Conversion to Islam: "the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian's journey"?

24

Comments

  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    The only pictures in the article linked in the OP show me her wearing a head covering but don't show any other clothing clearly. Do we know she also wears non-religious middle eastern clothing, whatever that is?
  • magnilo wrote: »
    Ms O’Connor’s antipathy towards the Roman Catholic Church (or st least it’s leaderdhip) is well documented. I wonder if the attraction of a religion which is in large part founded on on institutional antipathy towards Christianity would be too hard to resist?

    Well, it's true there's antipathy there, all right. But so has atheism. And other philosophies and religions. If it's about cocking a snook at the RCC leadership she could just do a dawkins or become a Buddhist or Rasta or even Kabbalah. Why swap one heavy-duty authoritarian top-down, 'Guy-in-the Sky, patriarchy for another?

    That's why I asked about Islam's feminist credentials; because I understood that a great deal of her problem with the Roman Catholic Church was its patriarchy; its restrictions for women and what women should do with their bodies, their reproductive systems, their role and fulfilment as women in society etc. Does she really consider these challenges to be more solvable in Islam than in Christianity or any other form of belief? Or does she believe them to be no longer of importance? That women should, for example, submit to the male prerogative when it comes to how they should dress, or behave? I find it hard to understand how any theology that concludes in that way should find a natural resonance in the 'old' Sinead!

    So maybe a lot of things have changed for her. She still seems to feel the need for a God, which is intriguing, but I'm just astonished that she would find the God of Islam more compatible to her than the God of (well, any form of) Christianity. But I don't know the woman, and this is where her journey has taken her! I'm probably too enculturated (bad word, sorry!) in my own experience of Christianity to really get an objective view of this.
  • Any intelligent person has their coffee black, by the way.

    No they don't.
    But surely we can agree that any intelligent person MUST drink coffee?

    Not instant, though, surely?! Blasphemy, as any intelligent coffee drinker knows.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    magnilo wrote: »
    I think part of the attraction of Islam is that unlike Christianity it’s demands, although stringent, are doable.
    And, I think, measurable. The demands of Christianity can tend to be somewhat nebulous. "Don't sin." "Pray" (when? with what words? for how long?). "Read your Bible" (how much? how often?). "Love your neighbor" (what does that look like? How do I know if I've succeded?"

    In contrast, Give this much alms. Eat or don't eat these meals. Pray these prayers at these times. You can rest assured when you've finished that you've prayed the right prayer at the right time.

    These.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Do you agree with Sinead O'Connor's assertion? Why (not)? Does her reasoning mirror that of other converts to Islam from non-Muslim backgrounds? What's the appeal of Islam? Is it really theological, or is it something else?

    If someone (rightly or wrongly) believes that they make decisions based on theological and intellectual considerations, then isn't it something of a truism that that's the conclusion they would draw?

    Besides, perhaps if you have a very multifaceted and convoluted understanding of a particular faith, perhaps another faith that appears more unitary appeals in that way?

    I have no idea if this is still the case - but at one point JWs used to very well among certain types of Hindu's for what seemed to me to be mostly this reason.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    magnilo wrote: »
    I think part of the attraction of Islam is that unlike Christianity it’s demands, although stringent, are doable.
    And, I think, measurable. The demands of Christianity can tend to be somewhat nebulous. "Don't sin." "Pray" (when? with what words? for how long?). "Read your Bible" (how much? how often?). "Love your neighbor" (what does that look like? How do I know if I've succeded?"

    In contrast, Give this much alms. Eat or don't eat these meals. Pray these prayers at these times. You can rest assured when you've finished that you've prayed the right prayer at the right time.
    Precisely. And no nebulous commands to be born again or take up one’s cross or to be poor in spirit or to love one’s enemies and a host of other human impossibilities.

  • I'd have hoped that the natural conclusion of any theologian's journey was to live in ever closer relationship with God. Scripture study should surely lead to God, rather to another religion. If God leads us into another religion, now that's another story. But it's not about us.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    As Mr Cheesy referred to, it is the thrust of Islamic theology that God's revelation began with the Jews, progressed with Christians but it completed in the final Prophet.
    That would be the Báb, the the last step would be Baha'i. Unless there's a religion that claims there's another prophet after the Báb, and then that one would be the thinking man's religion. Claiming to be the terminus doesn't make one so.

