You do realise, Winter, that your feigned offence at an entirely innocuous comment made by al-Q al-M makes you look completely mad?

Good night, troll.

Try addressing the issues rather than attacking the sources or people making the remarks.

What is it with personal abuse and Islamists?

Abu Faris
Posted November 7, 2009 at 2:54 PM

You do realise that you are utterly mad, don’t you, Winter?

Looks like Abu Faris is an Islamist

I live amongst and work with Copts – many of them having family members in the Coptic Church hierarchy. Copts find the smells, bells and Byzantine outfits of the Coptic clergy highly amusing.

Stop being so precious.

The Copts are actually a case in point – it’s all about who’s got the biggest beard, the funkiest headgear and the biggest, shiniest, goldest cross!

Your hatred of Coptic Christians is disgusting

http://www.theorthodoxchurch.info/blogs/news/2009/02/pope-shenouda-travels-to-us-for.html

The Copts are actually a case in point – it’s all about who’s got the biggest beard, the funkiest headgear and the biggest, shiniest, goldest cross!

seeing random Christians with beards, cross jewelry etc, doesn’t seem to make nominal Christians feel inferior or less pious, less worthy etc.

The Coptic Pope, His Holiness Shenouda III, looks uncannily like Sadaam at his time of capture; but with a big hat and lots of gold…

Incidentally, I have it on good authority that one way to guarantee an audience with His Holiness is to smuggle in some chocolate for the sweet-toothed Pontiff.

I would guess though, that this has more to do with traditional ideas of religious and social hierarchy.

My point was that seeing random Christians with beards, cross jewelry etc, doesn’t seem to make nominal Christians feel inferior or less pious, less worthy etc.

Churma’ as you describe it might be more like wara’ or scrupulousness, although in the example you provide there would also another counterbalancing concept of taysir (ease).

that sounds far more likely – the counterbalance for “chumra” is “kula” – thus one who follows strict interpretations is said to be “machmir” and one who is lenient wherever possible is said to be “makil”.

Under the rules of halal for instance, there is a growing tendency towards the use of pharmocology in determining which food additives are halal or not. Although I’ve not come across anything as exacting as the example that you give.

oh, don’t worry, you will eventually, people being what they are.

Water from municipal sources is assumed to be ritually pure under traditional Islamic law unless there is tangible evidence to the contrary like a change in its colour, taste or viscosity.

the proper standard to apply in the case of ingesting a non-kosher animal is “if you can see it, it’s something to be concerned about, but if you’d need a microscope, that’s OK”, but as i say, some people won’t be happy until they’re not allowed to do anything at all. idiots. i don’t see haredim being especially machmir about hygiene, health and safety, courtesy, business ethics or careful driving, although of course i know that there are certainly people who do take that as seriously as they should – it’s just not part of the agenda.

This is a topic that’s fascinated me for some time, but probably requires setting out in more length.

i’d be interested in helping out with that. one might start with how the mcb has pretensions to being considered the islamic equivalent of the board of deputies when, in fact, its behaviour, constituency and credibility would be far more similar to the united synagogue – hence iqbal sacranie getting knighted the same time as jonathan sacks – and if the mcb hadn’t made such a spectacular arse of itself over its relationship with the government, i dare say lord sacranie would be taking his seat right about now.

Briefly, however, I believe that similar divisions are articulated within Islam today but are not so well defined in terms of having developed and separate religious institutions or leaderships.

that’s partly because islam has a systematic theology which can be translated into divisive sectarianism in a way that judaism hasn’t, or at least not as often. the sunni-shi’a schism is far more comparable to the protestant-catholic split (i’m oversimplifying of course). we never really had theological splits before the enlightenment, unless you count the karaite schism, which was more about rabbinic authority.

This becomes more the case the more one moves away from tradionalism or neo-traditionalism.

after the enlightenment, of course, we had a whole bunch of differing takes, including the neo-traditionalism of hasidism, but “modern orthodoxy” was basically a reaction against both reform and the ideological warfare between hasidut and the “mitnagdim” of the eastern european yeshiva tradition. this never happened in the sephardi world, where we spent most of our time dealing with the fall-out from the shabbetai tzvi false messiah catastrophe in the C17th and dealing with the secularist agenda of the “alliance israélite universelle”.

The “reform” movements is a vague formulation, but basically by that I mean movements that criticised traditionalism while basically remaining within its overall logics and paradigms but did make some concessions to modern life at the same time. When it comes to individuals, it’s all more likely to be on a graduated spectrum in any case.

oh – well that *does* sound like the agenda of modern orthodoxy, as r. samson raphael hirsch put it: “torah ‘im derech eretz” – Torah and the “way of the world”. it’s just that use of the word “reformist” has a particular set of connotations within the jewish world.

It’s interesting that most nominal Christians have no comparable inferiority issues when they meet other Christians who are more ostentatiously religious or pious

whaaaat? have you seen how catholics defer to priests, or even the most unreligious anglican to the local vicar? you must be joking.

It’s absurd that peoples’ worth or goodness is measured by their archaic clothes, their quantities of facial hair or by the volumes of mumbo-jumbo they choose to chant at each other.

oh, that’s nothing – you should try working as a musician in the field of “world music” with a middle-class london accent. according to the critics, the music isn’t really “authentic” unless you’re a blind peasant from a malian village.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Here is is again: http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3501/comment-page-1#comment-13730

I believe you had left your contact details. These were the same as the ones you publicly display.

