1 October, 2020

Blog

Understanding Fundamentalism

By Izeth Hussain

Izeth Hussain

Izeth Hussain

Understanding Fundamentalism – Part II

The notion that the tale should not be interpreted in terms of the intention of the writer does not mean that all the facts about a writer, his biography, are irrelevant to the interpretation of the tale. This was argued by one of the great literary critics of the last century, William Empson, in his book Using Biography. In this case the biography of the High Noon director Fred Zinnemann is certainly central to the interpretation of the film as he was a European Jew who lost both his parents in the Nazi Holocaust. The best of his kind could therefore be expected to have an exceptional hunger for justice. Gary Cooper’s daughter said that she had heard someone on the set asking how on earth it had come about that a European Jew was making a Hollywood Western. The answer of course is that Zinnemann was using the genre of the Hollywood Western, which has quasi-universal appeal, to make a point that has universal appeal: a society that does little or nothing to counter Evil, as in Nazi Germany, is doomed to self-destruct. We saw that happen in Sri Lanka after 1977.

The standard interpretation of High noon is in terms of the outsider, the non-conformist, who is in opposition to the corrupt society, a figure playing a central role also in other films by Zinnemann. The hero played by Gary Cooper marries a Quaker female in a Quaker Church, both of whom are therefore outside the mainstream society. The Mexican female who is portrayed sympathetically is an obvious outsider in the predominantly Anglo-Saxon society. The only two who offer to stand by the hero in his final showdown are a boy, who has not yet entered the adult mainstream of the society, and a one-eyed alcoholic who is an obvious outsider. So an interpretation of the film in terms of the theme of the outsider would be substantially correct.

But that interpretation seems to me incomplete because it leaves out the religious dimension altogether. I would approach that dimension by noting the relevance of the myth of the frontier.

According to that myth the settled society inevitably becomes corrupt, leaving the hero no option but to leave it and go West to the frontier. This theme figures in many ways in the American arts. At the end of Huckleberry Finn, the book from which all American literature derives according to Hemingway, the hero just can’t stand the prospect of being civilized by the Widow Douglas and lights out for the frontier. At the end of Hemingway’s story The Killers, the boy Nick comes to understand the corruption and brutality of his society and leaves town. In one of John Steinbeck’s best stories, The Leader of the People, the hero reminisces nostalgically about his days of “Westering”. And at the end of High Noon the hero throws down his Sheriff’s badge and leaves the town with his wife, in what has become one of the iconic moments of American cinema.

The myth of the frontier seems to me incompatible with the Enlightenment ideology represented by figures such as Voltaire, the ideology that shaped the American Constitution. That ideology gives central importance to rationalism and secularism and its politics were based on the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. In terms of that ideology, the hero should try to effect improvements in the settled society, not abandon it to start life anew at the frontier. The latter impulse however fits in with another aspect of the Enlightenment ideology represented by Rousseau with his myth of the Noble Savage. That aspect has behind it, I believe, a basically religious impulse. Anyway it would be mistaken to read High Noon only in terms of the myth of the Outsider because the religious dimension is not just there but is obtrusive. The most important debate in the film on whether or not the hero should be given community support takes place in the mainstream Church, presumably Anglican. The female who persuades the wife to stand by her husband, who predicts that after he dies the town would disintegrate, is Mexican and presumably a Roman Catholic. She is outside the religious mainstream because Catholicism became important in America only after the Irish took it there as their greatest gift to the nation. The film begins with the hero marrying the Quaker female in a Quaker Church. It is not clear whether he himself becomes a Quaker but he certainly opts for a Quaker way of life by wanting to run a store with his wife, abandoning his superlative performance as the Marshal with the gun. The Quakers were a pacifist fundamentalist sect. The film exemplifies fundamentalism in a benign form.

My next exhibit is Martha Graham’s ballet Appalachian Spring to music by Aaron Copland, on which I can be brief as I have already made some of the essential clarifications on fundamentalism. Graham, who has iconic status as the creator of modern American ballet, requested a ballet score from Copland with the stipulation that it should be quintessentially American. He responded with a score inscribed A Ballet for Martha without making any suggestions about the content of the ballet. But he used the most famous of the Shaker hymns Simple Gifts in the score and that inspired Graham to choreograph a ballet celebrating the Shakers, a fundamentalist sect that broke away from the Quakers. She herself had a strict Presbyterian upbringing, and perhaps that fundamentalist background enabled her to empathize with the fundamentalist Shakers.