    Nope that's true.

    But it seems to me the question here is about understanding how Muslims (and/or new Muslim converts) think rather than attempting to critique their thinking or in pointing out that other religions disagree with their assertions.

    This point was made in response to the question "what's the attraction of Islam?" If it's merely a comment about what things look like from within Islam, then it's a non sequitur to the context it was in.
  • magnilo wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    magnilo wrote: »
    I think part of the attraction of Islam is that unlike Christianity it’s demands, although stringent, are doable.
    And, I think, measurable. The demands of Christianity can tend to be somewhat nebulous. "Don't sin." "Pray" (when? with what words? for how long?). "Read your Bible" (how much? how often?). "Love your neighbor" (what does that look like? How do I know if I've succeded?"

    In contrast, Give this much alms. Eat or don't eat these meals. Pray these prayers at these times. You can rest assured when you've finished that you've prayed the right prayer at the right time.
    Precisely. And no nebulous commands to be born again or take up one’s cross or to be poor in spirit or to love one’s enemies and a host of other human impossibilities.

    Actually having reread this and thought about it, it's a lot like the Grand Inquisitor.
  • It's the religion that's most adapted to the first five of the six genetic moral foundations in ascending order. Care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, respect/subversion, purity/degradation but not liberty/oppression.
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    I'm probably too enculturated (bad word, sorry!) in my own experience of Christianity to really get an objective view of this.
    This statement is very much more self-aware than many on this thread.

    A brief synopsis of Islamic Feminism.
  • Any intelligent person has their coffee black, by the way.

    No they don't.
    But surely we can agree that any intelligent person MUST drink coffee?

    Not instant, though, surely?! Blasphemy, as any intelligent coffee drinker knows.

    Father forgive me, I have dinner...
  • mousethief wrote: »
    magnilo wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    magnilo wrote: »
    I think part of the attraction of Islam is that unlike Christianity it’s demands, although stringent, are doable.
    And, I think, measurable. The demands of Christianity can tend to be somewhat nebulous. "Don't sin." "Pray" (when? with what words? for how long?). "Read your Bible" (how much? how often?). "Love your neighbor" (what does that look like? How do I know if I've succeded?"

    In contrast, Give this much alms. Eat or don't eat these meals. Pray these prayers at these times. You can rest assured when you've finished that you've prayed the right prayer at the right time.
    Precisely. And no nebulous commands to be born again or take up one’s cross or to be poor in spirit or to love one’s enemies and a host of other human impossibilities.

    Actually having reread this and thought about it, it's a lot like the Grand Inquisitor.

    I've always been a bit conflicted about Dostoevsky. That section of the Brothers Karamazov seems to be a monstrous satire. And yet in some ways Ivan makes some decent points.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Any intelligent person has their coffee black, by the way.

    No they don't.
    But surely we can agree that any intelligent person MUST drink coffee?

    Not instant, though, surely?! Blasphemy, as any intelligent coffee drinker knows.

    Drinking instant coffee is one of those things where the punishment is inherent in the crime. Like drinking Carling.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    magnilo wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    magnilo wrote: »
    I think part of the attraction of Islam is that unlike Christianity it’s demands, although stringent, are doable.
    And, I think, measurable. The demands of Christianity can tend to be somewhat nebulous. "Don't sin." "Pray" (when? with what words? for how long?). "Read your Bible" (how much? how often?). "Love your neighbor" (what does that look like? How do I know if I've succeded?"

    In contrast, Give this much alms. Eat or don't eat these meals. Pray these prayers at these times. You can rest assured when you've finished that you've prayed the right prayer at the right time.
    Precisely. And no nebulous commands to be born again or take up one’s cross or to be poor in spirit or to love one’s enemies and a host of other human impossibilities.

    Actually having reread this and thought about it, it's a lot like the Grand Inquisitor.

    I've always been a bit conflicted about Dostoevsky. That section of the Brothers Karamazov seems to be a monstrous satire. And yet in some ways Ivan makes some decent points.

    It is satire. And the purpose of satire is to make a point about the thing being satirized. So you are right on both counts.
  • Thinking about this a lot ... I really do wish her peace of heart and mind...

