I strongly appreciate Ulrika's effort to respond to my comment. But her response also raises new questions. Ulrika claims that IslamNet's conference showed room for dialogue, despite IslamNet's strong claims for owning the truth. I certainly agree that in order to engage in dialogue one does not have to submerge in total relativism. Even more, it can be more fruitful to start off with the idea that one's own beliefs are (a bit) better than those of others and then openly discuss the similaties and differences with the other (i.e. to agree that one disagrees), than to force oneself into the idea that all beliefs are equal.
However, in the case of IslamNet's conference, I am very curious where that space for dialogue was actually given. As far as I know (I could not attend the conference but did read the posters) all speakers were salafi-oriented men. No speaker of an other religion or denomination was invited to actually have a dialogue with. IslamNet's actions outside the conference are relevant here, because the organisation's strong record of Facebook-harassment (and its general unwillingness to participate in constructive talks where others get the chance to speak for more than 5 seconds) indicate that IslamNet is not so open to dialogue at all. Ulrika is right that her original post was about the conference specifically and not about IslamNet as a whole. But this does not mean that the conference should be analysed totally out of context.
Yes, IslamNet manages to translate its beliefs to a language that both Muslims and non-Muslims can understand, thereby giving outsiders the chance to take notice of their stances. But is that by default dialogue, or is it just preaching? It is still possible that the conference did express room for dialogue, but with the given context that requires some explicit evidence.
As I wrote in my original post, all Muslims believe that Islam requires that one follow the Prophet's sunna. I am indeed aware that there are other ways of doing this than the way represented by IslamNet's invited preachers, as I have a life-long (literally) familiarity with Islam in its various everyday forms. However, my blog was about IslamNet's conference specifically, because the interviews and statements given by other academics and debaters expressed the view that IslamNet and its conferences are representations of an extremist Islamic standpoint.
This is what I intended to nuance, by saying that THE PREACHERS AT THIS PARTICULAR CONFERENCE (as distinct from what other people associated with IslamNet or Salafism may or may not have said and done over the years) preached a much more mainstream message than one could read out of other descriptions of the same event. Nevertheless, they do all represent a specific Islamic methodology in applying hadith to everyday life which distinguishes them from other Muslim scholars. At the level of doctrine and discourse the difference is palpable. When these preachers (nb: these) talked about "ignorance" on behalf of those who criticize Islam, or their way of understanding Islam, it was an invitation to majority society to listen to their arguments.
As I said in my reply to Ellen Reiss, dialogue does not require agreement but the readiness to listen to the other's arguments. There was nothing that was said in the lectures that excluded readiness to listen. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church in the document Dominus Iesus (2000) defines all other Christian churches as heretics who should return to the only true teaching that is represented by the Roman Catholic Church, and Jews and Muslims as potential converts to Roman Catholic Christianity. This exclusivity does not prevent the same Roman Catholic Church from practicing dialogue with Muslims, for example, or with other Christians. IslamNet's preachers represent a similar position vis-à-vis other Muslims (Shiites, Sufis, rationalist theologians, etc.) and other religions: they are wrong and should return to the truth. But as with the Catholic church, this does not exclude the possibility of dialogue.
It is true that all the preachers invited to the Peace Conference belong to the Ahl al-Sunna wa'l-Jama'a ('The People of the Sunna and the Community') and their specific methodology. However, there are Question and Answer sessions in which anyone can pose questions. Fair enough, the time is then limited, as Margaretha points out. But it is also up to other Muslim organisations and the general public to invite representatives of IslamNet.
The lecture by Abdurraheem Green at the conference about the controversial concept al-Wala' wa'l-bara' ("loyalty and disavowal") was a clear opening towards both other Muslims and non-Muslims compared with other more exclusive interpretations of the same Quranic concept. To some Salafis this concept means that Muslims must be loyal only to Muslims, and among Muslims only to those of the true faith, and that they must disavow and distance themselves from erring Muslims and non-Muslims. Green instead offered an interpretation which he referred to the Saudi Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymin, saying that "loyalty" must not be confused with "affection" and "love", and that Muslims could and should love erring Muslims and non-Muslims. The question of "loyalty", according to Green, becomes important only when Muslims are pressured to renounce or violate Islam or fellow Muslims, at which point their highest loyalty is with Muslims. Then of course the question remains as to what constitutes violation of Islam?
As I wrote in my original post, all preachers explained Sharia and Islam in terms compatible with Norwegian law. And, following Margaretha's recommendation to draw in some "context" to the conference, the preacher (Shaykh Shady Suleiman) at a somewhat later conference organised by IslamNet in Trondheim, in a reply to my question, explained that Sharia must comply with Norwegian law. Furthermore, on another question from the audience, he explained that Muslims must solidarize within the community, even across traditional "sectarian" lines. In his lecture he emphasised that Muslims (of both genders -- in appropriate ways) must engage in all of society: education, politics, professional life, as part of da'wa. So yes, there is a lot going on in the "context" to the Peace Conferences.
It is admirable that Ulrika has taken the effort to attend a conference by an organisation that has had a lot of negative attention in the media; and that she has tried to sketch a more nuanced image of Islam Net. But after reading her blog, I wondered whether she has ever visited any other Muslim youth organisation.
As a historian studying minority organisations (with a special focus on Muslim organisations) I must say that many of the things she praises Islam Net and its conference for, are actually very common among Muslim youth organisations in Norway and in other European countries. The willingness to enter into dialogue and explain different opinions and religious practices, the use of jokes and "modern" examples, the increasing role for women, the critical, active and self-conscious attitude with which youngsters engage in text-interpretation (often with the help of the internet): you can find it anywhere across denominations (Twelver Shia, Hanafi Sunni, Salafi, etc.), and across the demarcations of being "conservative/fundamentalist", "traditional" or "liberal/modernist" (whatever those terms may mean).