Dont you recall how they tried to imply the City Circle (which I believe you were involved with) was some kind of extremist sinister Islamist front
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/1214

This level of irrational hatred of Muslims really isnt suspectible to rational debate

Btw, I did contact the Spittoon editor to get your contact details, but didn’t get a response.

This is a a sign of progress, I’d say! It’s absurd that peoples’ worth or goodness is measured by their archaic clothes, their quantities of facial hair or by the volumes of mumbo-jumbo they choose to chant at each other.

It was a quick stab at comparison to be honest, but let me try again!

‘Churma’ as you describe it might be more like wara’ or scrupulousness, although in the example you provide there would also another counterbalancing concept of taysir (ease). Under the rules of halal for instance, there is a growing tendency towards the use of pharmocology in determining which food additives are halal or not. Although I’ve not come across anything as exacting as the example that you give. Water from municipal sources is assumed to be ritually pure under traditional Islamic law unless there is tangible evidence to the contrary like a change in its colour, taste or viscosity.

well, orthodoxy is defined by its opposition to the “progressive” movements,reform, conservative, liberal and reconstructionist judaism. the most significant m-o grouping in the uk is the united synagogue, that of the chief rabbi – it’s the “mainstream” by definition; you seem to be talking more about a “progressive” equivalent.

This is a topic that’s fascinated me for some time, but probably requires setting out in more length. Briefly, however, I believe that similar divisions are articulated within Islam today but are not so well defined in terms of having developed and separate religious institutions or leaderships. This becomes more the case the more one moves away from tradionalism or neo-traditionalism. The “reform” movements is a vague formulation, but basically by that I mean movements that criticised traditionalism while basically remaining within its overall logics and paradigms but did make some concessions to modern life at the same time. When it comes to individuals, it’s all more likely to be on a graduated spectrum in any case.

wa s-salam, yahya

firstly, thanks – that is most a) interesting b) utterly unsurprising.

Chumra = Nawafila (superogatory acts of devotion)

interesting – but chumras are particularly concerned with the reduction of risk (that you might not have fulfilled the commandment adequately, correctly or sufficiently) in terms of ritual observances. for example, the recent controversy about microscopic crustaceans in the new york water supply or the periodic bans on strawberries – once, inspections by eye might have been sufficient, but now the use of microscopes, filters, soap and water are mandated, that sort of thing. to me, a “supererogatory act of devotion” is more like “hiddur mitzvah” or “chesed”.

Daven = Adhkar/Ad`iya (litanies/supplication, and these can be, in some cases, formalised into routines, particularly in Sufi orders)

i’d say davenning is more like regular five-times-a-day salat, as it’s our three-times-a-day routine. the supplication part of it is known as “nefilat ‘apayim” or “tahanun”, or, as during the high holiday season, “selihot”.

Modern Orthodox = the reformist movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the Muslim world, and yes they don’t really provide for their own imams, dhabiha or khatn either.

well, orthodoxy is defined by its opposition to the “progressive” movements,reform, conservative, liberal and reconstructionist judaism. the most significant m-o grouping in the uk is the united synagogue, that of the chief rabbi – it’s the “mainstream” by definition; you seem to be talking more about a “progressive” equivalent.

b’shalom

bananabrain

The parallels are so close it’s uncanny. Truly cousins in the way that Muslims and Christians are not, because attachment to the Law among Muslims and Jews and the challenges of modernity produced similar reactions, retrenchments and innovations.

This is rather determined by what is meant by “attachment to the Law”. I would suggest that consideration of the same might be motivated by dovbear’s comment:

A man who davens 3 times a day, wears arba kanfot and is careful what he eats – that’s a frum man. A man who always looks after the sick, goes miles to do nachum aveilim and is always there when someone needs support – that’s a mensch. Different.

Yahya’s comment seems to want to trade on a distinction between frum and frei, the direct implication being that Christians are less than interested in the Law and are frei (as an antonym of frum.

Yet, this ignores the explicit comments of Jesus that he was interested in the “inward” character of the Law (its essence) and less in the external, outwardly expressions of the same. Recall that he argues that he came not to overturn the Law but to revive it. This revival means a turning towards its meaning, especially its moral force – and a rejection of mechanical elaboration or repetition of “law for law’s sake”.

Further, the idea that Muslims are interested in the Law requires considerable reservation, as the whole notion of the Law in Islam turns on the notion of Shari’a – the idea of a movement towards something, a passage, a travelling onwards. The implication that for Muslims that the Law is something unalterable, fixed, suspended above time and space perhaps may be seen as contrasting highly with the opinions of those who see Shari’a as the negotiation between the eternal and divine Word and the realities of life.

Attempts to draw lines between the interpretations of such items as Law in the three Abrahamic faiths falls foul, of course, of the multiplicity of interpretations placed upon such terms in the first place and across all three faiths.

What compounds it, is that there is a tendency for others, particularly those in the business of interacting with ‘religious communities’, to regard beardy people as “real Jews” (or Sikhs or Muslims).

This is one of the reasons why it is so important to persuade the state to interact with us all, as citizens, rather than as members of a confessional group.