Islam.

[epictetus]

(Something I sent to my Theology forum):

What happens to a precocious Emirati boy from a prosperous family whose mother is Russian Orthodox and whose father, a politician and diplomat, was assassinated by a Palestinian when the lad was six?

He speaks Russian fluently, but his Arabic is poor. He's sent to the International School where English is the language of the classroom and the playground. He then goes to Rugby School in England as a boarder and completes a Law degree at Oxford University. Not your average Arab Muslim, of course, but increasingly acceptable, it seems, at least in the UAE, as he has been since 2009 the UAE Ambassador to Russia.

His name is Omar Saif Ghobash, now 46 and the author of a book called Letters to a Young Muslim (Picador 2017). The book is a compendium of 27 short letters written to his teenage son imploring him to make choices in his life that enable him to "always maintain your dignity, your individuality, and your independence of mind".

To do so, the young lad (Saif is his name) will have to be most watchful not to simply follow the crowd of Muslims who just follow Islamic preachers, most of whom Omar Ghobash has very little time for (though they've been neutered somewhat in the UAE itself). He will need to know his faith and respect the Prophet and the Qur'an, but not just to follow them. He needs to craft his own Islam along with his own character as an independent individual that respects non-Muslims, acknowledges the value of major Western ideas and achievements, encourages women's self-fulfilment, and sees the importance of open-minded education.

In other words, Ambassador Ghobash is exhorting his son to throw off the dominance of tribalism, clannishness, religious chauvinism and obscurantism. Quite an ask for a young Arab Muslim, though something the boy's father, through his privileged life, has been able to achieve.

Of course, as an Arab Muslim diplomat, Ghobash must profess Islam and refer to it as the fundamental standard by which ethical and political principles are to be judged. However, he claims there is much room for interpretation (and, by implication, revisionism) of the core messages of the Qur'an and the life and teaching of the Prophet. This is a modernist claim that some US-based Muslim academics promote. It seems it may be gaining some traction in the Middle East, though Ghobash's general view of Arabic Islam seems to be pretty negative.

Despite his exhortation to Saif to study his birth religion widely and deeply Ghobash himself does not query the standard Muslim narrative (the "Sunday School" version) of the origins and expansion of early Islam and the Qur'an. Of the latter he proclaims its unchangedness since the normalisation of the Uthmanic Codex in the mid-600s despite undeniable evidence that it has changed.

He even refers to a weak hadith as evidence that Muhammad himself was a great believer in open-minded scholarship. The hadith is the one in which the Prophet tells his companions that they should seek knowledge "even as far as China". Muslim scholars generally regard this hadith as da'if (weak)**. However, it is acceptable to use weak hadiths in teaching if they illustrate or exemplify a point without being the point. Ghobash takes this one a bit further as an example of Islamic encouragement to travel the world in pursuit of truth and wisdom. I suspect this is a pretty eccentric view, though there have been great Muslim travellers in search of knowledge.

Ambassador Ghobash's advice to his son is a manifesto of liberal, egalitarian, and social democratic principles - freedom, tolerance, sexual equality, untrammelled expression and scholarship, care for the poor and vulnerable - it's all there, everything that a western liberal and socially responsible person professes, at least in public. As an Islamic model, however, it seems wildly idealistic to me, and Omar Ghobash acknowledges that it's still a small model trying to break out in an Islamic world - especially that of most Arabs - that is dominated by ignorance, illiteracy, poverty, religious dogmatism, exclusivism, tribalism, and hostility to non-Muslim domains. However, states like the UAE and other Gulf States are making progress in both religious and secular education and are challenging the lazy, dogmatic and hyper-insular models that other Arab Muslim institutions and leaders promote, at least in part out of sheer lack of imagination and traditionalist unwillingness to question what is passed on to them.

The book is quite short, very easy reading, fairly autobiographical, and gives one an insight from the inside into the Muslim world and its forces and pressures. Without, I think, intention on the author's part, the glimpses we see of everyday lay and clerical Islam are at times quite scary. It is often said that good secular education is essential for Islam to once again experience an Enlightenment, and I agree, but it may not be sufficient. Communication pathways and greater competence in English to access the internet more freely may be more immediately effective in bursting the bubble of Islamic insularity. Unfortunately, the internet is a playground also for tech-savvy Salafists and fanatics.

I think it's a good read for people who are seeking varied perspectives on the state of Islam in our time.

** In fact this hadith may not just be weak, it may not exist at all. I can't find any source for it. It might be a fake quote, though it's been around a while, I think.

[cster]

He's been raised in the Western lifestyle and now he portrays it as a lifestyle worth achieving. A more open to the world and others. We could take a leaf out of that book.

[cster]

G'day Epic. In your response to Madam T's 74th, you said quote I'm pretty caught up in Islamic and Middle Eastern History studies. My Theology forum is a good sounding board for this. Not everyone's idea of how to spend one's retirement, but I find it fascinating

So I'm wondering if you have seen any trends in behaviour, The knock-on effect of a previous deed in the psyche where it becomes ingrained in behaviour.

To my mind the great flood, had disposed peoples of their land and land possession became manic there after.
Is there any or do you see any trends similar in the background of the mindset of the religion and its people at all??

Hell of a question I know but sometimes when its asked, the next time through the data sheets can reveal some such "ISM" not noted before.

[epictetus]

Cster, you speeka da strange language to me.

So I'm wondering if you have seen any trends in behaviour, The knock-on effect of a previous deed in the psyche where it becomes ingrained in behaviour.

In whose behaviour? A "deed in the psyche"? Psychic action? Please explain Kemosabe.

"The great flood"? Dispossession -> Mania? "Hell of a question I know...". ...Sure is. Not one I can understand, let alone answer.

Unless ... unless you are suggesting that "isms" are the product of a powerful catalyst, perhaps trauma, a bit like Nazism grew from the trauma of defeat in war and the trainwreck that was the Weimar Republic. How am I going?

Isms and religions don't arise in a causal vacuum any more than anything else. Sometimes, like Judaism, they evolve over millennia from tribal myth to a faith system. Christianity might be said to have arisen from the cultural and philosophical tension between Judaic particularism vis-a-vis Graeco-Roman universalism, the former identified by ethnicity and legalism, the latter by citizenship (of an empire) and philosophical diversity (Roman legalism took over Christianity in the 4th century). Islam, on the other hand, appears not to have arisen from any particular crisis or catalyst.

