I like to eavesdrop

Today, I was in the bathroom at the library doing some light reading when some girls walked in. I could identify that they were Muslim becasue Well-maybe i couldn’t I just assumed. One girl was wearing the hijab. (first, let me apologize if any of these girls are in this class and now feel completely violated.) Then they mentioned fasting as they were fixing their hair and make-up. One girl asked the other if she still wears lipgloss while she fasts. (they both do) and then they applied their lipgloss.

As a Catholic, we fast for Lent, but that doesn’t even compare to Ramadan fasting. If someone said that I couldn’t eat anything for the whole day. I would have not even thought lipgloss would count. Very interesting.

Confusion between Islam & Culture

I have always failed to understand why all humans combine culture with religion. I understand both the culture and religion play a very important role in a person’s life. However, this does not mean that one should follow traditions of the family in the name of religion. When “the man of the house” takes all the decisions of the household not giving the female the chance to speak her mind and say “my God does not allow me” when asked, is a perfect example of combining religion with culture. These people do not realize that our Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) used to ask his wives for advice for the decisions related to their daughters or the household itself. Back in a small village of Pakistan, I have seen this happen in the majority of the houses. Even though they are very educated about Islam and most are scholars and few have bachelor’s degrees in teaching, business etc. They still make decisions which are admired by the society but not fully allowed in Islam, yet they act and think as if it is God’s decision.

Palestine vs. Israel (Not Pakistan)

Sorry for the mix-up. This is how little I know about the issue.

Response to Science and Religion

Religion and the religious in America today tend to use the divine as a sort of genie, or as your post implied, a sort of last resort. While I would agree that today religion has become just that in the secular realm, I would strongly disagree that this is in fact what it was intended to be. I am an Evangelical Christian, and Christ, or God, is not just someone that is a last resort, or someone that I just ask things from periodically. I find that this type of thought is self-serving and is quite contrary to what Christianity, or what I can tell about Islam, is all about. It is less of what can God do for me and more of how I can serve a God that has showered His grace and mercy through His Son for me. With this framework I can approach science and see that it in fact doesn’t disprove the existence of God, but verifies that we are not just chance creatures or creation, but a well thought of and exquisite masterpiece.

Psalm 139:14  “I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works,  and my soul knows it very well.”

Pakistan vs. Israel

Last week in our discussion, we ended on a heated note about what was going on with Pakistan and Israel. Now, I have heard about the fighting involved with these two groups, but I still do not understand the reasons for the conflict. Is it a religious, economic, political, social reason, or just all of the above. I know it is naive of me to not know this type of information, but I would like to hear it from the people who have taken an interest in it and have done more research than I would have done. So, if the two people who discussed this, or anyone who has knowledge from both sides, please respond to this or talk about it in class so I can understand the conflict more clearly as well as help make a decision on what to do about it.

Response to Sharia

The blog on Sharia raises some great material for debate. The easiest way to compare it to anything I have had personal contact with is of course the Ten Commandments found in the Old Testament. Moses read them to his followers and they were clear what they stated, yet the most obvious thing in them, is the clear lack of guidelines for punishment. As far as I am aware, Sharia, or Islamic Law provides those guidelines, not in the same way we see municipal parking fines with dollar signs next to them, but in a more poetic flow. I will take the example of the thief and his now missing hand with which he stole. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but Sharia then states that if a person steals, then let it be made so that he or she can no longer steal with that hand, or foot if they are creative. Thus, it is amputated. Same thing goes for other body parts, such as the eyes, ears, mouth and nose. I know for a fact that in the Islamic Republic of Iran they carry out such sentences via doctors. There are a host of organizations out there that have video evidence of doctors, who must have missed the Hippocratic Oath ceremony, removing an eye of some one sentenced to losing their eye by the Islamic courts, which base their findings upon Sharia. Other videos show the amputation of hands and feet by fellow Iranian doctors for other crimes committed. Hey, at least doctors perform the sentences in Iran, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, they still use swords to lob off the limbs. On the other hand, we see progressive, or moderate or whatever you wish to call what I deem a more humane Islamic nation which still uses Islamic courts with Sharia as their guidelines and they hand down prison sentences and monetary fines, something which gives me hope for the future. So to me, Sharia can be read by ten different people and interpreted twenty different ways, it is just up to the governments of the nations to determine just how Sharia will be implemented. 

Another aspect to consider in regards to Sharia implementation, is the issue of an open society or the geographical location of the many Islamic countries with Sharia. It is clear that the closed and authoritarian, maybe even despotic governments of the KSA and IRR have the harshest or strictest codes of Sharia, whereas Turkey or Tunisia do not. The difference between the nations could very well be because they are an open or more open society, and this openness could possibly stem from their geographical locations. Something interesting to ponder.

ME peace

I just got done reading the blog on the Peace in the Middle East slash Israel slash Palestine final slash Middle Eastern Politics class, and I felt compelled to blog my views on them. To tackle the issue of Peace in the ME, I don’t think that will ever happen, not because I wish it to continue, but because I believe as much in a Global Peace as I do in the Tooth Fairy. Sorry to ruin someone’s day out there. I take this stand because when you look at the factors which contribute to a peace in the ME, and you compare those to what must happen for those to change or progress, then the list because nothing more than an exercise in penmanship. Not only is there the what I believe ethnic and societal clash between Israel and the territories of Palestine, but there are countless other issues that go along hand in hand in contributing unrest in the region. I like to think of it as the ‘other’ Balkans. It’s is beyond foreseeable repair. 

