megachurches use. While almost every masajid in Singapore doesn't have anyone to greet non-Muslims who might want to look around the masjid (the most notable exception is Masjid Sultan), there is Darul Arqam - The Muslim Converts Association to Singapore, which provides numerous classes about Islam to those who are fairly serious about learning more about the religion. At Darul Arqam is a bookstore very similar to what is described in the article. New Muslim converts also receive a "welcome pack" as well; mine included a Yusuf Ali translation of the Qur'an, a prayer rug, a sarong, and a prayer compass, all packed into an attractive cloth briefcase. I also received (at the MUIS headquarters) S$40 as part of the zakat that's supposed to be given to converts, as mentioned in the Qur'an.
Should Muslims adopt other marketing techniques? I would say, it depends. As described in the article, music and the shopping mall experience? No way. (That passage reminds me all too much of certain passages in Robert Heinlein's novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, involving the so-called Fosterite Church.) On the other hand, I think Muslims worldwide could do a better job promoting ourselves through print media. Books we have aplenty; four-color offset-printed magazines can be found. (Do they add value to the marketing proposition, though, other than to say, "Look, we can be slick too with high production values.") What I would like to see more of is lower-cost, monthly-produced magazines. Despite the fact that both of the Jehovah Witnesses' two tracts, Awake! and The Watchtower and the infamous Chick Tracts are banned here in Singapore, I think, if done properly (and without the hate as in the latter publication), both formats could be successful as a means to educate non-Muslims about Islam and Muslim society.
On the digital front, the problem isn't that Muslims don't use the Internet to good advantage; on the contrary, I think we use Facebook, blogging and Youtube quite well. The big problem is that our message has become diluted through clutter, specifically, the hate messages spread by Islamophobes. Using a simple search term like "Islam" generally brings about 75% hate on blog search engines like Google and Technorati. Youtube isn't much better. How to rectify this problem? I'm not sure.
Miscellaneous: Atlantis and Hubble Side by Side (A very impressive photo considering that the photographer had to be within a five-kilometer-wide strip of land, know the shutter speed needed to take a clear photo (1/8000th of a second), and catch the transit within a mere 0.8 of a second.)
I don't know if this will become a regular feature, but I'm going to give it a try. Here are various stories, grouped under certain topics, that I found of interest in the past 24 hours:
Warning: The above video is Islamophobic; also, it may be rather slow in streaming in.
What follows is derived from a comment I wrote on another person's diary at Daily Kos that tackles the issues raised in the above video. The purpose of the video is to show how Muslim demographics, as represented by a total fertility rate statistic (see the definition below), is changing how Europe and North America will look in the next 50 years. Of course, the producers of this video see Islam as a threat and are using the video to encourage fellow Christians to proselytize to Muslims.
The "Muslim Demographics" video presents a number of demographic statistics, primarily focusing on countries in Europe and North America, purporting to show how these countries will eventually turn Muslim. The problem with the video is that a number of the statistics presented are of a dubious quality, and the producers neglect to mention some other statistics that are relevant - and damaging - to their argument.
I have checked the total fertility rates in the CIA's World Factbook against what is claimed in the video. Most of the fertility rate statistics presented in the video are off, mostly being understated (to make matters look worse, no doubt). Below are the statistics presented in the video (first column) and per the CIA (second column):
France 1.8 - 1.98 United Kingdom 1.6 - 1.66 Greece 1.3 - 1.37 Germany 1.3 - 1.41 Italy 1.2 - 1.31 Spain 1.1 - 1.31 European Union 1.38 - 1.51
Now here's where I have problems (in part because I don't know where the producers were getting their numbers from). They give the example of France, saying that French families have a fertility rate of 1.8 children per family, but that Muslim families in France have a fertility rate of 8.1 children. However, if the Muslim population in France is so big (it isn't), then the non-Muslim fertility rate should be lower than the 1.8 presented. What that number is, off-hand, I don't know (and I'm not sure that the French national statistics bureau knows either*).