Pre-Islamic Arabia pottered along quite nicely, occupied largely by trading, nomadic tribal warfare and revenge killing, growing dates and reciting poetry. Some Arabs became Christians, some Jews, some fought for the Byzantines or Persians in their ongoing wars of attrition. Life went on and the Arabs didn't suffer too much. Muhammad, however, who appears to have been exposed while young to Arab versions of both Jewish and Christian traditional stories, felt that while the Jews had prophets and a scripture (the Torah) and the Christians had Jesus and the New Testament, the Arabs didn't have anything apart from an oral anthology of profane poems and some 300+ gods and goddesses that they could call their own. Hence Muhammad the receiver of revelations through an angel and the compiler thereby of a scriptural text, the Qur'an, just for the Arabs and received and written down in Arabic. The Arabs, thereby, in their own mind, became an enlightened people with a book to show for it, and the pre-Islamic past was then dismissed as Jahiliyya, the age of ignorance.

"We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an so you people may understand." (Qur'an 12:2)

"We have made the Qur'an easy in your language so that they may take heed of it." (Qur'an 44:58)

The present surge of backward-looking (restorationist, Salafi) Islam, however, could be said to have arisen from trauma, originally from the failure of modernism in the Arab world as it tried to adapt from and keep up with the West and couldn't, and more recently from the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath (the relighting of ethnic and religious tensions among Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds especially and the takeover of the national government by pro-Iranian Shi'ites). This gave rise to ISIS in Iraq and Syria, together with a host of loosely connected and often fratricidal Sunni restorationist movements and their armed wings.

At home, one could hardly say that Muslims have been traumatised here (they may well have been in their countries of origin) but the Salafi narrative (return to the 7th century model set by the Prophet and recapture of the lands lost to Islam since the Spanish reconquista [8th - 15th centuries]) can be an attractive one compared with the alienation young Muslims, especially those who lack intellect, social skills and self-reliance, feel in a society where they are not successful and perceive that they are not trusted. I suppose this is a form of trauma, though not one that is caused by a singular incident or intense experience of traumatic incidents closely connected in time and by a clear cause.

Does that go some way towards answering your question?

[cster]

Trends are what seems to establish the ingrained behaviours of this world, but from where they come, well that's a hard one to fathom. So if someone pique's your interest in it, then it'll appear despite not searching for it.
Yes you do to some extent, Trends are hard to see if you're not looking for them. But what you say delivers little snippets to rummage around in my thoughts when I see things happen on the telly.

The very penchant to build an empire came from somewhere, perhaps the invasiveness of having others invade you.

Our lack of uptightness, from the island nation ethic that said we were just too far away to mess with.
But the world wars changed that, and now most of the planet has us in mind as a place to visit or stay.
Some want to change us to suit them and others want to experience us as we are, that happens on a national level and on a personal level, all of this is what makes up the way the world works.

These behaviours are trends ingrained, such as the British stiff upper lip mentality.
The French's impassioned life style.
The stiff German-ness of Germany who's precision cuckoo clock's gave way to a bike with shin splitting cylinders poking out both sides. cuckoo indeed.

Our ethnicity wasn't created so we could all be cool hipsters. Its far deeper than that and subtler in the mould. But surely religion has it in the mouldings as well.


So we can see why a great big melting pot wont help us.

[cster]

Backgrounding these sorts of thing helps me not react to the constant barrage of news items.

Social Media are at fever pitch with their reactions, and the rudeness and impetuousness of their degrading calls.

There just ahs to be a fathomable method to the madness.

[epictetus]

Jul 23, 2017 11:10:34 GMT 10 cster said:

The very penchant to build an empire came from somewhere, perhaps the invasiveness of having others invade you.

Good point. The Arabs didn't have to build an empire to exorcise the shame of having been invaded. They hadn't been invaded.

What Muhammad had was a whole bunch of restless Bedouin horsemen who had to be kept busy. Together with that he had missionary zeal to spread the new faith as well as to provide a buffer and, thereby, security for his community in Medina and, later, in Mecca. We now call this "forward defence".

What they found as they proceeded north and east was that the Byzantine and Sasanian empires were ripe for the picking. They had fought each other to a standstill and were unable to provide strong resistance to the Arab invaders. Add to that the fact that the Byzantine Church had been ostracising and alienating the Christians of the East (Palestine, Syria, Lebanon) since the 400s, and the Christians had been giving the Jews a hard time in those locations, and the Arabs found themselves welcomed or at least not opposed.

The military conquest was really quite easy. Once in place, the Arabs called upon the Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian professional and scholarly classes to provide the administration and cultural refinement that the Arabs so seriously lacked, and the military conquest evolved into Islamic culture in the Fertile Crescent, Mesopotamia, Iran and Central Asia.

The story was a bit different in North Africa as the indigenous inhabitants were nowhere near as culturally advanced as the Eastern regions.

[cster]

That is amazing A warrior and a missionary all wrapped up in the one driving force.

Seems like war has been the only constant companion of we've had.

Still without this early drive they'd not have this "in service to" mentality to allah.

That very "in service to" seems to be the purpose of religion, it teaches us to be in service to, god. Thus enabling us to be in service to community in service to another. A we not me life of service.

[epictetus]

There's been a post doing the rounds of social media in which a "Muslim lawyer" responds to the claim that not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim.

I don't really want to go tit for tat against the validity of his references to the transatlantic slave trade, genocide in North America and Australia (he forgets South America), the Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the (Ugandan) Lord's Resistance Army, the KKK, etc, etc, most of which, though reprehensible, especially from our privileged 21st century western perspective, can't really be fitted into any definition of "terrorism" (itself a badly compromised term).

I will refer, however, to the slave trade. 12-15 million slaves were traded in Africa by their own chieftains via Arab slavers and British and American purchasers between the 15th and the 19th centuries. By contrast, roughly 20 million slaves were captured and sold by Arab traders between the 7th and 20th centuries as well as those who were enslaved by Arabs in pre-Islamic times (since Muhammad's time Islamic law has not permitted the enslavement of Muslims). I will acknowledge, though, that Arab and Muslim treatment of slaves was, on the whole, more humane than that of the Africans that were sent to North America and the Caribbean. (ISIS's systematic brutality is an exception.)

Rapid fire and shallow bickering on social media such as Twitter is not really the way to discuss significant issues. It has the capacity to confirm biases that already exist, as well as to hoodwink shallow-minded people into thinking these bytes have real substance. However, the interesting and ironical thing to my observation in this case is that the "Muslim lawyer", Qasim Rashid, is in fact an Ahmadi human rights activist.