    I also wondered about Bahai as the "logical end of theological exploration" or latest Revelation

    I worried about her knees and her forehead. (It was a fashion recently in this part of the world for a while to sport a kind of bruise-y lump, sort of like Ash Wednesday but lumpier and more smudgy)

    I am sure one can find feminist and lesbian Muslima's if one looks (same as in Christianity); but she seemed in her video to be "taking instruction" from a person who presented as a man
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Galilit wrote: »
    Thinking about this a lot ... I really do wish her peace of heart and mind...

    I also wondered about Bahai as the "logical end of theological exploration" or latest Revelation

    I worried about her knees and her forehead. (It was a fashion recently in this part of the world for a while to sport a kind of bruise-y lump, sort of like Ash Wednesday but lumpier and more smudgy)

    I am sure one can find feminist and lesbian Muslima's if one looks (same as in Christianity); but she seemed in her video to be "taking instruction" from a person who presented as a man

    As with the rest of the Abrahamic traditions, Islam by and large fails to provide female imams. There may be sectarian exceptions.
  • Well yes, I know that.
    But I (fondly) imagined there would be secret-ish house-meetings and discussion-groups of radical women .... and even sympathetic men who would be able to provide official back-up for a woman who wanted to convert ...
  • Galilit wrote: »
    Well yes, I know that.
    But I (fondly) imagined there would be secret-ish house-meetings and discussion-groups of radical women .... and even sympathetic men who would be able to provide official back-up for a woman who wanted to convert ...

    There is a women's mosque movement as well as a few congregations (https://globalnews.ca/news/3530937/toronto-mosque-promotes-gender-equality-interfaith-conversations/) where other approaches are taken, much like reconstructionist synagogues in Judaism.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    1. Few.
    2. Far between.
    3. Waaay too little.
    4. Waaay too late.

    Any really intelligent theologians (assuming, as I do not, that the phrase is not an oxymoron) would conclude they desperately need another line of work solving some real-life problems instead of creating them for 50% of the human race.
  • Why is it that she is wearing middle eastern dress?

    I'm reminded of three other groups locally. Hutterites and Haldeman Mennonites who require particular 18th or 19th century clothing. And Ukranians and Polish women of my youth who wore a version of the hajib which is still called "babushka" and occasionally seen on the elderly.

    This is a cultural expression isn't it. Like the various smocks, hassocks and copes priests wear. Which haven't really anything to do with the religion itself. But interpretations of religion within a human cultural context.
  • Who said it is "Middle Eastern". I looks like common women's dress for Muslims that I've seen.

  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Many people who are Muslim consider covering their hair a religious expression. I imagine she does too.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Do you agree with Sinead O'Connor's assertion? Why (not)? Does her reasoning mirror that of other converts to Islam from non-Muslim backgrounds? What's the appeal of Islam? Is it really theological, or is it something else?

    If someone (rightly or wrongly) believes that they make decisions based on theological and intellectual considerations, then isn't it something of a truism that that's the conclusion they would draw?

    Besides, perhaps if you have a very multifaceted and convoluted understanding of a particular faith, perhaps another faith that appears more unitary appeals in that way?

    I have no idea if this is still the case - but at one point JWs used to very well among certain types of Hindu's for what seemed to me to be mostly this reason.

    Do you mean that JWs got a lot of converts from among a certain type of Hindu? And that this is related to the JWs being seemingly less complicated in their beliefs?

    If so, I've also heard that JWs do well among Catholics, and possibly for the same reasons. No gaudy pantheon of saints, Our Ladies etc.

  • I guess like any cultural practice, there are groups of people who choose to dress in ethnic costume. Changing her name also appears to be a choice and or is that a requirement?

    Being aware from my youth that Muslims never wore clothing to deliberately stand out, and the fairly consistent dropping of headscarves for the eastern Christians (Ruthenians, Galicians, Germans from Russian lands) by the first or second generation once they were outside of rural enclaves. There does appear to be something else going on, to want to declare before any other aspect of human discourse that "I am a <name of religion". It is certainly less than 40 or 50 years that I've observed it.

    It also makes me wonder about changes and shifts in Islam. Those I've met from east of the middle east tell me that the use of Arabic words, and insertion of phrases such as "peace be upon him" that formerly weren't much said, and insertion of it into daily life has shifted since the 1970s. Perhaps post-Shah of Iran, ~mid 1970s. An increase in religiosity and permeation of religion into societies which were secularizing mid-20th century?