The words of the hymn are significant for pointing to the revolutionary potential that there might be in some forms of fundamentalism. It begins “’Tis a gift to be simple/ ‘Tis a gift to be free” and it ends “Where true simplicity is gained/ To bow and to bend we shan’t be ashamed”. There we have an implicit protest against dominance, oppression, hierarchy, and the aspiration to liberty, equality, and fraternity but with a religious foundation. However the Appalachian Spring ballet that I saw in London in 1954 with Martha Graham dancing the lead role had nothing revolutionary about it. It was on the contrary a lovely projection of prelapsarian innocence and bliss. It was a celebration of fundamentalism in a benign form.

My main purpose in this article has been to establish that there is no nexus between fundamentalism and violence. The term “fundamentalism” arose in the late nineteenth century to designate Christian sects that insisted on the inerrancy of the Bible and the need for its literal interpretation in answer to the theory of evolution. There was nothing violent about that, nor was violence a characteristic of the many fundamentalist sects that had arisen in America. In the Islamic world the best-known fundamentalist movement for several decades was the Moslem Brotherhood which had nothing violent about it. Violence has been a special characteristic of Wahabism and its clones: the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the Boko Haram and the IS. That violence is best understood, in the brilliant theorizing of Emmanuel Todd, in terms of the transition to modernity. The point on which I want to insist in conclusion is that he drive to return to the fundamentals of a religion in order to seek the renewal of a society is something that ought to be respected, provided that that drive does not become violent.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 1
    1

    Mr. Husseinn:

    why do you quote what was written by Western writers with respect to fundamentalism. those views are all christianity based because they cannot neglect their christian background when they think before writing.

    What is fundamentalism according to Quran and what does Quran do promote fundamentalism to the extreme of killing non-believes or people deviation from what some one else interpreted ?

    • 2
      0

      Jim Softly – Why do I quote what was written by Western writers on fundamentalism? You will find the answer in the opening sentences of this article.I stated explicitly that this article is on fundamentalism in general, not just in the Islamic world.So I cited two American works of art, High Noon and Appalachian Spring, to illustrate my point that there is no nexus between fundamentalism and violence.I referred to the interpretation of High Noon in terms of the myth of the Outsider. That interpretation was by Westerners. But I gave my own interpretation of High Noon and also of Appalachian Spring, and I am not a Western writer.What on earth are you talking about Jim Softly? Is it, as is habitual with Islamophobes who attack me, you want to find fault with anything and everything I write? – IH

      • 0
        0

        Mr. Hussein:

        You avoided my question.

        I asked what the viewis on Fundamentalism as mentioned in Quran. You cannot say, what you mentioned is the view of the whole wide world or at least the view of the muslim world. If you could please explain what is mentioned in Quran with respect to fundamentalism.

        • 0
          0

          Jim Softly – I answered the first of two questions raised by you. Have you any reply to that? Before dealing with your second question I must make a clarification to the reader.Earlier JS charged that I was citing Christian writers to explain away Islamic terrorism because I could not do so on the basis of Islamic texts. I and others can certainly cite innumerable Islamic texts to show that the terrorism of the IS etc is utterly unIslamic. But if I did that Jim Softly and the likes of him would have charged that I was citing witnesses prejudiced in favor of Islam and that I was engaging in a form of apologetics. That was very much in my mind when I wrote my article on understanding Islamic terrorism. So I cited the writings of Karen Armstrong, a Roman Catholic, and Emmanuel Todd, a French Jew. JS’s charge showed the Islamophobic propensity to find fault with anything and everything I write.
          Earlier JS wrote a seemingly scholarly account of the horrors perpetrated by the Muslim conquests. I replied that wars have been waged and horrors perpetrated by the adherents of every religion irrespective of whether or not it is a religion of the sword.In the last century the Christians killed millions in the two World Wars, far more than Muslims did. The historical record shows that it is idiotic to think that conquest and its horrors are peculiar to the Islamic world. JS did not reply. He can’t.
          JS’s second question is about what is mentioned in the Koran about fundamentalism. Nothing. How can there be? Fundamentalism means a going back to the fundamentals. The Koran states the fundamentals. You are in a confused state of mind JS.
          I and others believe that my articles have provoked a terrible hatred among Tamil and Sinhalese Islamophobes because they cannot bear it that a Thumbiya/Soni writes articles of a certain quality. So Jimmy boy, what do you think of my present article? Is it third rate or tenth rate? – IH