Ahmadi Muslims are not accepted by Sunni or Shia Muslims as Muslim. They follow a self-proclaimed prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who flourished in the Punjab in the late 19th century. Although born out of the Islamic tradition they are highly heterodox, claiming that Mirza Ghulam is the Mahdi come to reform and renew Islam. As far as mainstream Muslims are concerned, Ahmadis are fair game for persecution. So Qasim Rashid is not so much defending Muslims but riposting that "you Christians are just as bad" (or worse).

As for being a lawyer, I suppose he is, but a "human rights activist" is someone with, usually, a whole shed full of axes to grind. His profession is not really germane to the matter at hand, though if he'd been an insurance assessor or a gas fitter would his profession have been highlighted in the heading?

www.indy100.com/article/muslim-lawyer-twitter-troll-isis-christian-viral-7666046

[epictetus]

THE BURKINI BACKLASH


You thought the burkini brouhaha was over? Wrong, as this article shows.

www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10822/europe-burkini-war#continued

Frankly, I couldn't give a damn if I had to share a beach or a swimming pool with someone in a properly designed burkini, but the French are very attached to symbols and to laicite (sorry, can't type accents) and the tourism industry thinks no one will come if they see a lady in a full body garment (weird).

That women should feel immodest in a bikini I can understand full well, but that they should feel obliged to cover arms, legs and head when they're at the beach just seems silly to me. Perhaps when the current primitive Islamist trend has run its course, devout Muslims will go back to the sensible norms common in days when Islamic societies were more confident and more mature.

On a personal note, none of my Thai or Lao female friends or relatives would wear a bikini or probably even a one-piece swimsuit in Thailand. That only happens on tourist beaches and, perhaps, in up-market hotel pools. Thai women on popular beaches normally wear a tee shirt and bike pants. Men often (usually?) wear a tee shirt and shorts. Neither men nor women want to get dark, you see. 😊

[forge]

++want to get dark++ or...darKER?!??
The steps to "fall from"... are slippery! You start by being white, then yellow, then light brown, followed by dark brown and THEN....SORRY WE are NOT allowed to "upsets" the darker versions of.....!?!?!

Forge

PSS. Epic, take extreme care!! Do NOT upset ( or down set?)the lightly tinted ex teaching colleagues or... there go YOUR chances of being called to teach (after retirement!!) at your Lightly Tinted Teaching Alma Mater!!

[cster]

Oh dear from Ivory to Ebony and all the happier shades in between, we can not but mention because of the PC thing.

This current primitive thing, has set everyone on edge, the moderates and the infidel, the gentile, the heathen alike.

[epictetus]

PAULINE'S PARLIAMENTARY PRANK

Pauline Hanson's stunt in the Senate was unparliamentary but very clever in arousing just the kind of over-reaction that keeps her at the top of the news.

But what of the reaction? The normally rather lugubrious George Brandis leapt on to his charger in a flash to slay the Hansonite dragon, much to the joy of the members opposite, before anyone had had time to think, or at least to process the implications of either Ms Hanson's act or of George's response.

George worked himself up into a state over a sixth form prank on the grounds that (a) Pauline had insulted the Muslim community by wearing their religious garments, and (b) had threatened the security of all Australians by offending the Muslim community and encouraging its younger members to become radicalised.

But the burkha is not an Islamic garment. It was known in pre-Islamic Arabia as a covering for animals and as a shawl for women to protect themselves from the cold in winter. It was also known in Persia. Maliki (the second most strict) and Hanafi (the most liberal) sharia declare that a Muslim woman is required when she goes out in public to cover every part of her body except her face, hands and feet. Her hair, yes, but not her face. (Hanbali and Shafi'i sharia allow the face and hands to remain uncovered, but require the feet to be covered.) Hence, many Muslim women wear the hijab that covers the hair, neck and shoulders, but not the face, and the hijab can be designed and worn in a way that preserves a woman's beauty and is an attractive garment in itself. Of course, many Muslim women don't cover their hair either. In fact, until the sadly derailed Muslim Spring, women in universities and civil service in Tunisia were forbidden to wear any head covering.

The burkha, then, and its cousin the niqab (which covers the lower part of the face) are not Islamic; they are the product of tradition and culture among some Muslims, especially those, as Ms Hanson pointed out, that confine women to closed quarters and highly specified roles. She wants the burkha banned from public places (in Queensland it's already banned from government offices; I don't know what banks say). She hasn't said she wants Islamic/Muslim head covering banned. One can agree or disagree, but perhaps it's important to clarify one's terms before leaping on to one's high horse and charging off in all directions at once.

George the Hansonite dragon-slayer also fears (and he was backed up by "experts" on this) that Pauline's arrogant and inappropriate prank could stir the wrath of already alienated and restless young Muslims and steer them down the dangerous paths of violent jihadism. In order to avoid this possibility it was necessary for the Attorney-General to stand up for fundamentalist Islamism, the very source of the jihadism that he fears so much. After having told the Australian people so many times that Muslims are peaceful, jihadism is not Islamic and that violent jihadis are a tiny splinter of Islam in Australia he now tells us that the Muslim community is so sensitive that something as silly as Pauline in a burkha is going to set them off and have them engaging in acts of terror against their fellow citizens.

In the clear light of the post-tantrum anti-climax, would it occur to George and all the pavlovian senators who stood and clapped, that his emotional defence of the burkha and its advocates is a betrayal of all those non-Salafi Muslims (i.e. most Muslims in Australia) who'd be happy to see the burkha off the streets, but who are afraid to say so. Why does it have to be George the A-G who defends the wearing of the burkha in public when it's no part of Qur'anic teaching or Islamic law/fiqh as taught by all four major Sunni schools? Is George Brandis the right person to speak up for Islamic fundamentalists? Isn't the matter of whether to wear the burkha something that Muslims can decide (most already have - they don't wear it) without the Attorney-General stepping in to support one (the minority) side of the debate, the side that advocates illiberalism, exclusivism, misogyny and violent retribution?

Wouldn't it be nice if Australian politicians could think before they act. I know it's difficult in our day and age, but it would certainly contribute to a healthier political environment if they could.

[cster]

It was marvellous to watch the parliament, unable to do as they say, but they did do as we do and gawked, mouth agape and then they started, stupid is as stupid does, so sayeth Forest Gump.