But let's ignore that and look at the real problem. According to the CIA the percentage of Muslims in France is 5-10% of the total population. OK, let's use the higher number, 10%. The US Census Bureau, which does year-by-year estimates for each country's population through the year 2050, says that France has a population in 2009 of 64,420,073; 10% of that would be (roughly) 6,442,000 Muslims in France. In 2050 (slightly more than the 39 years estimated by the producers for Muslims to become a majority in France), the French population is estimated to be 69,768,223. Half of that number is (roughly) 34,884,000.** So, Muslims need to both breed and immigrate to the tune of 28 million** new people (give or take a half-million) while non-Muslim French society shrinks correspondingly. Do you see where I'm going? Do you see how preposterous the argument is?
The other countries (and we'll only focus on Europe for now) are not too different (all numbers from the CIA World Factbook):
United Kingdom 2.7% Muslim Greece 1.3% Germany 3.7% Italy, Spain and the European Union, all NA
The base figures upon which the Muslim population growth rates are applied are so small that it will take much longer than 40 years for Muslims to become the majority religion in much of Europe, if ever, insha'allah.
Now for the Canadian fertility rate, the producers actually overstated the statistic, claiming 1.6 vs. the CIA's number of 1.58. For the US, the claim is also 1.6 (although they also claim 2.11 with "Latino immigration"). The CIA comes up with a fertility rate of 2.05. And the claim of 9 million American Muslims seems excessively high, especially when most American Muslims claim 2-6 million at the most.
Overall, as a Muslim, I find the video typical of Christian proselytizing: Islam as the boogey man. The myth that "Islam is going to take over the world" has been a rallying cry among Christians for a long time now, but that doesn't mean it will become true nor even that Muslims seek such an agenda. I give the data in the video little credence, and even if Muslims do come to dominate the demographic landscape in European countries, so what? It's not like Europeans can't have babies like everyone else.
The secondary threat in the video is very clear: immigration is allowing hordes of dark people to settle in white Europe and America. "The horror!" And yet the anti-immigration crowd doesn't stop to think about certain implications their agenda would create if it became public policy. As the video shows (at the 1:34 mark), a shrinking population creates a smaller and smaller workforce. Who is going to shoulder the financial burden of dependents, both children and elderly, if the native working population (normally defined as those between the ages of 15 and 64) keeps shrinking? Who will help keep tax revenues and social security benefits topped up if the native working population keeps shrinking? Yes, thank God for those immigrants who do the work native citizens don't want to do yet pay into the system for the benefit of all.
The Christians realize, of course, that there's little they can do to either stop the number of Muslims being born or immigrating into Western countries. That's why the "call to action" at the end of the movie is to proselytize. Convert the Muslims into becoming Christians instead. Heh; fat chance of that. Better for them to join the winning team.
-------------------
* How would they know when even the CIA gives such a wide base figure of 5-10% for the entire Muslim population in France?
** Thanks to anonymous for the correction.
CIA World Factbook Definition for "Total Fertility Rate":
This entry gives a figure for the average number of children that would be born per woman if all women lived to the end of their childbearing years and bore children according to a given fertility rate at each age. The total fertility rate (TFR) is a more direct measure of the level of fertility than the crude birth rate, since it refers to births per woman. This indicator shows the potential for population change in the country. A rate of two children per woman is considered the replacement rate for a population, resulting in relative stability in terms of total numbers. Rates above two children indicate populations growing in size and whose median age is declining. Higher rates may also indicate difficulties for families, in some situations, to feed and educate their children and for women to enter the labor force. Rates below two children indicate populations decreasing in size and growing older. Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years. (CIA World Factbook)
Update: Martijn at Closer has a post about the Muslim Demographics video that's helpful in several respects: it has a transcript of the video, an excerpt of a good review by Tiny Frog, along with some general comments about the video as it relates to The Netherlands, where Martijn is located. There are also links to several other reviews (including my diary over at Street Prophets, which was a slightly edited version of this post), and a significant excerpt from another article on the topic. Overall, if you're interested in the topic, it's well worth your time to read Martijn's post and peruse some of his links.