      • 1
        0

        Izeth Hussain,

        RE: Understanding Fundamentalism

        “My main purpose in this article has been to establish that there is no nexus between fundamentalism and violence. The term “fundamentalism” arose in the late nineteenth century to designate Christian sects that insisted on the inerrancy of the Bible and the need for its literal interpretation in answer to the theory of evolution. There was nothing violent about that, nor was violence a characteristic of the many fundamentalist sects that had arisen in America. In the Islamic world the best-known fundamentalist movement for several decades was the Moslem Brotherhood which had nothing violent about it>”

        CORRECTION:

        Well before the Muslim Brotherhood, there were the Wahhabis in the 18th Century, whom the Ottoman Turks fought, in the First-Wahhabi-Salafi War.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Wahhabi_War

        Even before that there were the Kaharijites, during the period of the First three Califs. Kaharijite said that Ali,the 4th Calif,had squandered his entitlement and needed to step down; and since he didn’t step down, one young Kaharijite, this fundamentalist hot head, took matters into his own hands assassinated Ali in the year 40 AH (672 CE).

        Abdul Wahhab, the Saudi Wahhabi, led a raiding party to Karbala in the 18th Century and killed 2,000 Shias.

        “Religion is the Opium of the Masses”-said Karl Marx.

        Recommend that you read, Destiny Disrupted, A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes, by Tamin Ansary, ISBN-13:878-1-58648-606-8.

        Sun spins around the earth. See what this guy below is saying. Quite interesting points.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxLp8lusTuM

        • 0
          0

          Amarasiri – First of all, my thanks for all the very valuable material that you keep posting. I have benefited from it enormously. As for your Correction, I am of course aware that the Kharijites and the Wahabis long preceded the Moslem brotherhood. What I wrote was that the latter was “In the Islamic world the best-known fundamentalist movement for several decades was the Moslem Brotherhood …”. – IH

    • 2
      0

      Bravo! What a wonderful article. I only hope that it is actually READ!

      What I have written here is one of the three comments that I tried to post more than eight hours ago, about 3.00 a.m. Then I realised that I had lost Internet connectivity, so I saved all of them, and now I will post all the comments without changing them.

      Looking at what Mr Izeth Hussain has written earlier, we have him saying:

      “I don’t agree that Buddhists engage in idol worship. They are engaging in prayer in front of the Buddha statue because prayer draws them towards the transcendental, which is the function of prayer in every religion.”

      https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/understanding-islamic-terrorism-iii/#comments

      And yet, discussion of Izeth’s last article ended with this spouting of rubbish by a Muslim, Jehan:

      “To all idol worshippers, throw your idols which won’t benefit you In this life or here after. . . . Islam is the only way, Allah has decreed.”

      https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/understanding-fundamentalism/#comments

  • 0
    1

    To all idol worshippers, your idols made of clay and wood cannot even protect themselves.
    Think: what u worship cannot protect itself, and u ask protection from the idols.
    How stupid can it be , because your forefathers did it, do not be deluded. Your forefathers also
    Said the earth is flat. Your salvation depends on recognizing only one Allah, all other deities are fictions.
    Learn about Islam, the thinking mans religion.
    Don’t be a fool by following all isms and man made rules of Christianity and Judaism.
    Qur’an is never changed and it will be the same to eternity.
    Your purpose in life is to worship Allah,remember the promise we all have given Allah.
    Think deep,
    Ask: questions of all religions, fundamentals,
    Why.if you are sincere in your quest Allah will show the way. Inshalla

    • 1
      0

      Jehan

      1. “To all idol worshippers, your idols made of clay and wood cannot even protect themselves. “

      2. “Think: what u worship cannot protect itself, and u ask protection from the idols.”