All that Political Correctness, Pity they could not muster the where withal to be PC in their action.

They say actions speak louder than words, Well Pauline sure showed us how incapable of living by their word our pollies are. They could not contain themselves with PC decorum rather they reacted as commoners do.

The Christian thing to do is take it on the chin, all this radicalization. But there is always going to be a time when payback occur. So they may react and give Pauline a serve, but then again we don't know where the Plimsoll Line is either. Cumberland Shire didn't know we had a limit did they.

The to-ing and fro-ing will lead to pushing and shoving, I wonder to what lengths the Parliament will go to rid themselves of someone who shows them their true colours so often.

[epictetus]

Daniel Pipes: 'Weak Leadership' Put NYC at Risk of Terror Attacks
RT
October 31, 2017
Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes was interviewed by RT shortly after Sayfullo Saipov's October 31 vehicular terror attack in lower Manhattan that left 8 people dead, before details about the perpetrator had been reported. Watch the video here.


Excerpt
What is your initial response to ... a likely Islamic-related terrorist attack in such a big city, such a popular tourist destination, and what one would have expected to be such a well-protected area?

Initially, the jihadi attackers went for targets like buildings and airplanes – difficult targets, took them a great deal of planning, money, communications, and the like.

These days, they go for much simpler targets, like people on the street, renting a truck or a car, using a kitchen knife. And really in the end there's no way of stopping these, except by being very careful about who one lets into the country. In all likelihood – I'm guessing here, I'm speculating – in all likelihood this is a migrant. Someone who arrived in the United States, who was not fully vetted, and who is now attacking, because we've seen this happening so many times before.

More at:
mailchi.mp/meforum/daniel-pipes-weak-leadership-put-nyc-at-risk-of-terror-attacks-dpo?e=2144d39423
.............................................................................................................................

Nations that still profess liberal democratic principles have a problem. Those who are not in denial acknowledge that there is a global war between Salafist Jihadism and any society that professes individual autonomy, elected governments, basic human rights, and the rule of secular law. The enemy may represent the views and aspirations of only a small minority (est. 10%), but it doesn't exist in a vacuum: there are many more in the Muslim communities who sympathise with at least some of their goals while demurring at their methods.

They're out there, ready and willing to change the world in their own image. Even if there aren't many close at hand; even if there are other crazies out there, too; even if you haven't ever been anywhere near a terrorist attack, the guerillas of Islamic supremacism are working on plans to make our present rights and freedoms unsustainable.

But we are a liberal society, so we don't arrest people without clear evidence that they intend to do harm. We protect their rights and they live in our midst. We don't want to abuse the rights of any community just because they harbour, probably unknowingly, potentially violent individuals. We give people the benefit of the doubt until that is no longer possible, and then, as we know, it is sometimes too late.

I sympathise with national and regional leaders who don't want to be invading the privacy of people who apparently lead responsible lives. I understand their concern to deflect anger and blame away from peaceful members of an identifiable target community. I don't accept, however, their declarations, made in the full flush of ignorance, that "this has nothing to do with Islam" when it couldn't be clearer that it is all about Islam - as the thuggish perpetrators of violent acts understand it, and that understanding is derived from a significant, if minority, tradition of Islamic interpretation.

Despite the vacuous vapidity of those who cry "Islamophobia" on all occasions, Daniel Pipes has always emphasised that he does not see the Jihadis as typical Muslims and that he regards moderate Muslims as essential to solving the problem of Jihadism in the West and elsewhere. However, he does argue the need for action to prevent the kind of Jihadi violence we've seen in 2017, and a key element in that is careful vetting of anyone applying to immigrate from Muslim countries or from Muslim backgrounds. To do so provides some degree of protection for the host nation's citizens and the Muslim communities and families resident there. There are other measures, too. Blacklisting certain preachers from abroad, searching mosques and study centres when there is cause to, ensuring that the laws of the nation are observed and punishing those who knowingly break them ... these may be harsh measures, but to deny them is to deny that liberal democratic countries have enemies who will do violence to them, and that they are already among us. Most people acknowledge that to some extent, but many - people like Bill de Blasio and Barack Obama, European leaders, London Mayor Sadiq Khan, and perhaps Australia's leaders - deny that anything can be done about it while preserving our rights and freedoms.

Are we really on the horns of a dilemma that renders us powerless in this conflict or can our leaders take more active measures to protect the citizens for whom they're responsible? At present we rely heavily on our security agencies to prevent potential catastrophes like the averted bombing of the Etihad aircraft out of Sydney a few months ago. Should surveillance and arrest be augmented by more vigorous immigration vetting and a clear message to the Islamic communities that their privacy will be disturbed if they are believed to be harbouring dangerous people?

[epictetus]

This doesn't really fit under the "Islam" topic heading, but I don't want to start another thread.

....................................................................................................................................

I'd never heard the term "pinkwashing" until a few moments ago when I read on the Gatestone site Alan Dershowitz's latest piece on his spat with a Berkeley newspaper.

Apparently people hostile to Israel have accused the Israeli government of the devious tactic of "pinkwashing" (being nice to gays) to cover up its relentless nastiness to the Palestinians. A case of "damned if you do and damned if you don't".

Here is what he has to say about this new Jewish plot.

Let me begin with "pinkwashing." The accusation that Israel is "pinkwashing" its bad treatment of Palestinians by its good treatment of gays is a new variation on a discredited old theme. The core characteristic of anti-Semitism is the assertion that everything the Jews do is wrong, and everything that is wrong is done by the Jews. That is the bigoted thesis of the anti-Israel campaign whose supporters absurdly claim that Israel is engaging in "pinkwashing." Bigots such as Taylor would apparently prefer to see Israel treat gays the way Israel's enemies do, because they hate Israel more than they care about gay rights. Well, to the unthinking anti-Semite, it doesn't matter how the Jewish manipulation works. The anti-Semite just knows that there must be something sinister at work if Jews do anything positive. The same is now true for the unthinking anti-Israel bigot. The fact is that the very Israelis who are most supportive of gay rights are also the most supportive of Palestinian rights. Pinkwashing is an anti-Semitic canard.

The rest of the article (I didn't read it all) is here:

www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11327/the-daily-californian-refuses-to-publish-my

Incidentally, I didn't see the cartoon that set off this spat as anti-Semitic. To me it was just the standard vulgarity one expects from cartoons produced by student movements and left-wing fringe-dwellers. If the depiction of Dershowitz makes him look Semitic it's because that's what he looks like. Taking offence and accusing people of negative "isms" can be so subjective.

