NODE 5d00fae8Re: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
Ashfaq Rasheed <ashfaq@corp.cirrus.com>Thu, 15 Feb 1996 19:36:44 +0800
> From owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Tue Feb 13 10:34:37 1996
> To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
> In-Reply-To: <ad4541d1000210045325@[205.199.118.202]>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII>
> Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
> Precedence: bulk
> Content-Length: 971
> X-Lines: 20
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
> > At 10:07 PM 2/12/96, Steven C. Perkins wrote:
> > Once again, the gutter religion of Islam reveals the derangement of its
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > so-called Prophet.
> >
> > The world really needs to get around to nuking these folks.
> >
> Oh, Come now! Islam may in its present form be a religion deeply hostile
> to liberty. But since "nuking" the whole Islamic world would not be
> itself much of a defence of freedom, the only long term answer is to
> promote within Islam the same kind of Reformation as eventually made
> Christianity half decent. And Tim's comments do not contribute to that.
> I don't know how many internet servers there are in the Middle East.
> But, if I were an intelligent fundamentalist, I'd be copying it all over
> the place. "Look", I'd be saying, "these people really do mean another
> crusade to destroy us and our faith".
>
> I can understand Tim's disgust with these people. But I do question his
> manner of expressing it.
>
Actions of certain individual or group does not reflect what the actual
religion is. Examples of this can be found on every religion.
Somebody generalizing as above reflects his/her own closed/blocked mentality.
Look at yourself, if you can fall to such degrading levels and since you
happen to be a member of this mailing list, it is not ration to think as
every cpunks as demented as you are.
Ashfaq Ahmed
NODE c9fa9cceRe: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
Sean Gabb <cea01sig@gold.ac.uk>Fri, 16 Feb 1996 11:43:01 +0800
On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Ashfaq Rasheed wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> >
> > > At 10:07 PM 2/12/96, Steven C. Perkins wrote:
> > > Once again, the gutter religion of Islam reveals the derangement of its
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > so-called Prophet.
> > >
> > > The world really needs to get around to nuking these folks.
> > >
> > Oh, Come now! Islam may in its present form be a religion deeply hostile
> > to liberty. But since "nuking" the whole Islamic world would not be
> > itself much of a defence of freedom, the only long term answer is to
> > promote within Islam the same kind of Reformation as eventually made
> > Christianity half decent. And Tim's comments do not contribute to that.
> > I don't know how many internet servers there are in the Middle East.
> > But, if I were an intelligent fundamentalist, I'd be copying it all over
> > the place. "Look", I'd be saying, "these people really do mean another
> > crusade to destroy us and our faith".
> >
> > I can understand Tim's disgust with these people. But I do question his
> > manner of expressing it.
> >
>
> Actions of certain individual or group does not reflect what the actual
> religion is. Examples of this can be found on every religion.
>
> Somebody generalizing as above reflects his/her own closed/blocked mentality.
>
> Look at yourself, if you can fall to such degrading levels and since you
> happen to be a member of this mailing list, it is not ration to think as
> every cpunks as demented as you are.
>
> Ashfaq Ahmed
>
True, there are risks in generalising from the actions of one individual
to the group as a whole. Nevertheless, where Islam is concerned, there
are so many individuals behaving badly that we are justified in thinking
the whole religion a force for bad.
Doubtless, I shall be told that "true Islam" is "true tolerance", "true
freedom", and even "true apple pie". I may be told that the horrors of
actually existing Islam - remember this phrase, or something like it? -
are all somehow the fault of the West. But the fact is that most Moslems
venerate old men in beards, who think that anyone who disagrees
with them about God should be put to death, that a woman with a
clitoris is a kind of devil, and that Western classical music is evil.
By my standards, these people are disgusting. My only dispute with Tim
is in our manner of expressing our disgust.
Sean Gabb
Editor
Free Life.
NODE 879acad8Re: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
Sean Gabb <cea01sig@gold.ac.uk>Fri, 16 Feb 1996 20:11:51 +0800
On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Sean Gabb wrote:
>
> > where Islam is concerned, there
> > are so many individuals behaving badly that we are justified in thinking
> > the whole religion a force for bad.