      3. “Your salvation depends on recognizing only one Allah, all other deities are fictions. Learn about Islam, the thinking mans religion.”

      These are very good questions. These are Scientific Questions, that must be asked and answered using the Scientific Method.

      No problem agreeing with you, on 1 and 2 above. Idols cannot do anything, just psychological. Clay, sand, stone and dirt images, cannot do much for you, unless you use the material for something useful like building a wall or a house. After all, the primates have no idols or images, and they do have 48 Chromosomes, compared to our 46.

      The Scientific Question, 3, above is very tricky. No, image, only revelation, through Angel Gabriel to Prophet Mohamed, Moses etc. One may accept it as a Revelation to Prophet Mohamed,and other Prophets, but is is not a Revelation to others. There is no proof of the revelation, other than what was written in the Quran, or the Bible, about an Invisible God.

      So, of a visible Idol cannot do anything, how can an Invisible God do anything? So, the faithful , have to believe that the invisible God can do anything, based on Revelation to the Prophets, not you, based on belief and faith.

      This is where the Scientific Method and Revelations Differ. Data,and Proof.

      That is the reason for the decline of the Islamic Science in the 12th Century.

      Have you heard about Al-Ghazali?

      Neil DeGrasse Tyson – The Islamic Golden Age: Naming Rights

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAT98eEN5Q

    • 1
      0

      Jehan

      “Said the earth is flat. Your salvation depends on recognizing only one Allah, all other deities are fictions.”

      Alternate views given below. The human mind is extremely susceptible to hallucination.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ

      Richard Dawkins cruelly answers audience question.

      Richard Dawkins (author of “The God Delusion”) gave a lecture at the Eden Court Theater (watch the whole lecture here: /view_play_list?p=9EF8FE04FE423B06) and the last audience question asked was from this deeply disturbed faithful christian believer. Richard Dawkins answers him rather succinctly…

  • 0
    0

    How can we encourage the electorate to re-direct their attention? To focus on the penal code that results in the imprisonment of apostates, homosexuals, and blasphemers? Our issue is not just “terrorists” my friends, the evils of monotheistic superstition exists at the core of these theocracies at the most inexcusable level.

    If SECULAR DEMOCRACY is our ends, if our goal as anti-theists is to liberate our brothers and sisters from the chains of theocratic fascism and communal reinforcement of monotheistic superstition…we must overcome this “regressive leftist” poison and consider other means to support those on the side of civilization…much to do, unfortunately.

    Now to Islam. It is, first, a religion that makes very large claims for itself, purporting to be the last and final word of God and expressing an ambition to become the world’s only religion. Some of its adherents follow or advocate the practice of plural marriage, forced marriage, female circumcision, compulsory veiling of women, and censorship of non-Muslim magazines and media. Islam’s teachings generally exhibit suspicion of the very idea of church-state separation. Other teachings, depending on context, can be held to exhibit a very strong dislike of other religions, as well as of heretical forms of Islam. Muslims in America, including members of the armed forces, have already been found willing to respond to orders issued by foreign terrorist organizations. Most disturbingly, no authority within the faith appears to have the power to rule decisively that such practices, or such teachings, or such actions, are definitely and utterly in conflict with the precepts of the religion itself.

    Reactions from even “moderate” Muslims to criticism are not uniformly reassuring. “Some of what people are saying in this current controversy is very similar to what German media was saying about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s,” Imam Abdullah Antepli, Muslim chaplain at Duke University, told the New York Times. Yes, we all recall the Jewish suicide bombers of that period, as we recall the Jewish yells for holy war, the Jewish demands for the veiling of women and the stoning of homosexuals, and the Jewish burning of newspapers that published cartoons they did not like. What is needed from the supporters of this very confident faith is more self-criticism and less self-pity and self-righteousness..

