ali’s guest post
Three out of four voters in california believe medical marijuana should be legalized. They have passed the measure at the polls in opposition to existing American laws. I was recently talking to an otherwise young and healthy friend who also happens to be a strong supporter of the californian position on medical marijuana. He kept on pointing out the various opiates, barbiturates, steroids, and whatnots that are legally prescribed by doctors. Possession of such drugs without a prescription is illegal. Similarly, possession of marijuana would remain illegal without a prescription. The only reason why common sense wasn’t prevailing, he believes, was because of Big Pharma influence. For somebody with an impressively broad knowledge of various drugs, he just couldn’t understand the difference between a controlled substance and an illegal drug. You can beg your friend who went to the dentist for some leftover oxycontin or you can hand over a mini fortune on the street. But you can’t grow it in your backyard. Pot, you can grow in a pot in your studio apartment. Kids on street corners will hook you up for 10 bucks. Morphine is controlled in vaults. It is administered in controlled doses in controlled environments. Once you put such controls on medical marijuana its cost will shoot up and everyone will be looking for stronger stuff at similar prices. Or they will still get it on the street. The californian voters in favor of medical marijuana are not in favor of legalizing drugs. Or maybe they are. Damn hippie spawn. The american govt. stance against such measures is not trying to punish those already in pain. Or maybe it is.
Laws follow attitudes. If you are angry about the one verse in koran that allows hitting a wife, get angrier because there are many more verses that allow taking slaves. In wars past muslim warriors were even allowed to take the women of their enemies as slaves. But so did everyone else those days. There is still slavery going on in the world, even when it is universally illegal. No one is using religious texts or cultural norms to defend or justify them. There is a clear understanding those who engage in such business are doing it for the profits.
There are over 6300 verses in the Koran. Search for “wife beating islam” and Google spits out thousands of pages repeating the same single verse that allows hitting a wife. One could say even one verse is one too many. But there are many more verses that tell us to cherish and treat women with respect and equity. Those are not paid any attention either. I am not going to say that hitting a woman is not allowed in Islam. It is. But women are not hit because one verse in the koran allows it. I have never seen, heard, or read of any instance where a man has justifies his violent behavior by bringing up the Koran. They are hit because the men feel they have no other avenue left in the confrontation. Some men take that street at the first instance. Some men don’t know that street is even on the map.
Domestic violence in islamistan is not inspired by that singular verse. It is a cultural thing like every other culture. And at the heart of the matter, it is a personal thing. It needs to change but the change is not going to come out of questioning the Koran. The muslim mind becomes completely unreceptive at the first hint of questioning the authenticity of the text. The change has to come out of the culture. Every second Bollywood film has the male lead or other good guys slapping the woman when she gets out of hand. Watch old hollywood movies and the women are getting slapped around like nothing. Different cultures and different rates of change. One day soon one would be able to pick up a blunt OTC at the corner sav-on-drugs, and people will stop beating up their women. Or maybe not.
i was actually being flippant when i mentioned that verse and it was related to the ‘censoring’ thing i was talking about - but i’m glad it inspired a guestpost.
and to be honest, i have actually been around men who have used verses that suggest that a woman needs a man’s permission to do things (or something like that)…and while i agree that men who are going to beat their wives would do it anyway (regardless of how much the Koran actually encourages loving them and treating them with respect) but at the same time, i feel that the presence of that verse doesn’t exactly help…
Comment by rocky — June 12, 2005 @ 6:52 pm
Well - you’re right, the change won’t come by questioning the Quran, since the Quranic interpretations are pretty much dictated by cultural norms (e.g. modesty in clothing is interpreted differently in different Islamic cultures).
But that shouldn’t stop us from questioning the Quran - the one thing God condemned was blindly following what our forefathers had done - so we shouldn’t blindly follow Islamic rules as taught to us by our elders.
It sucks that if I want to question about a verse, or argue about some long-standing tradition, i’ll be termed not a good Muslim, rather than addressing my concerns.
Comment by Jon — June 12, 2005 @ 9:22 pm
The whole concept of Islam being a true religion is out the window if you start finding fault with the Koran. Raising a question about an issue or a modern interpretation is one thing, questioning the authenticity of the book is quite another. All copies of the Koran are the same no matter what era they are from or what country. That is why a translation is not a koran. Use words with different connotations in a different language and a couple of sentences down the message can be completely different or even meaningless. The Koran can’t be changed to accomodate every new human concern. It can’t be edited to measure upto your sensibilities.