Cross-posted from Street Prophets. Also, see the note down at the bottom of the post.
I thought I'd touch on Southern Mouth's diary Sodom and Gomorrah from a slightly different perspective. What I'm trying to show, insha'allah, are some of the differences between the stories of Lut and Ibrahim (pbut) in the Qur'an vs. what is told in the Old Testament. Some of the comments in Southern Mouth's diary made light of topics that either don't appear in the Qur'an or have a different perspective. What follows is the most significant passage in the Qur'an (11:69-83) regarding Lut, Ibrahim (pbut) and the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah, followed by some of the differences between the two holy books. I've also added two minor notes in the Qur'anic passage to clarify certain passages, highlighted in [brackets].
There came Our messengers to Abraham with glad tidings. They said, "Peace!" He [Ibrahim (pbuh)] answered, "Peace!" and hastened to entertain them with a roasted calf.
But when he saw their hands went not towards the (meal), he felt some mistrust of them, and conceived a fear of them. They said: "Fear not: We have been sent against the people of Lut."
And his wife [Sarah] was standing (there), and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.
She said: "Alas for me! shall I bear a child, seeing I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a wonderful thing!"
They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you, o ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory!"
When fear had passed from (the mind of) Abraham and the glad tidings had reached him, he began to plead with us for Lut's people.
For Abraham was, without doubt, forbearing (of faults), compassionate, and given to look to Allah.
O Abraham! Seek not this. The decree of thy Lord hath gone forth: for them there cometh a penalty that cannot be turned back!
When Our messengers came to Lut, he was grieved on their account and felt himself powerless (to protect) them. He said: "This is a distressful day."
And his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practising abominations. He said: "O my people! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if ye marry)! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with shame about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?"
They said: "Well dost thou know we have no need of thy daughters: indeed thou knowest quite well what we want!"
He said: "Would that I had power to suppress you or that I could betake myself to some powerful support."
(The Messengers) said: "O Lut! We are Messengers from thy Lord! By no means shall they reach thee! now travel with thy family while yet a part of the night remains, and let not any of you look back: but thy wife (will remain behind): To her will happen what happens to the people. Morning is their time appointed: Is not the morning nigh?"
When Our Decree issued, We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay, spread, layer on layer,-
Marked as from thy Lord: Nor are they ever far from those who do wrong! (11:69-83)
Points that aren't made in the Qur'an:
Southern Mouth wrote that "Again, Abraham asked and God agreed to save Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of 10 righteous people." As you can see, Ibrahim (pbuh) pleaded with Allah (swt) on behalf of Lut's (pbuh) people, but an exact number isn't mentioned. One assumes from verse 74 that he pleaded on behalf of all of the people.
Likewise, JCH quotes the following: "In the final analysis there were only three righteous in Sodom, Lot and his two daughters." Again, the Qur'an doesn't say how large the family that departed is, only that they all escaped with the exception of Lut's wife.
Grada pointed out that "After all, there are indications from the incest part of the story that he was a drunk..." In no part of the Qur'an is it suggested that Lut (pbuh) committed incest or had gotten drunk. In fact, I think most Muslims would probably argue that the former charge is an outright fabrication.
Other points:
Southern Mouth also wrote, Personally, I found it repulsive that Lot - who was saved from the towns' destruction - offer the men clamoring at his door his two virgin daughters to do as they wanted. In some of the exegesis for the Qur'an, it is pointed out that the use of the phrase "my/thy daughters" (verses 78-9) does not necessarily refer to Lut's (pbuh) biological daughters; rather, it refers to the young women of the town, just as in modern cultures, younger men who are not relations might be called "my son" or, especially here in S'pore, older men and women who are not relations are very frequently called "uncle" or "aunty."
Ramara wrote: Lot's wife must have been also good, since she also escaped but looked back and became a pillar of salt. In the Qur'an, Lut (pbuh) is warned (in verse 81) that his wife would turn away from him. The lure of the sinful life was too great for her to resist.