    Thus, in broader terms, has Muslim identity shifted? Maybe like the emphasis of American Christianity has also shifted? Which makes me not accept the argument that these are mere issues of Muslim identity as ever was It looks like something has happened in terms of how it is expressed. Perhaps erroneously I identified the head scarf thing as a middle eastern thing. Maybe its an Arab influence thing? An Arabization of Islam? re-Arabization? About which I find some discussion on the 'net.


  • I don't think it is particularly Arab. Most of the Muslims around here seem to be of Pakistani heritage - but the style of head coverings seems to vary. If anything this particular one seems to be of a type popular in Indonesia and Malaysia - although I'm no expert on that - and are common in the UK.

    Arab Muslim women wear something that's different.

    The only place I've ever been that women routinely don't seem to wear head coverings is Turkey. Even there it seems to be about personal choice.

    In the UK I think more Muslim women cover their heads than don't.

    But why does it matter anyway. I don't see why we are attempting to find sinister undertones in a brief video featuring someone's head.
  • I am more interested in the differences between the Saudi and other Arab versions of Islam and the others. Headscarves for Muslim women is a new thing here since, as I noted, in the 1970s we didn't see them, and associated them with older Ukrainian women. People from Iran, Turkey and the Indian subcontinent, mainly professional people, who immigrated here back did not wear headscarves. But there's quite a few now. And this is inclusive of professional people.

    Sinister? Don't understand that.
  • Why is it that she is wearing middle eastern dress?

    I'm reminded of three other groups locally. Hutterites and Haldeman Mennonites who require particular 18th or 19th century clothing. And Ukranians and Polish women of my youth who wore a version of the hajib which is still called "babushka" and occasionally seen on the elderly.

    This is a cultural expression isn't it. Like the various smocks, hassocks and copes priests wear. Which haven't really anything to do with the religion itself. But interpretations of religion within a human cultural context.

    I've seen Ontario Hutterites with headscarves (my companion noted that the younger ones had an ability to sashay which called into question the effectiveness of modesty garments) often enough. My Orthie friends tell me that convert women often wear headkerchiefs for modesty reasons, and push their non-convert friends to do so during liturgies. As well, followers of integriste RC boards will note that kerchief, veil, & mantilla are all being urged upon good Catholic women for modesty's sake; some RC churches feature baskets at the back with veils for worshippers (e.g., Blessed Sacrament in Ottawa). It seems to be a feature of religious intensity where women believers want to be seen as observant women.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Any intelligent person has their coffee black, by the way.

    No they don't.
    But surely we can agree that any intelligent person MUST drink coffee?

    Not instant, though, surely?! Blasphemy, as any intelligent coffee drinker knows.

    Drinking instant coffee is one of those things where the punishment is inherent in the crime. Like drinking Carling.

    This.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...Perhaps some of it is poorly phrased, rather than intentional, but there are some arrogant posts on this thread. Islam is no crazier or less rational than Christianity. ..
    At least the Bible doesn't contain rules on the proper way in which to beat one's wife. It's hard enough to be female in some versions of Christianity; I can't imagine converting to Islam.



  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...Perhaps some of it is poorly phrased, rather than intentional, but there are some arrogant posts on this thread. Islam is no crazier or less rational than Christianity. ..
    At least the Bible doesn't contain rules on the proper way in which to beat one's wife. It's hard enough to be female in some versions of Christianity; I can't imagine converting to Islam.
    If one is going to claim feminist credit, the obvious answer is fuck both the Bible and the Quran. They both contain much bullshit as far as behavioural guidance.
  • LeafLeaf Shipmate
    Converts will always tell you that it was the clear truth of their newly-adopted doctrine which convinced them. According to Rodney Stark, converts tend to misremember their own experience: In almost every case, it was a personal connection rather than simply exposure to the doctrine which resulted in conversion.

    I'm glad for Sinead O'Connor that she seems to have found peace and acceptance in a community which makes sense to her and in which she feels supported.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...Perhaps some of it is poorly phrased, rather than intentional, but there are some arrogant posts on this thread. Islam is no crazier or less rational than Christianity. ..
    At least the Bible doesn't contain rules on the proper way in which to beat one's wife. It's hard enough to be female in some versions of Christianity; I can't imagine converting to Islam.
    I didn't know about instructions for beating a wife in Islam. That's terrible and disgusting!