I never get the desire of people to be part of a group when they don’t believe in the basic charter. You can’t be a member of PETA and still want to go hunting every season. I don’t say my ritual prayers, but I am not questioning this requirement or demanding a change to fit my lifestyle. I fail everyday, not the religion.
Jon, if you are not following your forefathers, you are following someone else’s. There are no new paths being blazed anymore. There are no additions to oiginal thought. Just paraphrases of work done thousands of years ago.
Comment by ali — June 13, 2005 @ 2:43 am
The thing you can and must question are cultural norms. You can challenge the logic of an interpretation of a verse all day. You can argue for a different interpretation and for adoption of new standards that don’t conflict with the Koran. What you can’t question is the Koran itself. Sure you can question it but I think that would get you kicked out of the club. The culture is a product of local human thought and tradition. Koran is supposed to be devine deliverance.
Comment by ali — June 13, 2005 @ 3:01 am
Ok, last one for now. I assure you I am not trying to inflate the interest in my view by commenting myself.
I have never hit a woman yet. I don’t think I ever will. But I have wanted to, a couple of times. People can be stupid. They can push you to the brink. Once they know you better they can push all the buttons and drive you crazy. But I realized that the relationship was over when they were going out of their way to hurt me. So I just walked away. Sometimes your own dignity, and clean criminal record, is worth more than anything else. One day I might not have the luxury of being able to pick up and walk out. What does one do then? Maybe those in longterm commitments would like to comment.
Comment by ali — June 13, 2005 @ 3:13 am
Yes, culture is a product of human thought and tradition. Except, human tradition is often a function of religion. And texts (such as the Koran) have always played a crucial role in forming and maintaining those traditions. If one questions a tradition, one could well be (but not always) questioning some tenets of the religion itself. But just that fact does not make the question irrelevant or unjustified. The questioning attitude must be allowed to comefirst, and whether it affects merely cultural thought or religious ones as well, is secondary.
The ’sacred texts are so sacred they cannot be questioned’ argument is a perfect haven for those who cannot justify their own mostly unacceptable actions (like violence toward women) of their own accord. As you said, such a thing is fundamentally a personal choice, but it is unfortunate when people have the option of having a personal choice that is inherently wrong, endorsed by what they consider to be a guide to life/living.(and this is not only about the Koran)
If, when one has not the ‘luxury of of being able to pick up and walk out’, hitting the person you are in a relationship with is an option, there is something seriously wrong somewhere. And not just in the relationship. If hitting the woman is ever an option, hang religion and sacred text- the person is screwed up. This, of course, is my (passionate, but all mine) ‘long term hitched’ opinion.
Comment by vAgue — June 13, 2005 @ 6:24 am
Can’t argue with anything you said. Wish I were as good at putting my point of view to pen.
There are more people in the world who live by religious texts than without. Despite lifelong indoctrination they still act on their animal instincts. But this disregard for such teachings notwithstanding, any attempt to argue an issue by gunning for the source is bound to fail. When it comes to such ideology the arguement, if it is to have any chance of success, has to be molded to the audience. Rocky is mostly preaching to the choir here. But for the message to have any resonance with the people who need to change it has to be the right frequency. That may seem dishonest. But the straight forward logical approach gets shut out before it begins.
I didn’t mean to imply in the last comment that hitting was ever an option for me. But in the face of an attack you can either reply in kind or retreat. I agree that you lose something as a person once you go violent. But it’s not just you, part of the (and sometimes the whole) relationship dies right there. Sometimes you can let it die. What if you can’t?
Comment by ali — June 13, 2005 @ 8:35 am
ali, i agree with what you said about “The whole concept of Islam being a true religion is out the window if you start finding fault with the Koran”…and that was my point. for me, it ceased to be a true religion once i began to find faults with it. i agree that a lot of the translations and interpretations could be wrong, and a lot of it is just traditions and culture as opposed to the actual religion. however, i don’t speak the actual language and i am not spiritual enough (at the moment) nor seeking any sort of validation or direction through any religion, on top of that i’m lazy…so frankly, i can’t be arsed to read ten different translations or learn the original language in order to truly understand and THEN make an enlightened or educated decision.
so i end up being a non-believer - or rather, i got kicked out of the club!
however, this is where my personal gripe comes in. i feel that if god actually wanted me (forget the whole world and the bigger picture) to understand him, understand islam, understand religion and the path to him, he would have done it in a way that did not make it so bloody difficult for me!
i know its a rather silly comment, but honestly, if i want to explain something truly important like the meaning of life to a gora, i am not going to speak in urdu! nor am i going to be so vague that he can actually walk away with a completely different meaning/idea.
in a VERY childish way, i’m mad that lets say on the off chance that islam IS the true religion, why couldn’t god have just come up with a simpler way of communicating it?