[epictetus]

Incidentally, if John R. Bradley is to be believed (and he seems to speak from experience), homosexuality is widely tolerated in the Muslim world. Some discretion is required though.

www.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/the-muslim-world-is-more-tolerant-of-homosexuality-than-you-think/

[epictetus]

If The Oceans Were Ink, Carla Power, 2015



It's so confusing. Which Islam is which, and does "Muslim" equate with "Islam"?



Clearly the answer to the second part is "no" if Islam is a body of teachings based on the Qur'an, the Sunna (traditions) and the Sirah (biographies). But Islam is a phenomenon as well, and if so then Muslims constitute Islam. But (again), there are so many different Muslims that there are many Islams, and, if one wants to start dialogue, who does one start with and how does one go about it?



Carla Power, an American-British journalist with an MPhil in Middle Eastern Studies from Oxford and childhood experience living in Kabul, Isfahan and Cairo, decided to spend a year taking Qur'an lessons with an Indian sheikh teaching at Oxford, Mohammad Akram Nadwi. Sheikh Akram is a Hanafi scholar whose magnum opus is a 40+ volume study of female Islamic scholars dating back to the first Islamic century.



Power had worked with Akram on an historical mapping project at the university and had become friends with the sheikh and his family (six daughters!). She had some familiarity with the Qur'an as a cultural phenomenon, but had never looked seriously into it, so she asked her friend if he'd taker her through it in weekly meetings in a High Street coffee shop. He agreed, but I don't know at what point she asked if he'd agree to the conversations to be written up in a book.



In fact, there's much more than just face-to-face conversations in the book: Power attends weekend seminars and evening lectures given by the sheikh to mainly Muslim audiences, visits mosques, makes friends with young Muslim women (mainly British), interviews them and earns their trust. She also visits the sheikh's family in a Muslim village outside Lucknow.



The sheikh is frequently cited as a "conservative" scholar, though he hardly fits the image one generally has of such a being. He promotes the rights and opportunities of women and girls in Islam; he opposes "political Islam"; he is a pious quietist who believes Muslims shouldn't worry too much about justice in government and politics as long as they are free to worship and practise their religion. And even then he believes issues like the wearing of Islamic clothing and headwear is a distraction from the important matters for a Muslim, that is worshipping God and living a life that will lead to a heavenly reward at the end of it.



There are core beliefs, however, that even one as liberal and generous of spirit as the sheikh will not compromise, and they are beliefs that post-Enlightenment people find hard to swallow. Hell, for example, for the sheikh is a very real alternative and one that entails real suffering (it's not revealed if he believes Hell to be eternal or not - there's some disagreement among Muslim scholars on that). He believes all who die a non-Muslim will go to Hell. He's a feminist up to a point, but not to the point that Western feminists want to go. He sees men as primarily providers and protectors and women as nurturers and managers, much as everyone did until the 60s. He doesn't try to find an accommodating way around Muhammad's taking of a child bride. He observes the purdah conventions in his domestic and community life, but is happy to sit with an American feminist liberal and talk freely about the Qur'an, Islamic teaching and Muslim practice.



At times I felt the book was a bit gushing, in the Karen Armstrong mould of lionising strong male religious leaders, but then her independence shines forth, especially when it's clear he's disappointed her by not conceding on matters that for her are core. She is also charmingly self-satirising at times, a quality that few feminists appear to value. She is also, quite clearly, a genuine seeker after truth. She wanted to build bridges, to close the gap between her respect for Islam and her western liberal values that she held so strongly. She thought the sheikh would help her do this, but although their friendship was strong, the gap remained. In a sense, her hope for a "step toward my worldview" was unfulfilled. And she, though enriched by the degree of immersion she was allowed into the Muslim lifeworld, was left outside the gates.



At the end of their final conversation, after the sheikh had headed off for evening prayers, she felt hollow.



When Akram left, I felt oddly bereft. He'd gone to his mosque, and I was left, like my father before me [an amateur orientalist], to admire the beauty of Islamic cultures without enjoying the full expanse of belief.



And yet, she says: Had he been entirely convinced of my worldview, or me of his, we would have risked destroying the fragile ecosystem of our friendship, made richer and stranger by our difference.



I suppose the ultimate lesson, for me, of this at times uplifting and at times distressing tale of two worlds in dialogue, is that Islam excludes - for conservative Muslims our differences trump our similarities. Islam may well be an admirable way of life for its practitioners and, among some at least, may include genuine respect for others, but, fundamentally, Islamic soteriology condemns non-believers, and for many, this rejectionism extends to the world of the living as well (hence, the dhimmi laws). Western liberalism, however, attempts to include, almost to the point of trying to include the unincludable.



Which is better, to keep oneself and one's practices close and unsullied in the hope of a seat in paradise, or to take the risk of trying to see things from another's point of view, of walking in their path if you can, and perhaps becoming more than the person you were?



To be more fully human, I think I know which path is preferable, and I suspect, as Muslim communities become further and further removed from their roots in pre-modern societies their different forms of Islam will become more tolerant and inclusive and outreaching.

[epictetus]

Thanks for your affirmation, Cster. I know there are some people who follow my posts on Islam. About 150 views in the past three weeks - not large numbers, but it's the quality that counts. 

I've taken quite a bit of interest in the past three years or so in Islam, since I re-read the Qur'an in 2014 (I'd read it the first time in 2006) and was intrigued as to why the decent and intelligent Muslim people I'd worked with in Thailand were so attached to what in my view was such an unattractive religion.  Well, I've learnt since that there are many "Islams" and it's not so easy to generalise about "Islam", though one can in some respects.

In my comments in this forum and in the private Theology forum to which I contribute every day I've tried to keep my Muslim friends in mind and to express views that are both honest and respectful, even when they're negative. It's also worth keeping in mind that many (most?) Muslims are not especially religious, but they identify with their Islamic cultural heritage, usually a very rich and ancient one, and they don't want to do or say things that would upset their parents and kinfolk. That attachment may weaken with the passing of the first and second immigrant generations. It does in other ethnic communities, though to varying degrees.

I have enrolled in a Master's degree in Contemporary Islamic Studies starting in February 2018. I'm only doing one subject, as a taster, in Semester 1 and then will decide whether to continue. If I find it helpful I'll quicken the pace and complete the four subjects for the Graduate Certificate, and then make another decision (to go on to the Graduate Diploma or not).