  • 0
    1

    We believe the Quran is the word of Allah,
    Any person who reads it will understand,it cannot be written
    By any human or jinn.
    As for the aithist Dawkins , he has been proven a lier with no basic
    Proof.
    Hawkins is crippled and angry, though now he accepts a creator,
    In his theory.
    I don’t want to waste time with people lacking understanding,
    My advice is read the translation of the Quran, if u cannot understand,
    Arabic. Ask a learned scholar like zakir naik,if you are sincere to learn.

    Idols cannot do anything, break your idols, idols lead to hell fire.
    Allah is only one,controller of what u see and what u don’t see.

    • 1
      0

      Jehan

      “Ask a learned scholar like zakir naik,if you are sincere to learn.”

      Let’s see what one can learn from Dr. Naik?

      Stupidest Muslim Vs Neil Tyson – How ideology can ruin intellectual power

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyCxrL9-C84

      This is not a debate between some Muslim and Neil Tyson. But this video shows the thinking of some very well educated 21’st century Muslim (I don’t know he is ignorant, stupid or dishonest. But he is one for sure) and Neil Tyson speaking in a lecture about how Muslims intellectual power ruined by an ideology. You can watch the Full video of this Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s amazing lecture filled with fun and knowledge by clicking on the link below.

      Stupidity has no limits

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BshN8xXwfXw

      Stupidity has no limit, no race, no color, no religion (because it is found in all religions)

      “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe” – Albert Einstein

      “The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.” – Albert Einstein

    • 1
      0

      Jehan

      “My advice is read the translation of the Quran, if u cannot understand, Arabic. Ask a learned scholar like zakir naik,if you are sincere to learn.”

      Thanks.
      Ex-Muslim Atheist owns stupid Zakir Naik on evolution

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXa-UQjSNn0

      It’s embarrassing to watch how ignorant Zakir Naik is…

      Ken Miller on Human Evolution

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

      Dr. Ken Miller talks about the relationship between Homo sapiens and the other primates. He discusses a recent finding of the Human Genome Project which identifies the exact point of fusion of two primate chromosomes that resulted in human chromosome #2.

      Muslims BEWARE | NEVER believe Zakir Naik | Look How many Mistakes He Makes

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx5hR3Vz54s

  • 0
    2

    Aithist are the most stupidest people I know, they think they have
    Created themselves.
    Can a human create anything without Allah permission.
    Can humans create? No, only assemble.
    Be it a cell or wood.
    Also with such little knowledge, have the stupidity to say aithist are
    Scientific,what is science, there are things which cannot be explained
    By science, science has limitations.
    Furthermore I do not believe aithist have brains, have they seen it.
    Or can they create even a fly.

    • 1
      0

      Jehan

      1. “Aithist are the most stupidest people I know, they think they have Created themselves”

      Are they Gods?

      2.”Can a human create anything without Allah permission.”?

      A very good Question. Scriptures say, Allah created humans. Did Allah give creation capabilities to humans?

      3.”Can humans create? No, only assemble” “Be it a cell or wood.”? Did Allah give creation capabilities or only assemble to humans?

      4. “Also with such little knowledge, have the stupidity to say aithist are Scientific,what is science, there are things which cannot be explained By science, science has limitations.”

      Yes, science has limitations. However, if provides data. Does not require acceptance based on blind faith and belief. That is what these guys are talking about. Remember, the Church made Christians t believe that the Sun went around the Earth?

      5.”Furthermore I do not believe aithist have brains, have they seen it. Or can they create even a fly. “

      Atheists and Agnostics, like other humans do have brains.They evolved, just like the believers brains. They can’t create a fly, and the flies evolved just like them.

      “To create anything need Allah permission” So, how do you get it?

      1. Bible-Old Testament

      2. Bible-New Testament

      3. Quran-Mecca Period

      4. Quran-Medina Period

      5. Quran-Final Version

      6. Ask Prophet Mohamed

      7. Ask Prophet Mohamed

      8. Ask Allah Directly

      9. Ask Wahhabi Ulama Directly

      8. Ask Shia Imam Directly

      9. Ask Wahhabi Preachers Directly

      10. Ask Wahhabi Saudi King Directly

      What method works? Do you have data in support of any of the methods above.

      • 1
        0

        Jehan

        See What Christian Apologists are Claiming from Bible..

