On page 118, Ernst writes, “acknowledging difference in religious ethics will be a vital step in creating the conditions for a global civilization” with reference to a Euro-centric claim to a universality of ethics. Ernst also mentions that other religious traditions, as well as Islamic traditions, have prohibitions on “murder, theft, adultery, lying, and other crimes.” There is a sort of interesting contradiction here. Do you agree that acknowledging differences in religious ethics will help to create a civilization in which all people can live at peace? Do you disagree with him and believe there is a valid universal code of ethics? What do you think that code is? What would it have to be if we lived in a totally peaceful and ethical society?
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49796967
Hey guys! Read this interesting article about a community in London that’s interested in holding a pride festival specifically for Muslims who are also a part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Something I found really interesting was that the group focused on having more than one identity and one happens when those identities conflict. A spokesperson for the group says “There’s Islamophobia that we sometimes have to deal with within Pride and within LGBTQI communities”. What do you think about this festival? Do you think this is necessary?
In last week’s class, the discussion focused on the portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad by news organizations. The Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Prophet Muhammad incited a violent attack, however many still suggest that the publishers were simply voicing their opinions and there is nothing wrong with this. In the US, this notion of unmoderated free speech has also been recently been called into question. Can a line be drawn between allowing free speech versus censoring for the protection of minority groups? Should this be done on a case-by-case basis? Who is responsible for choosing what is censored and making sure that there are no biases being introduced into this? Is it dangerous for a government entity to have the power to censor publishers?
The first Surah (chapter) of the Quran, named “The Opening”, is the most recited chapter of the Qur’an by millions of people around the world. One of the verses from this chapter translates to “Guide Us to the Straight Path, the Path of those who have bestowed you favor”. This is one of the main tenets of Islam; following the path that Allah has prescribed and that the prophet Muhammad embodied to near-perfection. In a modern context, this “Straight Path” has become confusing for Muslims due to the wide variety of Hadiths and scholarly suggestions on how to find their way to this Path. Is there only one “true” path for Muslims to follow to obtain a place in Heaven or is this path more subjective?
It has been a longstanding assumption within society that the teachings of Islam promote acts of violence. The thought is that extremists use textual evidence as support for carrying out their actions. According to Ernst (101), “A recent cover article for Newsweek magazine, “In the Beginning There Were the Holy Books,” wonders if Islam is inherently intolerant and argues that in the Qur’an, “agressive verses have fired Muslim zealots in every age.” Strangely, the one Qur’anic verse that is cited (9:14) refers in context to battles with Arab pagans, and the article does not provide a single example of any later Muslim reading this text and deciding that it is imperative to kill Christians or Jews…” What do you think the implications were when the magazine decided to use this quotation? Can we really label an entire religion as “intolerant”? Do all religions have seemingly agressive verses of there own? Why are people so quick to attack the Qur’an for this agression?
It is apparent that the Muslim community is offended by the Muhammad cartoons depicted by Jylland. I can understand why they would be offended due to the taboo that Muhammad’s appearance should never be assumed or guessed and that there are many Muslims who follow Muhammad due to his morals and beliefs. If countries like India have religious restrictions or guidelines for their religious groups, do you think the United States can implement some restrictions that still support freedom of speech in the right way? Other than speech that may seem threating. Thinking of rules that can lessen the hateful opinions about specific religious groups.
On page 220 Levey and Modood write, “First, should the Muhammad cartoons have been commissioned and published by Jyllands-Posten (or any responsible outlet)? Second, what response does their publication warrant, if any?” Then, on page 241, after a long discussion regarding the ins and outs of the questions above, the authors write, “Once we break with the idea that (contemporary) recism is only about biology, then we should be able to see that cultural and religious groups also can be racialised; that Muslims can be the victims of racism qua Muslims as well as qua Asians or Arabs or Bosnians.” How can it be determined if a cartoon, or other artistic description, is being done to incite racism? Should the line be drawn by members the of the community that is being targeted, or should the government (assuming a liberal democratic government) make that decision?
On page 27 of his book, Ernst writes, “The image of the oppressed Muslim women can all too often serve as another self-righteous reason for Europeans to congraulate themselves on their superiority.” Then, on page 28 he writes, “Muslims are considered to have dysfunctional roles for women, yet that emblam of Western technological superority, the Internet, is saturated with pornographic images, and the sexualization of women in omnipresent in television, newspapers, and advertising.” By bringing up the use of women’s bodies as a tool of confirming the right the Europeans believed they had to enter Muslim countries and take over, as well as showing how modern day treatments of women in the West are not what we believe them to be, what is Ernst trying to do?
As I was reading Chapter 1 “Islam in The Eyes of The West” by Ernst, Ernst tries his hardest to explain how Christians viewed Islam in a negative manner. “Muslims are considered to be violent, yet we do hear any similar accusations about intrinsic violence in Christianity or European culture; what was it about Christianity that motivated the world conquests of the 19th century…” (Ernst, 28) When I was reading this, it really made me think why so many individuals in our modern world today still view Islam as the violent “religion” even though religions such as Christianity have had similar historical violent events. For someone learning about Islam today, do you think one should understand the scriptures and hadiths to learn about Islam properly or to understand Islam from a more modern perspective? How would you guys approach understanding Islam today?
Ernst suggests that Muhammad is widely known for being a man of many different skills and modes of connection with his followers. For example many Muslims in the region of Southeast Europe describe Muhammad as a devotion aid and they do this through an artistic mode of calligraphy. From your understanding of the different roles and understandings of Muhammad, what is an example you’ve come across in the text that has stood out to you, in accordance with Muhammad and his followers.
Sarah, Kennedy, and Lizzy