Comment by rocky — June 13, 2005 @ 12:13 pm
oh and as far as hitting a woman is concerned, i think its all slightly sexist…i mean, we just dont have the same amount of anger when a man is hit or slapped by a woman…everyone feels like he probably deserved it!
to be honest, if a guy slapped a girl because he caught her cheating on him or because she slapped him and he reacted by slapping her back, then i’d think it was fair enough. sometimes, both men AND women deserve a slap (this is coming from someone who has NEVER slapped anyone nor ever been slapped…for all my violent talk, i am too much of a pussy to slap a guy cause i KNOW i’ll get slapped back!).
anyway, ‘beating’ is a completely different ball game. and what ticks me off about that particular verse is not the fact that it is perhaps okay to hit a woman (lightly), it’s the fact that it is when she misbehaves - this is SO vague, given the multitude of things that islam has classified as no-no’s for women (and men) like showing skin, drinking, going out without a mehram, lying, blah blah blah, basically, my hubby would be giving me a (light) thappar ten times a day!
Comment by rocky — June 13, 2005 @ 12:29 pm
ali, I hardly think you have any issue re your ability to express your thoughts in writing.:)
“…for the message to have any resonance with the people who need to change it has to be the right frequency”. Alright, but what is the right frequency? I mean, if a guy believes (in this case) beating his wife is acceptable, and the religion he lives by endorses this belief, what is the correct way of approaching this?
If one tries to reason with his ‘instinct’, then he has religion to fall back on as justifying his actions. If we try to tell him his religion itself is wrong, then that is flogging a dead horse, you feel.
I am not quite saying you are wrong on this, but is this a hopeless situation then?
You have repeatedly spoken of ‘questioning the authenticity of the text’. I don’t think anyone is saying that the Koran says something other than this (conventinal, ageold, whatever) interpretation. What is being said is that this (conventional, ageold, whatever) teaching is not fundamentally in tune with society or sensibilities as we know them today. And by we I mean you and me, the types debating this on a blog. For those probably immersed in their Koran in rural areas around the continent, who still go by what the Koran has to say as a guide to life…what about them?
We cannot explain the virtues of non violence against women (I cannot believe we even have to do that!) by attacking their religious text. neither can we do it by ignoring what their text says. Ground realities-how does this happen? I have no idea. Iam just thinking loud here. what say you?
Comment by vAgue — June 14, 2005 @ 9:10 am
Rocky:
“why couldn’t god have just come up with a simpler way of communicating “. Were that it was so simple, then we would not have multiple religions at all. But don’t you believe that no religion is the only true religion? That everyone that can choose, chooses that which appeals to him or her the most (if, indeed he has the said choice at all)? Or are you truly looking or the One religion?
and as far as hitting goes, if one believes in old world chivalry then any sort slapping or beating is to be looked down upon. If not, then I get what you say- a slap borne ofdeep anger, hurt or sheer frustration in the most extreme, I suppose, is (very broadly) acceptable. But it is a thin line to tread, this.
Comment by vAgue — June 14, 2005 @ 9:19 am
I used to be a Deist, a group of people believing that God created the world then fecked off to do something far more interesting. I mean if you were omnipotent would you spend all your time faffing around with this insignificant little place? Be like watching a shit episode of bad soap opera.
Another thing, do aliens have mono-deist religions? Do they go to heaven or is this just an exclusive human club?
Comment by Red Baron — June 14, 2005 @ 3:08 pm
I am a moral relativist, and a bible not-so-literalist (and a dyslexic agnostic).
That doesn’t make me amoral, I am rock solid on the big picture but I don’t
think anyone knows the details to perfection.
I can appreciate your views, Ali, but I don’t see much hope for debate or change
either. “the straight forward logical approach gets shut out before it begins”.
You seem more consistent in this limited scope than other literalists, and you
advocate a morality that is Literalism plus “just because the Quaran says you can,
doesn’t mean you should”. This is quite commendable, but what I often see is
something like this:
Literalist: homosexuality is wrong.
Relativist: why?
Literalist: Bible says so.
Relativist: What about burning at the stake? (Leviticus 21:9)
Literalist: We don’t do that anymore.
I don’t see how a Relativist can convince a Literalist of anything. But
that is why many Relativists see Literalism as _the_problem_. People kill
each other over this stuff.
Comment by Kris — July 8, 2005 @ 8:38 pm