        Christian Apologetics get Demolished (William Lane Craig vs Arif Ahmed debate)

        They call it religious experience. What is the differentiation with Islam? Are you going to elevate Revelation above Reason, and everything is attributable to a God, just like the Jews, and Christians claim?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rg7HBmGQx0

    • 0
      0

      Right now, the most primitive religion is Islam.

      They are so authoritative, they don’t want there is another side every story. they hate to here others views. Destroying of Bamiyan buddha’s in Afghanistan, those in syria and Maldiv Musueum show how intolerant muslims are about other religions.

      Amarasiri, talks about one Dr. Naik. see how dumb that he is. Dr. Naik’s talks also show how dangerous muslim are when they are stronger population in a country.

      • 1
        0

        Jim softy

        ” Destroying of Bamiyan buddha’s in Afghanistan, those in syria and Maldiv Musueum show how intolerant muslims are about other religions.”

        These withstood 1,400 years of Normal Islam.

        The problem is with Wahhabis and their Clones, Salafis, Tauheedis, Najadis, Taliban, ISS, ISIL, Boko Haram, Deobandis and other Wahhabi Flavours.

        They like to kill Shia, Sifis, Ahemedia and others who are not Wahhabis.

        So, you cannot paint all Muslims with a Wide Wahhabi Brush.

        Many Muslims are of opinion that the Wahhabis and their clones follow the Devil, Satan, Iblis, based on evidence.

      • 1
        0

        Jim softly – you write in broken English – “they don’t want there is another side every story” and other gems. But the other day you wrote a seemingly erudite but ridiculous piece on the Muslim conquests, showing a good command of the English language. How come? Are you the servitor of an Islamophobic gang who sometimes write your replies?
        You haven’t answered my questions. One is how you rate my present article – third rate or tenth rate? You probably don’t understand any of it. Get your gang to reply. – IH

        • 1
          0

          Izeth Hussain , RE: Jim Softy and Sinhala “Buddhist” Mara Ideology.

          Jim Softy, Sinhala “Buddhists” and Wahhabis are of the same composition, ideology. They are disoriented like those who promoted the Geocentric Model of the Universe. They follow the Mahawansa, 5th Century) and the Book by Abdul Wahab of the 18th Century, Tauheed. They are guided by Mara and Satan. They are indeed strange bedfellows.

          Their disease is hatred, and that that rots from inside.

          Wahhabis hate other non-Wahhabis, all they want is to kill them and destroy them, which is not the vase of Normal Muslims, a trait of the Devil, Satan, Iblis followers.

          Sinhala “Buddhists”, as opposed to Buddhists, hate others who are not Sinhala “Buddhists”. They will kill other, like SWRD, Tamils, Muslims etc. Is this a Sinhala “Buddhist” Disease or a Theraveda “Buddhist” disease.

          This ideology is similar to the Jewish Ideology of the Old Testament. Kill.

          So We Have:

          Category 1.: The Hate Fellow Man Ideologies. ( Satan and Mara)

          1. Jewish-Old Testament Ideology

          2. Wahhabis and Clones Ideology

          3. Sinhala “Buddhist” Ideology, at Follows Mara.

          Category 2.: The Love Fellow Man Ideologies (Buddha, Allah and Jesus)

          1. Buddha

          2. The Sufis

          3. Christians, only if you are Christians, but not in Practice.

          Category 3. Mixed Love-Hate Ideologies

          1. Islam, as preached and practiced.

          2. Versions of Buddhism, as preached and practiced.

          3. Christianity, as preached and practiced

          • 1
            0

            Bravo Amarasiri for your exceptionally valuable contribution. Your division of religions into three categories is of the greatest interest. I am basically in agreement with that categorisation. What would interest me most are the possible reasons for the rise of hate religions. A common factor could be a drive for power among the envious who cannot make it to the socio-economic top bracket. – IH

          • 1
            0

            Izeth Hussain ,

            RE: Islamic Fundamentalism and ISIS Ideology and Rules Derived from Wahhabism.

            Is Islam- A Religion for Men? Wahhabis, yheir Clones and ISIS seem to think so.