>
> > But the fact is that most Moslems
> > venerate old men in beards, who think that anyone who disagrees
> > with them about God should be put to death, that a woman with a
> > clitoris is a kind of devil, and that Western classical music is evil.
>
>
> And your travels in the Islamic world consist of? And you
> personally know how many Muslims? And you have read how much Islamic
> sources?
>
I never visited Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union under Stalin; but I
think I am justified in regarding them as nasty places, hostile to any
concept of liberal civilisation. Equally, though I have done my best to
avoid visiting the Islamic world, I have seen enough *religious* Moslems
here in England, and read enough of their material, to know that Islam is
more often than not a force for evil.
Turning to literature, I have read my way through dozens of pamphlets
sent me by the Islamic Propagation Centre International of Birmingham -
the one that strikes me as most hilariously dishonest is "The Status of
Women in Islam" by Dr Jamal A. Badawi. I will upload a review of this
tomorrow. I also have a copy of the Koran, translation and Commentary by
A. Yusuf Ali; and I have read much of Al Ghazali and a French version of
"The Regency of the Theologian" by the late Ruholla Khomeini.
Of course, even if I list everything I have read about Islam or by
Moslems, and read three times more, you would still come on this list
questioning my right to form an opinion. One tactic - used ad nauseam by
the socialists - is to dismiss whatever I have read as works
unrepresentative of the true essence and canon. Well, I say that I know
quite enough about Islam to regard it as a horrible religion. I still
disagree with Tim as to what response is appropriate. But I agree with
him that it would be a nasty day for humanity if Islam were ever to
become the faith of a powerful and expansionist state.
Sean Gabb,
Editor
Free Life.
NODE c4020544Re: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>Fri, 16 Feb 1996 21:15:47 +0800
I have tried sending people comments in private mail, but that doesn't
seem to work.
This is NOT IslamPunks. This is totally off topic. Can you guys
discuss this privately instead?
.pm
Sean Gabb writes:
> I never visited Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union under Stalin; but I
> think I am justified in regarding them as nasty places, hostile to any
> concept of liberal civilisation. Equally, though I have done my best to
> avoid visiting the Islamic world, I have seen enough *religious* Moslems
> here in England, and read enough of their material, to know that Islam is
> more often than not a force for evil.
>
> Turning to literature, I have read my way through dozens of pamphlets
> sent me by the Islamic Propagation Centre International of Birmingham -
> the one that strikes me as most hilariously dishonest is "The Status of
> Women in Islam" by Dr Jamal A. Badawi. I will upload a review of this
> tomorrow. I also have a copy of the Koran, translation and Commentary by
> A. Yusuf Ali; and I have read much of Al Ghazali and a French version of
> "The Regency of the Theologian" by the late Ruholla Khomeini.
>
> Of course, even if I list everything I have read about Islam or by
> Moslems, and read three times more, you would still come on this list
> questioning my right to form an opinion. One tactic - used ad nauseam by
> the socialists - is to dismiss whatever I have read as works
> unrepresentative of the true essence and canon. Well, I say that I know
> quite enough about Islam to regard it as a horrible religion. I still
> disagree with Tim as to what response is appropriate. But I agree with
> him that it would be a nasty day for humanity if Islam were ever to
> become the faith of a powerful and expansionist state.
>
> Sean Gabb,
> Editor
> Free Life.
>
NODE 1d129625Re: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
Sean Gabb <cea01sig@gold.ac.uk>Tue, 20 Feb 1996 06:11:18 +0800
Alan,
I agree that I was looking at *Arabic* Islam, in which specific bad
features of Arabic culture have congealed with the religion. It is as if
I were to judge Christianity solely by reference to the Spanish Inquisition.
However, this being said, it is presently true that Arab Islam is the
most important single strand. It may be that the softer oriental
versions will gradually take over. If so, this is to be desired.
Indeed, so far as we can, we should even encourage this. In the
meantime, though, I think it wise to be aware of the nastiness of much
actually existing Islam, and to challenge any claims that its devotees
may make to moral superiority over our own civilisation. I think I was
too harsh in my postings of last week. But I stand by my dislike of the
Islam that I most often see.