An interesting difference between the Old Testament and the Qur'an can be found in Andrew White's comment. He quotes that Ibrahim (pbuh) "stood by them under the tree while they ate." Likewise, Lut (pbuh) "...made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate...." And yet in verse 70, the angels don't eat of Ibrahim's (pbuh) roasted calf: But when he saw their hands went not towards the (meal)...
Note: One point that isn't discussed in this post that is very relevant to the discussion is an earlier comment I made on the original diary by Southern Mouth. There, I wrote:
Well, seeing how you brought the Qur'an into it...
The main point of this diary was my disagreement and distaste for those who preach/teach that America is on the brink of destruction because of all the sin. I read nothing in the Sodom and Gomorrah account where Abraham went to Sodom to preach their impending doom.
Well, Abraham (pbuh) didn't go to Sodom; that was Lot (pbuh). ;)
The Qur'an also teaches that nations/civilizations are "on the brink of destruction because of all the sin," although Muslims don't normally harp on such themes as you ascribe to American Christians. There are numerous passages in the Qur'an telling of the destruction of various cities, the tale of Sodom and Gommorah being only one. There are also a number of verses in the Qur'an that tell Muslims to consider the ruins of formerly inhabited cities, ghost towns, in the region, to consider the fates of those peoples. The purpose of all these stories and verses is not to gloat, so to speak, over a people's impending destruction, but to warn them of the need to repent before time runs out.
However, it's not just individuals who need to repent, but communities as well. In Islam we have two types of duties, fard al-'ayn, in which every individual is responsible, and fard al-kifaya, which is a collective duty imposed on a community. Communities are also given time to repent; if they don't, they may suffer a similar fate to individual men; i.e., a failed civilization. The immediate warning in the Qur'an was to the pagan Makkan society in which Muhammad (pbuh) was born. Essentially, Allah (swt) is trying to tell them: "Look, I want you all to repent but My patience won't last forever. There may come a time that I will give up on you because you all gave up on Me. So repent now while you have the chance." I believe that this is also the message the American Christians are trying to say as well, but they've taken a different tone and tact from how Muslims would treat the subject.
I just can't seem to write something that expresses my complete and utter disgust at this couple. Insha'allah, the authorities will throw the book at them. From CNN:
A man and a woman have been charged by police in Italy after they were found having sex in a confession box, it was reported Wednesday.
The Italian ANSA news agency said the young man and woman were taken into custody by police in the northern city of Cesena following a telephone complaint from a man attending morning Mass in the city's cathedral.
Authorities were alerted after a parishoner heard "rustling and groaning" coming from inside the confession box and pulled back the curtains to reveal a goth-rock couple engaged in oral sex, ANSA said.
The agency said the pair -- a 31-year-old laborer and a 32-year-old teacher -- defended their conduct saying: "We are atheists and for us, having sex in church is like doing it any other place."
However, Bishop Antonio Lanfranchi of Cesena-Sarsina took said the couple's behavior was "an outrage of notable proportions which bespeaks unutterable squalor."
He added that a special ceremony would be held to purify the confession box.
Starting in the 1950s, American states began to repeal "blue laws" that prohibited retail activity on Sundays. A new study by Jonathan Gruber of MIT and Daniel M. Hungerman of Notre Dame shows that the repeals of blue laws nationally has created both social and economic problems as a result.
The basic hypothesis of the study is that, with the repeal of blue laws, churches must now compete with secular activities, both from the perspective of time allocation (Do I go to church this morning or do I work, play or shop?) and of goods allocation (Do I spend my money at the mall or do I donate to the church?). Results from the survey show that the church suffers from both perspectives. In economics-speak, the opportunity cost of going to church has risen. With the blue laws, there was not as much opportunity cost to attending church. If you didn't go, you didn't have more options available to you (e.g., going shopping; the stores were closed). However, with the blue laws' repeal, now people had more options open to them. If you didn't want to attend church, then you could go shopping instead. One hour of worship at church meant that you had lost one hour's worth of secular activity.