            15 ISIS Rules:

            http://www.colombotoday.com/910394-2/

            1) It is not permissible for the owner of a female captive to have intercourse with her until after she has had menstrual cycle and becomes clean.

            2) If she does not menstruate and is pregnant, he is not allowed to have intercourse with her until after she has given birth.

            3) It is not permissible to cause her to abort if she is pregnant.

            4) If the owner of a female captive releases her, only he can have intercourse with her and he cannot allow someone else to have intercourse with her.

            5) If the owner of a female captive, who has a daughter suitable for intercourse, has sexual relations with the latter, he is not permitted to have intercourse with her mother and she is permanently off limits to him. Should he have intercourse with her mother then he is not permitted to have intercourse with her daughter and she is to be off-limits to him.

            6) The owner of two sisters is not allowed to have intercourse with both of them; rather he may only have intercourse with just one. The other sister is to be had by him, if he were to relinquish ownership of the first sister by selling her, giving her away or releasing her.

            7) If the female captive is owned by a father, his son cannot have intercourse with her and vice-versa. Moreover, intercourse with his wife’s female captive is also not permissible.

            8) If a father had intercourse with his female captive then gave her away or sold her to his son, he is no longer permitted to have intercourse with her.

            9) If the female captive becomes pregnant by her owner, he cannot sell her and she is released after his death.

            10) If the owner releases his female captive then he is not permitted to have intercourse with her afterwards because she has become free and is no longer his property.

            11) If two or more individuals are involved in purchasing a female captive, none of them are permitted to have sex with her because she is part of a joint ownership.

            12) It is not permissible to have intercourse with a female captive during her menstrual cycle.

            13) It is not permissible top have anal sex with a female captive.

            14) The owner of a female captive should show compassion towards her, be kind to her, not humiliate her and not assign her work she is unable to perform.

            15) The owner of a female captive should not sell her to an individual whom he knows will treat her badly or do unto her what Allah has forbidden.

        • 1
          0

          Come on Jimmy boy – how do you rate my article? Third rate or tenth rate? The other day you declared that Sinhala Man is really a Muslim. Why? I have good reason to believe that he is Sinhalese. Was it your purpose to influence the reader to believe that only a Muslim prejudiced in my favor can possibly appreciate my articles? In other words, your declaration was simply an expression of Islamophobic hatred.I await your reply in your usual broken English. – IH
          PS – I am against broken English because I am in favor of excellence. My salutations therefore to whoever it was on the CT staff who chose that marvelous photograph of Martha Graham dancing to embellish my article.It illustrates the point that dance at its best is sculpture in movement. – IH

          • 0
            0

            Izeth Hussain

            “The other day you declared that Sinhala Man is really a Muslim. Why? I have good reason to believe that he is Sinhalese. Was it your purpose to influence the reader to believe that only a Muslim prejudiced in my favor can possibly appreciate my articles? In other words, your declaration was simply an expression of Islamophobic hatred.I await your reply in your usual broken English. – IH”

            This belongs to the clans of ad hominem attacks.

            “The other day you declared that Sinhala Man is really a Muslim.” – S, the Sinhala Man must be a “Heretic” or “Apostate” for the Sinhala.

            An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3].

            You will find this being used by all kinds of people, when they cannot defend their argument with good reason or facts, and end of attacking the character of the person making the argument.

            The inquisition, the persecution of the Jews, the Persecution of the Astronomers, scientists, the Muslims, the Christians, the atheists, the agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, Racism, Caste Discrimination, Es discrimination and the the arguments against the various religious ideologies fall into this category.

            Persecution of Heretics and Apostates also fall into this category.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

            Guilt by association

            Main article: Association fallacy

            Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.[7]

            This form of the argument is as follows:

            1. Source S makes claim C.

            2. Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.

            3. Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.

            An example of this fallacy could be “My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?”

    • 1
      0

      @jehan

      “(Aethists) think they have Created themselves.” – I dont think that is correct. They say “We don’t believe that God/Gods created us”. There is a difference

      They basically reject the role of a Diety or Dieties.

      Science may have limitations but that’s because we dont have enough knowledge yet to interpret some things. For example, in the good old days, we did not know how disease spread.