    But clarification: Is it different than some of the Bad Examples in the bible? particularly old testament? The genocide in Joshua for example?
  • The word "natural" brings me out in a rash. How is one belief more natural than another? I suppose some beliefs are more comfortable.
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    At least the Bible doesn't contain rules on the proper way in which to beat one's wife. It's hard enough to be female in some versions of Christianity; I can't imagine converting to Islam.
    I didn't know about instructions for beating a wife in Islam. That's terrible and disgusting!

    Me either. @Rossweisse - citation?
  • jbohn wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    At least the Bible doesn't contain rules on the proper way in which to beat one's wife. It's hard enough to be female in some versions of Christianity; I can't imagine converting to Islam.
    I didn't know about instructions for beating a wife in Islam. That's terrible and disgusting!

    Me either. @Rossweisse - citation?
    It is pointless, regardless. It would only matter if the Bible wasn't replete with horrible examples of how to treat our fellow humans including being used to justify treating women poorly.
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    jbohn wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    At least the Bible doesn't contain rules on the proper way in which to beat one's wife. It's hard enough to be female in some versions of Christianity; I can't imagine converting to Islam.
    I didn't know about instructions for beating a wife in Islam. That's terrible and disgusting!

    Me either. @Rossweisse - citation?
    It is pointless, regardless. It would only matter if the Bible wasn't replete with horrible examples of how to treat our fellow humans including being used to justify treating women poorly.

    True. But if one is going to make a rather inflammatory point such as this, I think we may (or can) ask to see the evidence.
  • #Literalism & #Fundamentalism versus #TextualCriticism & #Thinking. True with the bible.
  • jbohn wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    jbohn wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    At least the Bible doesn't contain rules on the proper way in which to beat one's wife. It's hard enough to be female in some versions of Christianity; I can't imagine converting to Islam.
    I didn't know about instructions for beating a wife in Islam. That's terrible and disgusting!

    Me either. @Rossweisse - citation?
    It is pointless, regardless. It would only matter if the Bible wasn't replete with horrible examples of how to treat our fellow humans including being used to justify treating women poorly.

    True. But if one is going to make a rather inflammatory point such as this, I think we may (or can) ask to see the evidence.
    Wonder if they are like these instructions?
  • jbohn wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    jbohn wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    At least the Bible doesn't contain rules on the proper way in which to beat one's wife. It's hard enough to be female in some versions of Christianity; I can't imagine converting to Islam.
    I didn't know about instructions for beating a wife in Islam. That's terrible and disgusting!

    Me either. @Rossweisse - citation?
    It is pointless, regardless. It would only matter if the Bible wasn't replete with horrible examples of how to treat our fellow humans including being used to justify treating women poorly.

    True. But if one is going to make a rather inflammatory point such as this, I think we may (or can) ask to see the evidence.
    A quick look around indicated that there are verses about beating one's wife, but there are the same arguments within Islam about them as there are in Christianity about the shitty things in the Bible. So it would appear to be just another high horse from which to belittle another's without noticing the huge piles behind one's own.
  • There is a whole other conversation about how people manage to get food things from holy texts which appear from the outside to be problematic.

    My personal favourite is the peace-loving Hindus who manage to find uplifting ideas from the Bhagavad Gita - which appears to be a weird theological dialogue set in the midst of a battle in the Mahabharata.

    Point being that regions often look impossible from the outside (and not infrequently from the inside too!)
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    There are lots of sites which examine the relevant verses, most from an anti-Islamic point of view. This one seemed reasonably balanced.

    In any case, the question is not one of whether the instructions appear - they definitely do - but of interpretation. Mohammad himself seems to have punched his favorite wife in the chest, and there are other examples to be found.

    I think this differs from the Biblical genocides in being used to justify abuse of women through the centuries. I would also distinguish between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, which are frequently at odds with each other.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    jbohn wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    At least the Bible doesn't contain rules on the proper way in which to beat one's wife. It's hard enough to be female in some versions of Christianity; I can't imagine converting to Islam.
    I didn't know about instructions for beating a wife in Islam. That's terrible and disgusting!

    Me either. @Rossweisse - citation?
    It is pointless, regardless. It would only matter if the Bible wasn't replete with horrible examples of how to treat our fellow humans including being used to justify treating women poorly.