Yours ever,
Sean.
PS I seem to be breaking my self-denying ordinance about postings on
Islam to the list. But this I suppose only confirms Tallpaul's doubts
regarding the honour and consistency of libertarians!
On Mon, 19 Feb 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:
> Sean,
>
> Women's place in Islam is just fine. The problem is that _Arabs_ like to
> define their ages-old cultural suppression of woman as Islamic. Which it is
> not.
>
> YOu in England are dealing with an unrepresentative sample of the Islamic
> world. May I suggest a few weeks of traveling through Java and Mindanao,
> to see another side of the coin.
>
> The crusaders liked to define their thuggery and thievery in the Balkans
> and middle East as being driven by Christian imperatives. Should we say
> that the Crusader's *actions* were a good definition of "christian
> principles"?
>
> Alan Horowitz
> alanh@norfolk.infi.net
>
>
NODE 7c4fcb9fRe: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
Sean Gabb <cea01sig@gold.ac.uk>Tue, 20 Feb 1996 09:47:40 +0800
I did say I wouldn't send this review. But having broken purdah once
already this evening, I see no harm in doing so again.
Sean Gabb.
This article was published in Free Life, No. 20, August 1994.
_The Status of Women in Islam_
Dr Jamal A. Badawi
Islamic Propagation Centre International (UK),
Birmingham, no date, 28 pp, Pounds 1.05
(No ISBN)
I have among my books various works by Hewlett Johnson, the
"red Dean of Canterbury", published in the 1940s. In their
gushing, literal acceptance of every Soviet lie, they read
oddly like one of Peter Simple's parodies. Was this man a
fool? Was he a villain? Was he something of both? I have
never bothered checking. All I can say is that his works
remain a good example of how a thoroughly evil system of
thought and government can be portrayed with some persuasive
force as its exact opposite.
Reading Dr Badawi's pamphlet puts me strongly in mind of these
works. Of course, I should never dream of calling its author
a villain or exactly a fool. I have no doubt that he believes
every word he has written, or that he has some understanding
of the matters here discussed. Even so, he does put forward a
point of view that is supported neither by a candid reading of
the sacred texts to which he appeals, nor by the most fleeting
glance at any of the societies, now or ever existent, that
have taken these texts at all seriously.
Dr Badawi begins:
The accusation that Islam oppresses women is nothing
new but a perpetuation of the centuries old
deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of the
Western world. (p.5)
He concludes, _inter alia_:
It is impossible for anyone to justify any
mistreatment of women by any decree of rule embodied
in the Islamic Law, nor could anyone dare to cancel,
reduce, or distort the clear-cut legal rights of
women given in Islamic Law. (p.23)
Taken in their ordinary, natural meaning, these claims are
false, and are easily demonstrated to be false.
Let us first examine Dr Badawi's use of the term "Islamic
Law". This is not, as some of his readers might suppose, a
single, unambiguous body of law - such as can be found in the
_Code Napoleon_, or even, if with considerable training, in the
English common law. It is derived from many sources. First
there is the Koran, which is a long and not always clear text
allegedly dictated to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel.
Second there are the _hadith_, which are the traditional stories
of what Mohammed said and did on various occasions. Since
there are nearly two million of these, and they often
contradict one another, there has been much room for dispute
as to their collective meaning. Third, there is the _ijima_, or
the consensus of opinion among learned Moslems. Fourth, there
is _qiyas_, this being a process of analogical reasoning by
which, in the absence of any other rule, a case is to be
decided in a manner consistent with the existing body of law.
This aside, Islam has over the centuries divided into many
sects, each with its own doctrinal emphases and accretions.
It is therefore quite impossible - except on the most obvious
sectarian grounds - to claim the existence of any single
Islamic Law, or any "clear-cut legal rights" held under it.
This allows Dr Badawi to sweep aside many objections to his
argument based on actual practice in Islamic societies. Or so
it would were he only to admit the existence of these
practices. He says nothing of female circumcision, or the
selling of brides, or the power of life and death often
possessed - and often exercised - by Moslem men over their
womenfolk. He does, however, allude to them in the expected
manner:
It is... a fact that during the downward cycle of
Islamic Civilisation, [Islamic] teachings were not
adhered to by many people who profess to be Muslims.