Not surprisingly, church attendance has decreased, and donations to churches have fallen although, interestingly enough, donations to non-church charities didn't fall after the repeal of blue laws. The people who have stopped going to church were what the authors called "initially religious." Meaning, they used to be go to church but, with the repeal of the blue laws, they drifted away from the church. (However, as the authors also noted, the initially religious didn't become less religious, they only worshiped in a church less.) These "initially religious" are also the people who had the biggest increases in substance abuse. The authors found that among the initially religious, the more often they attended church in the past, the more likely they were to begin heavy drinking. For example, those who attended most frequently were 6.5% more likely to drink than those who didn't attend, which corresponded to about one-third of the difference in heavy drinking between weekly attendees and non-attendees. Likewise, those who who attended somewhat frequently were 3.3% more likely to drink. Results for marijuana consumption were very large (10.5% and 6.7%, respectively), while cocaine consumption increased somewhat less than alcohol consumption (4.1-4.3% for both very and somewhat frequent attendees).
The authors conclude with the following:
Absent strong negative externalities, there seems little argument for restricting the days of the week that commerce can take place. But religious participation may be one of those activities with such externalities. As such, secular regulations such as blue laws which promote religious participation can have external effects. Whether those external effects are sufficiently large to justify restrictions on commerce is an excellent question for future research.
In other words, should blue laws be put back onto the books? I would argue that there is a case for doing so. The Qur'an tells us several times to enjoin what is right, forbid what is wrong, and believe in Allah (e.g., 3:104, 3:110, 3:114, 22:41). Would not society benefit by encouraging religious participation, by having American Christians going back to church on Sundays, by donating money to churches (instead of spending it at the mall), and by reducing the amount of substance abuse (and hypocrisy), especially among those who used to be the best attendees? I would think so.
A Saudi blogger, Raed AlSaeed, has come up with a response to Geert Wilder's hate film, Fitna. Visually, Schism is divided into three parts: numerous American soldiers beating up a couple of Iraqi men (to the growing excitement of a warped American GI who was filming the scene from above), various clips from the movie Jesus Camp, and CNN coverage of Baghdad being bombed by the US Air Force at the start of the Iraq War in 2003. Interspersed are various quotations taken from the Bible (primarily the Old Testament) that, without context, make Judaism and Christianity seem particularly bloodthirsty.
However, Raed's purpose for making Schism is not to attack either Judaism or Christianity, but to show how and why a film like Fitna makes an intellectually dishonest argument. At the end of the movie, Raed wrote:
It is easy to take parts of any Holy book that are out of content [sic; he means "context"] and make it sound like the most inhuman book ever written. This is what Geert Wilders did to gather more supporters to his hateful ideology. To create schism.
To motivate young people to observe fasting and prayer during the 40-day Lent, Catholics are promoting the religious occasion this year as a "Christian Ramadan", the Daily Telegraph reported on Tuesday, February 12.
...
Der Kuil said the idea of "Christian Ramadan" was spurred by concerns that the Lent has become less important for Dutch over the last generation, especially since the Vatican loosened fasting strictures in 1967.
He notes that of the four million Dutch who describe themselves as Catholics and the 400,000 who attend Mass every week only a few tens of thousands still fast Lent.
Most Catholics now focus on charitable work during the 40-day feast.
Through the "Christian Ramadan" campaign, the organizers hope to bring back spirituality and sobriety to the Catholic tradition.
...
Der Kuil said they wanted to benefit from the increasing familiarity and popularity of the word Ramadan.
"The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent."
...
Der Kuil recognized that through the campaign they came to realize the amount of similarities between Muslims and Christians.
"The agreements are more striking than the differences," der Kuil maintained.
"Both for Muslims and Catholic faithful the values of frugality and spirituality play a central role in this tradition."
Does this mean that Christianity is so weak in Europe that a Christian concept such as Lent can only be understood by defining it through the terms of what many view as a rival religion?
