As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

This is gross and racist.

I heard he was fired from a job for antisemitism.

Have you seen 'Mister Deity's' reply to The Pope's sentiments concerning this? It's brilliant.

Oh my.
He seems a mite vexed...

God I miss Hitch's voice.

Good grief, I should say.

What anti-vaxxers sound like to normal people

1. Claim no. 1: While I am not sure whether Islam granted women more rights than they would have in the Christian world at the same (aka ca 632 AD) time, I don't know, but definitely women were granted more rights than they had in the early tribal history of Arabia. As I haven't read the Qu'ran just yet, I can't discuss any other thing about this claim just yet.

2. I know nothing about the rise of the Saudi dynasty... that might well be true, though. Whether and why the British wanted the Wahhabi movement installed in Saudi Arabia for political reason (e.g. what do the Wahhabi have to do with oil, I have no idea whatsoever!).

3. The Western treatment of Saudis as a major ally in the Middle East is, mildly put, flabbergasting and makes the Western investment in peace in the region, at best, doubtful. If they really, really cared, the interest would move to the trio of Egypt, Israel and Jordan with the rest of the region (especially the Arab League) being shunned out of the club until they actually recognize the state of Israel... and keep their own criticism of the human rights issue from that standpoint - from the perspective of Israel being a legitimately existing state.

Again, I'm suspicious of any claims that Islam offered social advancements given its penchant for precisely the opposite. Though I suppose if you cherry-pick it enough, and compare to other ills, it may appear beneficial in certain instances.

My main objection is the way in which it was argued for, since it misleads the unscrupulous reader into thinking that certain regressive ideas within Islamic countries would exist in the same form and to the same degree even without Islam. Faith never gets the blame. Faith is a mere personal and spiritual endeavour that never really causes anyone to do anything bad (which is certainly true for many). That's the takeaway message from these things, and frankly it's dangerous.

To people like my friend, ISIS are just a bunch of psychopathic thugs who desire power in this world and don't really believe in the hereafter. Although that may be true for some, a sort of Emperor's New Clothes deal, it doesn't get to the core of what ISIS really stands for and where those ideas come from. The inability to recognise that religious pluralism doesn't nullify the explicit calls for violence on offer in the religion has us at a loss against theocracy. These people would prefer to treat cancer through its symptoms rather than its cause. You feel ill? Forget chemotherapy, take a swig of whisky and wait for it to subside.

Well, yes. Religion was certainly a step up from tribal law. But so too is reason a step up from religion.

I tried of couple of times to formulate an answer, but stopped each time as I veered off wayyyy too much into all sorts of tangents.
And then I realised the issue: what is the actual question?
What historical claims do you question?
The tribal vs. religious ones? (That is VERY hard to argue on either side given the lack of written tradition for tribal culture)?
The creation and role of Saudi Arabia?

OK, if it's just the tone of the post, sure, Haider's response is perfect.
The view Moballeghi proposes, far from being "short and most brutal" is rather more "short and hopelessly lobsided".



Of course not. Therefore this would be considered a "Mustahdathah" (a "new thing"). The ruling must then be deduced from other general legal precepts and juristic principals, which in Saudi Arabia is -of course- extrapolated from Sharia concepts.

The legal argument in Saudi Arabia was never (as Moballeghi suggests) "women driving is not permitted in Shariah", but that "women driving will lead to corruption, which is forbidden in Shariah" (I shit you not) :
- Driving a car involves uncovering the face.
- Driving a car may lead women to go out of the house more often.
- Driving a car may lead women to have interaction with non-mahram males, for example at traffic accidents.
- Women driving cars may lead to overcrowding the streets and many young men may be deprived of the opportunity to drive.
- Driving would be the first step in an erosion of traditional values, such as gender segregation.
This is all considered haram ("unclean", and a perfectly valid juristic reason in Sharia) in Saudi Arabia.

So while you might argue (which Moballeghi DOESN'T) that Saudi Arabia uses extremely spurious and conservative logic in interpreting Sharia, the suggestion that this is not DIRECTLY linked to Sharia is simply false.



This may be true.
It may not.
At the end of the day it's utterly irrelevant.
The question is not (and has NEVER been) "who's first?", but "who's BEST?"
TODAY (and I use today in the sense of "our generation" ) there is absolutely no question that women's rights are far, FAR better served in the West than under Sharia or in Muslim countries in general.

And that really is all that matters.
Any historic comparison is an academic excercise. Cognitively interesting but irrelevant to today.
If we really want to go there I'll be happy to write up a comparison (which I guess will end in a bit of a stalemate)...but is it REALLY germane to ANYTHING anyone brings to the table today?



Absolutely true.
Even Indonesia, the most strict Sharia-governed country in the world, is happy to have women drive.
(Of course they're not stupid: it's also one of the poorest[/i[ countries in the world, and to take half the population off the road would mean economic ruin. Saudi Arabia can [i]afford insane laws like these!)



While the British were instrumental in helping the Saud dynasty to power, this had of course fuck-all to do with any interest on the British side in Wahabism. In fact, the Brits couldn't care less whatever these damn Arabs believed in as long as they could form a strong buffer against the Ottoman empire.

And THAT is the REAL reason the Brits shifted their loyalty from the local Hasemite Meccan emir Hussein bin Ali to Abdulaziz Ibn Saud: he had a much stronger military hold and was at the forefront of the Arab Revolt against the Turks. The Brits, hopelessly stuck in the trenches of Europe, had need of relief on the other front (and safeguard the way to India! That is SO often overlooked! The Brits couldn't give a toss about the Middle-East if it wasn't in the direct interest of keeping the way to India open!).

One could theorise that Wahabism was not entirely of disinterest to the Brits as it was a religious school of thought they were happy to cultivate (again!) in India (it was a nice counterbalance toi the Hindus. Divide and conquer, don't you know?). But there is absolutely no conceivable reason why they should be interested in it in the Middle-East. There was no political, military or economic benefit to it whatsoever.
Likely they just didn't care.

Side note:
Moballeghi is smart enough to steer away from the oil argument, as indeed that was completely invalid these days. But as it is used still far too often I still want to touch on the fact that Saudi oil was only discovered in 1938.
A full SIX YEARS AFTER the Brits granted Saudi Arabia independence.

The reason that they DID grant Abulaziz that stretch of sand is simply that the Brits couldn't AFFORD to keep it. And they loved a strong military leader to counterbalance the Turks.



Here the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I wholeheartedy agree. If there is one rogue state in the world today, it's Saudi Arabia.
The sooner that corrupt, evil hellhole of a state disappears, the better it will be for the region and the world.
The main reason I fully support alternative forms of energy has far less to do with considerations of the environment and everything with the global dependence on Saudi Arabia and Russia for fossil fuels.
The minute oil becomes irrelevant, both states will whither and die into the oblivion they so richly deserve.



Those western freedoms never had anything to do with religion in the first place.
Nor does freedom ever have anything to do with "power politics" (whatever she means by that. Sounds really "cool" and "engaged" though.).

Those western freedoms only really became true through ABANDONING religion.

Clearly she didn't keep up.

Perhaps I'm seeing it too much through this particular friend's perspective, I know it's what he would take away from it.

The soft bigotry of lower expectations, as Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali say. Muslims are mostly brown people, therefore it's progressive to give their beliefs a free pass and admonish your own culture.

I never realised how big a problem this was until I started to talk to people about it. People really do fail on the topic of Islam.

Yeah, it's true. They either fail too hard in the one direction (nuke 'em all, they're terrrrrrrrrrists) or the other (we have to be tolerant of their beliefs even if it means setting women's rights back several centuries).

Why can't we just all get along?