(p.23)
Yet even if we follow Dr Badawi's advice, to "make any
original and unbiased study of the sources of these
teachings", we find much that falls short of what is normally
meant by equality - and much that is at least inconsistent
with his claims.
Take, for example, marriage. Here, Dr Badawi contradicts
himself. He claims that husbands and wives "have equal rights
and claims on one another". (p.16) He immediately adds that
husbands have the exclusive "responsibility" of leadership.
His biological justification for this is irrelevant - and
would remain so were it true. An equality of rights and
claims, plus leadership! There is a twisting of words that
Hewlett Johnson himself might not have dared make so crudely.
Turning to divorce, Dr Badawi makes no explicit claim, but
uses a form of words that implies an equality of rights. This
is not an equality recognised by any Islamic jurist
uninfluenced by Western legal concepts. The general outline
of Islamic divorce law - an outline more or less accepted by
all jurists before this century - was summarised thus by the
Privy Council in 1861:
It appears that by the Mohammedan law divorce may be
made in either of two forms: _Talak_ or _Khoola_.
A divorce by _Talak_ is the mere arbitrary act of the
husband, who may repudiate his wife at his own
pleasure. But if he adopts that course he is liable
to repay her dowry, or _dyn-mohr_, and, as it seems,
to give up any jewels or paraphernalia belonging to
her.
A divorce by _Khoola_ is a divorce with the consent,
and at the instance, of the wife, in which she gives
or agrees to give a consideration to the husband for
her release from the marriage tie. In such a case
the terms of the bargain are a matter of arrangement
between the husband and wife, and the wife may, as
the consideration, release her _dyn-mohr_ and other
rights, or make any other agreement for the benefit
of the husband.^1
A man can divorce his wife at any time, without consent. A
woman must negotiate and then often buy her way out of an
unsuitable marriage. Again, some equality!^2
But Dr Badawi goes further. He appeals to the Koran. This,
he says, provides
clear cut evidence that woman is completely equated
with man in the sight of God in terms of her rights
and responsibilities. (p.13)
I have not space to quote his appeals to the Koran on this
point: my readers may find them in chapters 74:38, 3:195,
4:124, 2:36, 7:24-24, and 20:121. Anyone who reads them will
find nothing of any substance. I will instead make my own
appeal, quoting chapter 24:31:
And say to the believing women that they should
lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they
should not display their beauty and ornaments except
what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they
should draw their veils over their bosoms and not
display their beauty except to their husbands, their
fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their
husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers'
sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the
slaves whom their right hands possess, or male
servants free of any physical needs (ie, eunuchs),
or small children who have no sense of the shame of
sex; and that they should not strike their feet in
order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.^3
Let us ignore that if this is the direct Word of God, it
sanctions slavery and involuntary castration. I will only say
that it has been used, together with other verses of the same
kind, to justify at least the economic oppression of women in
traditional Islamic societies. It limits the range of
employments open to them - partly by imposing a dress code
incompatible with many occupations, and partly by forbidding
contact with any man not related to them.
Turning to formal equality before the law, take chapter 4:15-
16:
If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take
the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from
amongst you against them; and if they do testify,
confine them to houses until death do claim them, or
God ordain for them some (other) way.
If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish
them both. If they repent and amend, leave them
alone; for God is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
The commentary here leaves it open whether "lewdness" means
simple fornication or homosexual intercourse. But the
procedural meaning is plain. Men can get away with
repentance: women are shut away for life unless God himself
comes down to say otherwise.
There is much more that I could say. A reading of the Koran
is most enlightening - though not in any sense that Dr Badawi
might hope. But I have said enough. Under Islam, women are
most emphatically not equal to men. Certainly, men are
repeatedly encouraged to treat women with more consideration
than seems to have been usual in Arabia before Mohammed became
its ruler. But this consideration falls short of the equality
that Dr Badawi insists is the case.