If you have to define your own religion in terms of another's, then it's time to admit that the other side has "won," that Dutch Catholics should admit the truth and become Muslims.
That if your religion is so weak and your culture doesn't practice - literally - what you preach, then maybe it's best to get on the cases of your lapsed brethren for their own faults rather than bad-mouthing people from other religions who are more pious than you.
The real problem in Europe isn't "Multiculturalism" or "Shari'ah" or "Jihad" or "Eurabia" or any of the other bogey words that have come to symbolize the West's Islamophobia. The real problem is that most Muslims practice what they preach, that they live their religion (as we are supposed to), and that just scares the crap out of them. Because Europeans are afraid of religion. Because living a religious life will take them out of their comfort zone, introducing them to new routines and a new lifestyle. But especially because they realize that they live in a religious backwater. That despite all their material achievements and economic success, they've become spiritually backwards. The Quraish were in a similar situation during the last stages of the Age of Jahiliyah: economically successful, spiritually impoverished. Allah (swt) was merciful to the Quraish: they realized the truth before it was too late and became Muslim when they had the chance. The question now is whether Europeans (in particular, and the West in general) will do the same.
I came across a blog, GetReligion.org, where some of the commenters had suggested that a "Tmatt trio" be created for "contextualizing Muslims." Being unfamiliar with what a "Tmatt trio" is, I poked around the blog and found that it's a series of questions the writer, Terry Mattingly (tmatt), has used since the mid-80s to "find out where Christian leaders fall on a doctrinal (not political) scale from left to right, from progressive to traditionalist." The questions are:
(1) Are the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus accurate? Did this event really happen? (2) Is salvation found through Jesus Christ, alone? Was Jesus being literal when he said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)? (3) Is sex outside of the Sacrament of Marriage a sin?
And I had been trying to think, is there a set of questions that can be created for Muslims. I think the problem in trying to do so is that the range of possible answers given by Muslims to most questions would actually be quite narrow. Take the third question above (which is the only one of the three that's actually relevant to Muslims). The correct answer, of course, is "yes," which I suspect 99% of the world's Muslim population would agree to. (IMO, you'd really have to be outside of a state of Islam to answer "no" to that question.) And so the third question really isn't a good discriminator in being able to separate Muslims into more distinct groups. Which, of course, is something that's frowned upon in the Qur'an anyway. So I'm not sure such a trio of questions is really possible except for nit-picking into the minutiae of the religion because the basics of Islam are, IMO, pretty universal among all Muslims.
So, how is what Mike Huckabee said about trying to change the U.S. Constitution to reflect Christian beliefs any different from Muslims wanting to adopt Shari'ah as the basis for a law of the land.
I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.
Oh, that's right... It's OK when Christians want their own Shari'ah, but not when Muslims do.
Odd news story out of Colorado. The incident actually took place back in June, but this news report is as of December 20th. One would think that if he "sweats profusely if he wears clothing," then he needs to move further north... say, Alaska? Then he should be able to do nude jogging in the wilderness (and be a feast for the mosquitoes) to his (and their) content.
GREELEY, Colo. - A Catholic priest charged with indecent exposure after being accused of jogging naked in the pre-dawn darkness has pleaded not guilty and asked for a jury trial.
The Rev. Robert Whipkey was arrested June 22 in Frederick, about 25 miles north of Denver, after an officer saw him walking on a street naked at 4:35 a.m. Whipkey told police he jogged naked because he sweats profusely if he wears clothing, according an arrest report.
Whipkey did not speak at a hearing Tuesday, and neither he nor his attorneys would comment afterward. His trial is scheduled for March.
Whipkey served parishes in Frederick, Mead and Erie but was placed on administrative leave by the Archdiocese of Denver in August.
The archdiocese said Whipkey was investigated for "inappropriate personal behavior" more than eight years ago when he was a pastor in Sterling. The archdiocese said that incident did not involve "physical or sexual contact with another individual," but it gave no other details.