    Well, that's certainly true. But - and I don't know about the Koran - but the Bible is to be read as a collection of varied documents down through the ages, rather than as the in-one-go revelation of one person, as the Koran is.

    Eg, Jesus had an exemplary attitude towards women; even the epistles had to confirm that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor freeborn etc. And from the gospels, that one was to forgive enemies, love neighbour, turn the other cheek. That Christ fulfilled the purpose of the Law and that one was not to be tied to its performance like a performing poodle. Gender-neutral values.

    Again, I don't know how prominently women feature as leaders and heroines in the Koran, but they do - sadly in a too limited way certainly - in both Testaments. One can at least construct a rational progressive theology for women's equality from Christian (and OT) scripture, if one isn't a literalist or fundamentalist. To what extent the Koran lends itself to the same exercise I don't know.

    But I'm certainly not going to argue that a lot of the early Biblical stuff about women isn't horrendous: the classic 'texts of terror' stuff.
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    But - and I don't know about the Koran - but the Bible is to be read as a collection of varied documents down through the ages, rather than as the in-one-go revelation of one person, as the Koran is. The Quran is not exactly a revelation in one go. And the Bible is seen as inspired by God in the same varied ways as the Quran is by Muslims.
    One can at least construct a rational progressive theology for women's equality from Christian (and OT) scripture, if one isn't a literalist or fundamentalist.
    One needs to do more than reject literalism and fundamentalism, however. One needs to wholesale reject significant chunks. If one filters the whole thing through the teachings of Jesus, and willing to say "This bit and that bit are bullshit", one can get there. But, as the theological wrangling over the centuries has illuminated, it isn't clear, cut and dry or simple.
  • By the way, the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian's journey is agnosticism.
    Which religion is the second most reasonable choice is a fool's comparison.
    The statement belongs to the overly exuberant neophyte or to the arrogant.
  • True, but one can be tolerant of people (especially neophytes) describing their lives that way, I think. Who of us has not been that way to some degree?
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I see Sinead O'Connor has converted to Islam. I don't really know much about her, but I was particularly struck by part of her announcement:
    This is the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian’s journey. All scripture study leads to Islam. Which makes all other scriptures redundant.

    Do you agree with Sinead O'Connor's assertion? Why (not)? Does her reasoning mirror that of other converts to Islam from non-Muslim backgrounds? What's the appeal of Islam? Is it really theological, or is it something else?
    I seem to recall Ms O'Connor has made several equally contentious statements vis-a-vis religion in the past: I'll wait to pass judgment on this one for a while to see how long the conversion lasts...

    If I were to meet Ms O'Connor I would like to ask her how she squares her newly discovered faith with the practice of "thighing", given her own history of abuse.
  • I sometimes wonder how much difference there is between golden rule Christianity and Islam. A belief in an overarching God, a code of practice that codifies how to live a good life and believe that if the code is followed then God mercifully accepts us. The more centrality of this type of behaviour within Islam makes it seem like a natural progression
    That's not how I understand Islam as it is practiced, and what knowledge I have comes from Islamic sources, and (I hope) I am reading them fairly, since I am critically sympathetic to Islam.

    But it all depends on what you mean by a code of practice.

    As I understand Sunni Islam, conduct is bound up with maximal conformity to the example of the Prophet, and this is governed by whichever legitimate denomination you belong to, which predominantly in the UK is, I believe, Hanafi. I see two problems with this.

    The first is that Muhammad obviously had serious flaws. I do not think this puts him in any other category that others who are revered in all the Abrahamic religions. He reminds me very much of King David. But nobody is suggesting the Christians can model their life on David or Abraham. Nor is even the imitation of Christ, in the details of his life, the main point of Christianity. I have never heard of a prominent Islamic speaker, at the same time, both revering Muhammad for what he did that was good whilst at the same time being honest about the bad things he did. That would be a great step forward.

    The Quran is interpreted via the Hadith and then again via the Sunna, which is the collection of recognised opinions by Islamic jurists (the Ulama) and covers all aspects of life, and can be sampled on sites dealing with, say, hanafi Fiqh. And this can get very legalistic especially for devout Muslims. I have accessed islamqa.org, and if somebody can say this is an extremist sites, then I will stand corrected - but I don't get that impression. And it seems quite legalistic. Take a look.


Sign In or Register to comment.