Now that this forum's administration is in Sediba's capable hands I feel more confident of its future, so will be happy to keep members up to speed with what I am learning and how I feel about it.

[cster]

Always an enjoyable read Epic, Look forward to hearing your views on further studies.
Having a well expressed understanding of things can help fill out the often flat rash opinion formed by TV footage.
I look forward to your efforts and ending up with a rounder more fulfilling understanding from which to temper opinion.
Leads one to a calmer life if the view is more holistic.

[epictetus]

Sent from a friend 1/12/17


“Beating wives if they refuse sex is OK, according to books in Britain’s Islamic schools”, RT News, November 28, 2017:

Books that sanction domestic violence and say women should never refuse their husbands sex are among a series of sexist materials that inspectors have found in Britain’s Islamic schools. The education watchdog has compiled a file of the worst examples.
The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) discovered a book in a school library entitled ‘Women Who Deserve to Go to Hell’, which said it was wrong for wives to show “ingratitude to their husband” or “have tall ambitions,” according to the Times. It also detailed “mischievous” females who are a “trial for men.” In its pages, pupils are told: “In the beginning of the 20th century, a movement for the freedom of women was launched with the basic objective of driving women towards aberrant ways.”


Another school Ofsted visited encouraged children to read a text that contrasted the “noble women of the East” who protects her modesty by wearing a veil, while the “internally torn woman of the West” attracts men and leaves her home to hang around in cinemas and cafés.


Other materials claimed that in a Muslim marriage “the wife is not allowed to refuse sex to her husband” or “leave the house where she lives without his permission.” Boys and girls were also taught that “the man by way of correction can also beat her.” Work marked by teachers stated that women had a responsibility “only to bear children and bring them up as Muslims.”


The social attitudes contained in the library books appear to have filtered through to children’s work. Ofsted inspectors found a student answered on a worksheet suggesting women have a responsibility “only to bear children and bring them up as Muslims” while men should be “protectors of women.” In a box headed “daily life and relationships” the pupil had written that men are “physically stronger” and women are “emotionally weaker.” The worksheet was covered in approving red ticks from the teacher.
Ofsted said the books and writings made for “uncomfortable reading.” It added that the material it collected was out of step with mainstream Muslim thinking, and came from maintained schools as well as independent faith schools and unregistered schools.
The education watchdog took issue in particular with primary schools which allow girls as young as four to wear the hijab. It said there is a “growing concern” about the trend. Inspectors are now planning to question Muslim girls who wear the hijab at primary school, because most Islamic teaching does not require girls to cover their heads until they reach puberty…

John W.

My response:

Ofsted said the books and writings made for “uncomfortable reading.” It added that the material it collected was out of step with mainstream Muslim thinking, and came from maintained schools as well as independent faith schools and unregistered schools.

I wonder how "out of step with mainstream Muslim thinking" the "uncomfortable reading is". Declarative comments like this simply beg the questions: How do they know? and What is mainstream thinking? I don't think most public servants in Britain or Australia know the answers to these questions. They rely on anecdotal evidence and the advice of Muslim organisation representatives.

OFSTED conducted investigations over a 6-month period in 2014 into 21 Islamic schools in Birmingham, East London and Luton under the rubric "Operation Trojan Horse". Their findings were disturbing.

The report outlined instances of Islamism or Salafism found in the schools. They included:

Anti-Western rhetoric, particularly anti-US and anti-Israel;
Segregationism – dividing the world into us and them, with them to include all non-Muslims and other Muslims who disagree;
Perception of a worldwide conspiracy against Muslims;
Attempts to impose its views and practices upon others;
Intolerance of difference, whether the secular, other religions or other Muslims.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Horse#Investigation

The Wikipedia article is quite detailed and reveals very disturbing findings of clear indoctrination in the most authoritarian manner of children in conservative Salafist views.

It's also worth noting that Birmingham City Council, in the view of the OFSTED review chairman, had been "slow to respond" to allegations in the letter and said there was "culture within of not wanting to address difficult issues and problems with school governance" for risk of incurring accusations of racism or Islamophobia." The report said that the extremism went unchallenged as the council prioritised community cohesion over "doing what is right".

It's possible (probable?) that the OFSTED investigation may have been a bit heavy-handed in some cases.

David Hughes, a trustee at Park View School, claimed that Ofsted's investigation of the school was biased, and dubbed the inspection a "witch hunt".[107] Tahir Alam, a governor at Park View School since 1997, and former chair of the education committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that the accusations had been "motivated by anti-Muslim, anti-Islam sentiment". The Muslim Council of Britain also described the investigation as a 'witch hunt'.[18][33] Waseem Yaqub, former Head of Governors at Al-Hijrah school, called it "a McCarthy-style witch-hunt" and that the letter was used by councillors "to turn on [Muslims] and use Muslims as scapegoats".[108]

Helena Rosewell, a Music teacher at Park View for 15 years, stated that her "blood [was] boiling" when investigations started at the school. She however admitted that senior staff had warned her not to let pupils dance to pop or Bollywood music. Assistant principal Lee Donaghy, a self-declared agnostic, said that the school was achieving more by "accommodating" Muslim practices, but called it "pernicious" the idea "that people running the school are trying to force more religion on these kids than the parents want".[109]

On reaction to Gove's call for "British values" in schools, the Muslim Council of Britain expressed fear that it would effectively bar conservative Muslims from becoming school trustees or governors.[89]

Governors resigned from Saltley School in protest after the Ofsted findings were released, stating that they doubted the inspectors' impartiality.[110]

More recent media reports (e.g. the Guardian) and school inspections home in on the Islamic practice of separating the boys and girls and the promotion of illiberal attitudes toward homosexuality. In one school (Olive Tree Primary in Luton) parents forced the Inspectors to leave, as they took offence at the kind of questions they were asking the children about homosexuality.

On the one hand, we as liberally-minded people would regard some of the findings as horrific and totally at odds with the encouragement of liberal values among the children of those schools and families. On the other hand, even if schools are not allowed to teach extreme conservative Islamic beliefs and values, they'll still get them from home where the indoctrination is much more likely to be effective than the school's. The experience of Catholic schools and, I suspect, Christian Outreach schools, is that kids are not deeply influenced by the indoctrination, however mild and indirect, that they receive at school unless that indoctrination really is relevant to the world the kids experience out of school.