Almost a year ago, I wrote about the movie, Jesus Camp. The film must have taken the proverbial "slow boat" to get to S'pore because Milady and I only got our first chance to watch the movie at the theater this past weekend.
The movie was more or less everything I expected. The scenes with Ted Haggard were unintentionally amusing due to his hypocrisy, revealed by his scandal last year involving the gay prostitute. I could sympathize somewhat with the main characters; theologically, there are some similarities between what these evangelical Christians believe and what we Muslims believe.
I came away from the movie somewhat saddened, though; here is a group of people who have, IMO, debased a religion, saddling it with nationalism, militarism, sedition against their own government (the cup breaking scene), but also praising the President to the point where it bordered on idol worship. (I thought I saw a scene where the kids were bowing down to the cardboard image of President Bush; perhaps that was in the trailers. I expected to see it in the movie but didn't.) And then, of course, there is the politicizing of the children, the adults using them as pawns with regard to issues they don't necessarily understand.
Becky Fisher, the woman whom the movie revolves around, loves her American culture yet realizes that things there aren't right. And while there are many problems in American culture, I have to wonder if most of her discomfort was brought upon by herself.
The Vatican remains Islamophobic. Despite a recent change in Vatican policy that emphasizes a diplomatic approach in dealing with the Muslim world (instead of a theological approach), recent comments by the Private Secretary to Pope Benedict XVI, Monsignor Georg Ganswein, show that anti-Islamic attitudes in the Vatican die hard.
The Pope's private secretary has given warning of the Islamization of Europe and stressed the need for the continent's Christian roots not to be ignored, in comments released yesterday.
"Attempts to Islamize the West cannot be denied," Monsignor Georg Gaenswein was quoted as saying in an advance copy of the weekly Sueddeutsche Magazin to be published today.
"The danger for the identity of Europe that is connected with it should not be ignored out of a wrongly understood respectfulness," the magazine quoted him as saying.
He also defended a speech that the Pope gave last year that linked Islam and violence, saying it had been an attempt by the pontiff to "act against a certain naivety".
In the speech during a visit to Germany in September, the Pope appeared to endorse a view, contested by most Muslims, that Islam's followers spread their religion in its early days by violence.
...
Recently, Joachim Meisner, the influential archbishop of Cologne, said in a radio interview that the "immigration of Muslims has created a breach in our German, European culture."
“I believe that the speech in Regensburg,” he said, “is prophetic.” He added that the pope wrote his own speeches and that those remarks had not been edited.
The papal secretary said that the “harsh reactions” to the speech was “a big surprise, also to the pope.”
"The huge fuss that arose was because of newspaper reports that took a certain quote out of context and presented it as the pope’s personal opinion," he said.
The pope sought to speak to the fact that “no such thing” specifically defines Islam, Msgr. Ganswein said. “It does not have a voice that is obligatory and binding to all Muslims.”
"Under this term,” he said of Islam, “many different groups are put together that are partially hostile to each other, some even extremist, who refer their doings to the Quran and who use rifles for their goals.”
The next time someone gets on our case regarding Ayah 4:34, be sure to refer them to this page, Christian Domestic Discipline, and ask them to explain the double standard. :) From the CDD home page:
A domestic discipline marriage is one in which one partner in the marriage is given authority over the other and has the means to back the authority, usually by spanking.
A Christian Domestic Discipline marriage is one that is set up according to Biblical standards; that is, the husband is the authority in the household. The wife is submissive to her husband as is fit in the Lord and her husband loves her as himself. He has the ultimate authority in his household, but it is tempered with the knowledge that he must answer to God for his actions and decisions. He has the authority to spank his wife for punishment, but in real CDD marriages this is taken very seriously and usually happens only rarely. CDD is so much more than just spanking. It is the husband loving the wife enough to guide and teach her, and the wife loving the husband enough to follow his leadership. A Christian marriage embodies true romance and a Christian man a true hero.
Though this seems unusual in today's United States, this kind of marriage has been practiced throughout history and is still practiced in many parts of the world today.