Take Lebanon for example. There is a country which used to be hailed as one of the world’s, read: world’s, best spots for a Mediterranean vacation, for people from all over the globe, including multi-million and billionaires from pricey European banking cities. Yes, believe it or not, Beirut was once hailed as the Paris of the Middle East. Personally, I dislike the French, so a less-French analogy would have struck my fancy, but you get the point. The place was a haven for the well-to-do to spend some time in a great city during their down times. Then came the ’80s and the some say still continuing civil war wish remade the Lebanese landscape into a homage piece of Stalingrad in the 1940s. In the second half of the ’90s things were looking up and the city was able to restart its rise to prominence again. It became a hotspot for all things night life, including offering a host of fantastic night clubs where world famous DJs would spin to sell-out crowds into the morning hours. Of course this phase didn’t last past July of 2006 when Israel invaded for the umteenth time in retaliation for continued attacks by Hizb’allah. Now the country is still trying to stop its world from spinning, while Syria and Iran effectively r(ule)un the whole show, where Syria is the dominant force in the relationship. 

Moving on to other spot in the region, we can observe the massive split in Islam between Shi’a and Sunni play out in Iraq, we have the Kurds vying for their own independence in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey and even Armenia, which complicates things past the boundaries of the ME. The news never shows anything on the Kingdom, which I would argue means nothing great for humanity is going on there. I believe that the House of Saud has been long overdue for a revolution, but try saying that over there and you end up in a living hell, dead if you are lucky. Egypt doesn’t have such a good thing going in its country either, but is still stable enough. Jordan appears to be doing alright, but no one I’ve ever met from their is a huge fan of a monarchy. The UAE seem to be doing the best, but that could all change in a hurry. 

Lastly, I cannot forget to mention all of the troubles, issues and concerns that have arisen due to the US invasion and subsequent long-term involvement in Iraq, a country which was once the birthplace of modern civilization but has now been degraded into a political punch or bad punch line. The issue which I am trying to get at, is that if it is not one thing it sure as s**t is another. Historically it has been, and I fear the writers of history 200 years from now will say it ‘was’ now too. So for any dimmer of hope for peace in the region, I’d say it should be lights out. And the saddest thing of it all, is that instead of getting to the bottom of the real issues and talking points, the blanket of Islam is thrown over them and marked as being the root of it all. A label which Islam does not deserve, nor should be perpetuated by the many actors in this long standing conflict-rich region with an Euro-centric name.

Al-aqsa, Jerusalem

I recently read an article about Palestinians and al-aqsa mosque.  apparently, they are not even allowed to worship in the holy mosque unless they meet certain criteria. for example, men must be married and 50 years old minimum, and women must be married and 45 years old minimum.  for so many people, the first time they ever get to see this holy site is by the time they’re over 50.  and when they get there, they see plenty of tourists who come from all over the world that get to enjoy the sites and sounds that Jerusalem has to offer.  I felt so sad to learn the process they have to go through just to get into the mosque – often times, it takes so long to get through that they wind up missing the prayer. if security is the issue, then why the age/relationship restrictions?

Response to Tigger’s ‘Problem of Evil’

The contradiction or dilemma that you state actually occurs in most athiest-christian debates and is a foundation of most of the arguments I’ve witnessed. However, throughout my life I have understood Islam to have avoided that particular ‘problem.’ The Problem of Evil is best thought of as: God is omnipotent (ALL powerful). God is omniscient (ALL knowing). God is Omnibenevolent (ALL good). The world as we know it contains evil and suffery. This is the assumption of Christianity today. However, it is not the assumption of Islam nor has it ever been. So, if a being knows of evil and can stop evil then it is not a perfectly good being if it does NOT stop evil and suffery from happening. The Quran calls God MOST good/benevolent/gracious. It stops short of calling him all. So, he can tolerate a little evil, especially if it results in a greater good (i.e. eternal bliss for his subjects).

Logically, through reducto ad absurdium Epicurus resulted in this conclusion:

“Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?” – Epicurus

 

I personally think it’s because of Muslim scholars’ preservation of classical works that they were able to avoid this contradictory pitfall. But, the Quran looks at the other books and the past religions of the world as imperfect or flawed messages/prophets and Muhammed as the last and only one with a message that remains untouched/perfect. That, theoretically is also still valid.

 

If anyone has taken a logic course:

1. God exists. (premise)
2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word “God”)
3. God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition)
4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition)
5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
8. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
9. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 8.)
10. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
11. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 9 and 10)
12. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
13. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent, or all-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will not necessarily do so immediately when they become aware of it.

New Leadership, New Lifestyle? (a response to New Pakistani President)

I tend to agree with dawn89 in that a change in leadership does not always result in a change in policy or a change in a peoples’ lifestyle.  Rather, I feel, that more often than not when a nation’s (or even an organization’s) leadership changes, the citizens affected by such a change generally continue with business as usual.  Very rarely does a newly appointed official gain a seat of power and immediately implement such radical changes as to alter the day to day lifestyles of the people that he or she represents (or is supposed to represent).  Any major social change is generally a matter of time.  Larger changes in a national community may take decades to fully implement.  Some examples of this theory include the resignation of Fidel Castro as the President of Cuba and the death of Yassar Arafat and the change in leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization.  Neither of these shifts in leadership brought any major social changes to the citizens living under each the leader’s guidance; and no great social change should be expected of Pakistani President Zardari’s administration.  As dawn89 points out, however, “only time will tell” if this is the case or not.