Is the insistence that Islamic schools, or Salafi schools, must promote the dominant, but fluid values of secular, liberal democracies a violation of freedom of conscience? What if these schools knocked back Government funding (as some private and community-based schools have, on occasion, done)? Would they still be regarded as beyond the pale? After all, segregation of the sexes was de rigueur when I attended a convent school in Perth in the late 40s/early 50s. Homosexuality is not approved by many people despite attempts to make it" normal". Anti-semitism is now quite acceptable on the left and right fringes of political discourse. Salafism is a legitimate form of Islam, and though separatist and exclusivist, most Salafists do not advocate terrorism and violence. It's a small atavistic fringe that does.

I would not like to see a Salafi school in my community, but I'm also not too keen on Yeshivas or Christian fundamentalist schools. Not allowing Salafis to teach their children according to their principles, however, might only make matters worse. Perhaps I have enough faith in young people to believe that the great majority of them won't take extremist or stupid teaching with them from school into their post-school lives, though some, of course, will.

[epictetus]

A good news story; a counterpoint to yesterday's post from John. 

www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/rory-happy-as-only-nonmuslim-student-at-playford-college/news-story/d3bfb2c904181981cfc8d4a39206b7f2?utm_source=The%20Australian&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_content=TodaySHeadlines

(see the full story below)

Once again, you have to go a bit deeper than the headline to see that the label "Muslim" is about as meaningful as the label "Christian".

The Shia are far more broadminded than the Sunnis. As a whole that is. There are broadminded Sunnis, but this quality is less a feature of Sunnism - for largely historical and political reasons. For those reasons, too, (the Shia have been largely on the receiving end of Sunni hostility and recrimination), but also as a spinoff of their charismatic narrative, as well as their pluralistic and mystical theologies, the Shia are more open to ecumenism and cooperation with non-Shia Muslims and non-Muslims.

There is no strong reason, though, why Sunnis should be less tolerant. If one takes an historical approach rather than a literalistic one to the emerging and developing years of Islam, especially the Prophet's original mission, then Sunnism should be tolerant, consultative and conciliatory, but the experience of invasion (Crusades, Mongols, European empires) made Sunnis very bitter and challenged their view (not shared by the Shia) that religious rectitude and diligence should be accompanied by prosperity, power and righteous government.

That didn't happen, so exegetes like Ibn Taymiyya (14thC), al-Wahhab (18thC), and Said Qutb (20thC), applying a literalist (and, hence, anti-Shi'ite) interpretation, of the Qur'an especially, (Qutb wrote a 30-volume commentary on it), exhorted Sunnis to regard non-Muslims and the non-Muslim world as irredeemably hostile to them and claimed that only a return to the strict Medinan model, as they read it, literally, with continuous defensive and offensive Jihad, could restore pure Islam to its rightful, hegemonic status. The result was Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and ISIS.

To an extent these Sunni models have, ironically, influenced Shia Iran in its political forms. Hence we see in Iran today a tension between Sunni-influenced political models, Shi'a charismaticism, restricted pluralism, openness to innovation and acceptance of modernity. Khomeini's revolution, however, was largely successful as a reaction to the corruption of the Western-backed Pahlavi regime rather than hostility to the non-Muslim world as such (except insofar as that world had boosted the Pahlavi dictatorship).

So we see history being played out at a little Shi'ite school in Adelaide (ironically named after the very conservative Sir Thomas Playford). I hope it succeeds and grows into a model of Islamic ecumenism. I hope it isn't targeted by Sunni extremists or Khomeini-style Shia reactionaries. It may have to walk a fine line at times.
.............................................................................................................

From afar, Adelaide’s Playford College — with its nondescript brick buildings, eucalypt-lined boundaries and Australian and Aboriginal flags hoisted high — looks like any suburban school.

So when one local family called to inquire about enrolling their son they were surprised to learn that it was also an Islamic school. They liked what they saw, however, and enrolled five-year-old Rory, despite having no previous connection to the Muslim faith.

Playford College principal Rainer Mayer described the ­enrolment as a pivotal moment for the young school, which will measure its success on its ability to attract secular students. “We might be a school that has a focus on the Shia Muslim faith but we are open to everyone — just as a Catholic school or a Lutheran school takes students from outside the faith,” he said.

“The board does not want the school to be exclusively Muslim. And our families are looking forward to that also. They don’t want this to be some sort of enclave; they want the school to reflect the wider community that their children will be growing up in.”

Playford College, the first Shia school in South Australia, opened its doors earlier this year with 78 students from reception to Year 7. Enrolments for next year are at 205 and rising.

Islam is at the centre of the school’s culture, with students taking Arabic and Koranic classes, overseen by Sheik Idrees Ul Hassan. However, it also teaches the same Australian curriculum that is taught at most other schools.

Based in Elizabeth, one of the most disadvantaged suburbs in the city, the school’s biggest challenge has been fostering a cohesive community.

Students have come from 26 different schools, and their families originate from many different parts of the world and speak a diverse range of languages.

Many have experienced significant upheaval as a result of conflict in their homelands and some continue to struggle as their English is poor, limiting their ability to find work.

Many families are on welfare. It’s a cycle that the ­independent school hopes to help break. In addition to educating the students, the school is planning on running evening English classes for their parents.

An educator with more than 30 years’ experience, mostly in the Lutheran and Anglican school systems, Mr Mayer admitted he had some preconceived ideas about what an Islamic school would be like before accepting the job. Rising concerns around terrorism and disengaged youths being susceptible to radicalisation have dominated the public discourse over recent years.

He said discipline and respect were key values emphasised by the school. Australian values are also central. The national anthem — including the often neglected second verse — is sung at every school assembly. “Our sheik is ­always quick to point out that they are in Australia now and they must love Australia,” he said.

Rory’s parents, Tiphanie Rothwell and Daniel Buckfield, have been so impressed with the school that their daughter, Shae, will start there next year.

Ms Rothwell, who describes herself as atheist, said Rory had fit in seamlessly, made lots of friends and was making significant progress academically.

When religious instruction or prayers are held, he has the option of a different ­activity but often chooses to participate. Shae will not be required to wear a headscarf, which is part of the uniform for Muslim girls from Grade 3 upwards.

“They know we’re not Muslim, that we’re Westerners and have different beliefs, but it’s just not an issue,” Ms Rothwell said.