      People believed the plague was an Act of God.

      Now we know what it is and how it spreads.

      As knowledge expands, so will understanding.

  • 0
    0

    “My main purpose in this article has been to establish that there is no nexus between fundamentalism and violence….”
    I am sorry but your article fails to do that…then you go on to say

    Then you go on to say ” ,,,In the Islamic world the best-known fundamentalist movement for several decades was the Moslem Brotherhood which had nothing violent about it..”….Moslem brother hood of man is a modern US organisation….no where as old as the islamic fundamentalism, and responsible for many violent activities including perhaps the assassination of Martin Luther King

    Then you literally take refuge in Wahhabism stating “Violence has been a special characteristic of Wahhabism….”
    So in your definition Wahhabism is not fundamentalism

    You are trying to paint a picture of Islamic fundamentalism is different to Wahhabism… You fail miserably

  • 0
    0

    This is from New York Times
    Here is a primer on the basic differences between Sunni and Shia Islam.
    What caused the split?
    A schism emerged after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632. He died without appointing a successor to lead the Muslim community, and disputes arose over who should shepherd the new and rapidly growing faith.
    Some believed that a new leader should be chosen by consensus; others thought that only the prophet’s descendants should become caliph. The title passed to a trusted aide, Abu Bakr, though some thought it should have gone to Ali, the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law. Ali eventually did become caliph after Abu Bakr’s two successors were assassinated.
    After Ali also was assassinated, with a poison-laced sword at the mosque in Kufa, in what is now Iraq, his sons Hasan and then Hussein claimed the title. But Hussein and many of his relatives were massacred in Karbala, Iraq, in 680. His martyrdom became a central tenet to those who believed that Ali should have succeeded the prophet. (It is mourned every year during the month of Muharram.) The followers became known as Shiites, a contraction of the phrase Shiat Ali, or followers of Ali.
    The Sunnis, however, regard the first three caliphs before Ali as rightly guided and themselves as the true adherents to the Sunnah, or the prophet’s tradition. Sunni rulers embarked on sweeping conquests that extended the caliphate into North Africa and Europe. The last caliphate ended with the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I.”

    The word is not a safe place because of thi two Islamic fundamentalism

    • 2
      0

      Rajash

      “The word is not a safe place because of thi two Islamic fundamentalism “

      world is not a safe place because due to a number of reasons

      1. Imperialism

      2. Religious Fundamentalism, and the deception of the faithful by promising unproven afterlife promises,

      3. Nationalism.

      4. Hegemony of the super powers and regional powers.

    • 1
      0

      Rajash

      “This is from New York Times”

      So, this must be Revelation, by God, by the American God and must be correct.

      Did they also reveal weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and the ties of sad Hussein to al Queda?

      Just curious about those ‘Revelations”.

  • 0
    1

    Evolution is a lie by the whites,to keep the blacks and Asians
    Or the non white races in place. Politically it was used by the nazi ideology .
    Then by Stalin in Central Asia, by Chinese against the Chinese who Mao thought less.
    British vs all races who they conquered.
    There is a very informative Vedio by ha run Yahiya on this.
    Resulted in millions dying to prove this lie. Still some stupid people hang on to it so they
    Can prove aithism.
    Even in US some states have discontinued teaching this crap of evolution .
    In the evolution ideology, by Darwin
    Whites are in the top of the food chain,

  • 1
    0

    Jehan

    “Evolution is a lie by the whites,to keep the blacks and Asians “

    “Even in US some states have discontinued teaching this crap of evolution “

    This is what happens when one downgrades reason and observation to revelation.

    If Revelation is true,then thee is no problem. The problem lies in the Revelation being not true or not accurate.

    So, revelation need to be edited, to be compatible with the observation and the truth.

    Ken Miller on Human Evolution,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

    Dr. Ken Miller talks about the relationship between Homo sapiens and the other primates. He discusses a recent finding of the Human Genome Project which identifies the exact point of fusion of two primate chromosomes that resulted in human chromosome #2.

    Have you heard about the revelations to Joshua in the Old Testament and stopping the Sun? Joshua 10:13

    New International Version
    So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.