In passing, I will draw attention to Dr Badawi's ignorance of
Western history and culture. He claims. for example, that
In England over nine million women were burned alive
in the 16th century. (p.5)
In reply, I quote from a letter to Dr Badawi written by my
friend Judith Hatton:
The total population of Britain (not England alone)
was 2.5 million in 1500, and about 5 million in
1650. Parish records show that there was an average
annual mortality rate of 55,000, which of course
includes men, women and children. To reach your
figure 90 thousand women alone would have had to be
executed annually, without consideration of any
normal deaths.
That, I think, answers this claim. Let us move to another:
Even in modern times, and in the most developed
countries, it is rare to find a woman in the
position of a head of state acting as more than a
figurehead.... (p.22)
What about Mary I and Elizabeth I of England? Catherine de
Medici of France? Christina of Sweden? Maria Theresa of
Austria? Anne and Catherine of Russia? What of all those
other European women who enjoyed something like supreme power,
though only informally? And, against this, how many Islamic
countries have been ruled by a Queen, or have tolerated
anything approaching "petticoat" government? The only Queen
who immediately comes to mind as the ruler of an Islamic
country was Queen Victoria, Empress of India!
Again, take this:
In the 17th century, the clergy in Rome decided that
women had no soul and would therefore not enter
paradise.
But this is a claim too laughable to merit reply. I only ask
Dr Badawi to produce a source to justify it. I am in no hurry
to receive it, though: let him first become better informed
about his own religion before he starts investigating another.
Now, I suppose I should conclude with a general statement
about Islam. If my tone in the above may sound contemptuous,
it is not because I hold Islam in contempt or fear. I do not
share the view of the remaining Cold War cranks in the Tory
Party that it is the Next Great Enemy of Apple Pie that must
be beaten down by the same means that kept so many people in
agreeable jobs before 1989. It is not a necessarily barbaric
religion. It enjoins many things that are of enduring value
and prohibits or discourages many things that are bad. The
Old Testament has texts quite as savage as those to be found
in the Koran; and both Judaism and Christianity have their
grim old men with beards who mutter these texts whenever there
is someone else around trying to have fun or do something
generous. Nevertheless, in Islam, the old men are still in
charge. That is the problem.
I dislike Dr Badawi's pamphlet and everything else that I have
read produced by the IPCI. But I am glad that they are
produced in English and made so freely available to non-
believers. Here is an invitation to debate. By joining in
that debate, and winning it, we can do far more than any
number of Gulf War massacres to bring on the internal
reformation that Islam so plainly needs before it can stand
usefully beside the two other great monotheistic religions.
*Marian Halcombe*
Notes
1. _Moonshee Buzul-ul Raheem v Luteefut-oon-Nissa_ (1861),
cited in Asaf A.A. Fyzee, _Outlines of Muhammedan Law_, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi, 1974, p. 164. The practice of
the authorities in British India was to let each group, so far
as possible, live under its own customary or religious law.
In deciding this case, the judges at first instance would have
taken the advice of the most authoritative Islamic jurists
available. That this summary is a good one is indicated by
its having been cited by Mr Fyzee.
2. Divorce by _Talak_ is still allowed in some Islamic
jurisdictions, and there have been Moslem men settled in this
country who have tried - of course, without success - to have
it recognised in the English courts. I will not cite the many
cases: my readers may find them discussed at some length in
David Pearl, _A Textbook of Muslim Law_ (2nd edition), Croom
Helm, London, 1987.
3. I quote here and below from the translation with
commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, also published by the IPCI.
*Editor's note*
Though priced at 1.05, Dr Badawi's pamphlet and many others
like it are available free of charge from the Islamic
Propagation Centre International (UK) at 481 Coventry Road,
Birmingham, B10 0JS, Tel: 021 773 0137, fax: 021 766 8577.
The translation of the Koran used by Mrs Halcombe is available
from the same address at the greatly subsidised price of
Pounds 7.50, plus Pounds 3.50 p&p.
Any reply to Mrs Halcombe's review will be seriously
considered for publication. It should address her specific
points and not be too long.
*Note for this uploading
A copy of this review was sent to the IPCI in August 1994. I received
a brief acknowledgment, but am still waiting for any kind of refutation.