“The school has a wonderful culture. We couldn’t be happier with the decision we’ve made.”

[cster]

A good story Epic, Finally clarity on a school that made the headlines. A school which will focus on the curriculum and also foster religion. That is the stuff well rounded society is made of.

They probably need to be known by the locals as a Shia school, rather than a Muslim school. That would break down the negative.
Catholic schools were a negative in society once. But these days have ended up under the banner of Christian schools with the Anglican's and Baptist's an so on. They once stood apart.

It would be disappointing to hear the other Muslim groups if they build a negative towards the Shia School and the Shia per say.

[Bluesky]

"On the other hand, even if schools are not allowed to teach extreme conservative Islamic beliefs and values, they'll still get them from home where the indoctrination is much more likely to be effective than the school's."

It might be just me, but I'm unclear as to whether you are referring to the indoctrination practised by a particular school or schools' e.g. school's - singular or schools' plural?

[epictetus]

"School's", Bluesky.

Referring to the school to which the parents send their kids. It might refrain from teaching extremist ideas, but if mum and dad are into extremism the kids will get it from them.

Sorry to have been unclear.

[epictetus]

The United States will move their embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, effectively recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I'd say de facto recognition as I'm not aware of the protocols involved in official recognition, but I'm also not aware of any ambassador plenipotentiary of any country being located outside a national capital.

It seems an unnecessary and highly provocative move for the US president to make. I'm not suggesting that the Muslim world should exercise a veto on any action taken by the United States on matters of interest to the Muslim world. There are good reasons when sometimes their voiced concerns should be overridden by actions that carry more political and/or moral weight.

Nevertheless, the Muslim world is a significant player in world events and the status of Jerusalem has high priority for them. It always has, right from the early days of Muhammad's mission when his believers prayed facing Jerusalem, and when he made his "Night Journey" to the "farthest mosque", i.e. Jerusalem before there was even a mosque there. (It was a "spiritual journey - a dream. Aisha said he was in bed asleep with her on the night.) Its importance for Muslims was compounded when construction began on the original Mosque of Omar (built on the site where the Caliph Omar prayed next to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 637) and, of course, Al-Aqsa, built at the end of the 7th century by the Umayyad caliph Abd Al-Malik.

Jerusalem is the third city of Islam, after Mecca and Medina. It is iconic to Muslims, and the phrase "next year in Jerusalem" could express the hopes of Palestinian Muslims as much as it does for Orthodox Jews.

Personally, to me the early narratives of both Jews and Muslims are fictions, so the religious passion that Jerusalem evokes is outside my sphere of concern, except as a sympathetic observer of human frailty and delusion, but I wonder who benefits (cui bono?) from stirring the hornet's nest by recognising Jerusalem's status in the minds of Jews while ignoring the sensitivities of Muslims for whom such a move is a really big thing.

How much do Israelis themselves care? They've had Tel Aviv as capital for decades now, and secular Israelis would have only a cultural connection with Jerusalem and its sites. The Jews may be an ancient people and have a close connection with the land, but Israel is a new and fabricated state created out of a chunk of what the Arabs identified as Sham, the region bordering the Eastern Mediterranean (Levant, Fertile Crescent, Greater Syria). To say that Jerusalem should be the capital of a small state like Israel possibly demeans its status, not only in Muslim minds but probably the minds of Christians as well, especially Eastern Christians who constituted such important communities in the region until the recent Sunni revival and intra-Muslim sectarian conflict.

I don't see any benefit in Trump's move. It looks like just another unnecessary and stupid error in the history of the US's engagement in the area since 2003.

[BlueSky]

Got it! Thank-you.

[epictetus]

Israeli dream—Arab nightmare

Robert Fisk, Middle East Correspondent [updated]

The Independent 6Dec17



Trump recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital and orders US Embassy to move: 7Dec17


www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-israel-capital.html

.........................................................................................................................................................

The allusion to Muhammad's ascension into heaven from the Temple Mount refers to the Night Journey, in which Muhammad ascends the seven heavens meeting the earlier prophets, including Jesus, along the way and finally talking with God Himself. There's a brief reference to this journey in Q. 17:1, but it's fully recounted in the Ahadith. Bukhari recounts it in Vol 5:58:227, based on a report by Anas ibn Malik, a companion of the Prophet, though he was only 9 years old when the Journey is believed to have taken place and lived in Yathrib (Medina) while Muhammad was still in Mecca at the time of the Journey. There was no Ascension after Muhammad's death. He died in Medina and was buried shortly afterwards in his own house.



I wonder how much fallout there will actually be. Obviously the President has managed to offend every Muslim in the world with this announcement, but what can their leaders do about it? Saudi Arabia wants the US and Israel on side as it ramps up its ongoing regional and worldwide campaign to stop the momentum of Shia resurgence since their political ascendance in Iraq, the defeat of ISIS, the victory of Assad, and the growing strength and influence of Iran, all of which encourages Shias in Yemen and Saudi Arabia itself, as well as further afield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.



The Palestinians can do nothing. They have lost the material support and even the interest of the Arab nations other than as a symbol. Their struggle has no further impact on regional events other than to make a lethal nuisance of themselves and attract financial and other forms of material aid from the West that they can siphon off among the leadership stratum, either in Palestine or abroad. Ironically, despite the Palestinians', especially Hamas's, fanatical Sunni extremism, their main ally at present seems to be Iran, though its agent Hizbollah.



And Iran? I'm not sure, but I think Iranians and Shia worldwide have mixed feelings about the status of Al-Aqsa. They recognise it as the fourth most important mosque in the Shia world (third in the Sunni world) and as the place where Muhammad ascended (though I think they're much more likely to see the Night Journey as a spiritual vision), but it's also a Sunni mosque built by the Umayyads who were responsible for the murder of Husayn ibn Ali, the most iconic figure in the Shia story after Ali and, of course, the Prophet himself. Shia have deep resentment at their treatment by Sunnis throughout much of Islamic history. Yet they support Hamas, who hate the Shia! I don't know how that fits and wait with bated breath to see how Iran reacts.

[cster]

After reading this I'm now certain I understand how a fishing line gets tangled coming off an eggbeater reel.

All of Babylonia thought Jerusalem was a good spot didn't they?

[epictetus]

I think the city was pretty much abandoned during the Captivity. The Babylonians wrecked most of it during and after the Siege and then took most of the population away. I don't think there was much there when the Jews under Zerubbabel returned in 536 BC.