What seems to differentiate Islam Net from many other youth organisations in Norway is first of all their admirable amount of financial and personal resources. Many youth organisations with similar numbers of members can only dream of renting Ekeberghallen for a conference. This is probably one of the reasons why Islam Net has received so much attention from the media and from the academic world - both positive and negative. Secondly, Islam Net stands out for its strong claim of "owning the right Islam in contrast to all other Muslims." I can only agree with Marius Linge and Ellen Reiss when they write that many Muslims have been called "kafir" simply because they had different points of view. Not long ago, Islam Net''s leader claimed publicly that Muslims who don''t support death penalty are "kafirs" and should not be called Muslims. A public and critical response by another Muslim youth organisation led to several months of Facebook-harassment by Islam Net''s leadership - room for dialogue was far to be seen.
In my opinion, Ulrika should be far more critical towards Islam Net''s claims about the "correct Islam". She writes:
Sedan stämmer det naturligtvis som Marius Linge påpekar, att muslimer som inte är salafi-inspirerade också menar att de följer Profetens sunna; men det är ändå tydligt att många som söker sig till Islam Nets form av islam är extra intensivt sysselsatta med att tolka Koranen och hadith i sitt vardagsliv. De tar också andra etiska principer med förankring i skrifterna på extra stort allvar, bland annat principen att "påbjuda det som är till nytta och bekämpa det som är skadligt" (och vad som är nyttigt respektive skadligt blir då också ett ständigt återkommande tema för diskussioner).
It is really a mistake to believe that other Muslims are less actively engaged in interpreting sacred texts and applying them in their daily lives. There certainly are differences between individuals, but the effort can be found everywhere: not more within Islam Net than among other organisations. Also the ethical principles that Ulrika mentions can be found everywhere. But different groups and individuals reach different conclusions, and few groups have such a strong truth-claim as Islam Net.
I hope that Ulrika does not mean to say that Islam Net''s members are more self-conscious - or less ignorant - about their religion or that they are more active in finding out the "truth". Supporting Islam Net in their claim for the truth would not only be wrong from an academic point of view, it would also be dangerous. We live in a world where many Muslims are persecuted and killed simply because they have the "wrong" faith. We only have to look at the regular killings of Twelver-Shiites in Parachinar by Taliban-sympathisers in Pakistan, the bombing of pilgrim sites in Iraq, the oppression of non-Wahabis by the Saudi government or the recent terrorist attack on a Shiite mosque in Brussels by a salafi-oriented Muslim to find examples. A returning argument for these persecutions is always that the victims were "kafirs" that had to be killed to prevent them from "ruining the religion from within." Fortunately we have not witnessed this in Norway yet.
In short: Ulrika has written a nuanced blog about a highly controversial conference. But real religious dialogue always starts with admitting that the believer is not all-knowing, and with admitting that disagreement does not always mean ignorance.
Steve Bruce''s comment is most valuable and highlights the problems with the term: applying it too broadly or too narrowly, as Torkel Brekke also points out and makes as the starting point for his limitation of the term to post-1850 rejection of secular modernity and structural differentiation. Steve Bruce limits the application of this use of ''fundamentalism'' even further by removing notably the American Christian Right, which is usually seen as the paradigmatic case, because it in fact accepts structural differentiation, not least in the legal sphere.
This is an important move, and Steve Bruce accompanies it by breaking down the Fundamentalism Project''s ''family traits'' further into the categories religious-ethnic political movements, strong religion, etc. However, take the case the Muslim Brotherhood, which does seek to have a religious (sharia) frame of reference (marja''iyya) for legislation. It is a religious-ethnic political movement with a strong grounding in Arab ethnic identity and Arab nations as the foundation of reform of current majority Muslim nation-states into Islamic states (meaning democratic constitutions, according to their party platform, the Freedom and Justice Party). But what warrants the definition ''fundamentalism'' is the belief that the sacred scripture is a source for the reformation of society and individuals, and that this religious reform has the capacity to link the Islamic nations with the divine destiny and power. This is something which the Muslim Brothers have in common with sections of the American Christian Right, and which distinguishes them from ''mainstream'' Muslim theologians and jurists. It also makes them a specific type of religious nationalism, as stated by the founder Hasan al-Banna.
Because the Fundamentalist Projects combines religious traits with social approaches I think they capture important religious traits which are easily missed if one only looks at the socio-political behaviour of fundamentalist movements and churches. It may well be that the American Christian Right respect a secular law, but they do want legislation to be in line with religious values, and they do believe that there is a divine destiny which true believers can connect with, and which determines the history of nations. I would maintain that to focus on these common traits is not to blur important distinctions but it actually furthers the understanding of the belief-dimension of fundamentalism.
I think you have a well-balanced assessment of Shinto. It is popular among progressives and environmentalists worldwide to stress the environmentalist aspects of Shinto as newly discovered, world-saving religion, but this is misleading. Environmentalism is only one aspect of Shinto, just as "love," "hope" and "charity" are real, but limited aspects of modern Christianity. As a practicing Shintoist, I love the modern academic discourse on Shinto and its relation to older societies, which were by their very nature "sustainable" out of necessity. It can illuminate our path back to sustainability. Also, women play a much bigger role in Shinto than is officially acknowledged. This I see as part of the dichotomy recognized in Japan between "tatemae" and "honne." However, I have also seen a few cases in which people, not only foreigners but also Japanese, have offended Jinja Honcho or other conservative elements in Shinto by implying that they are not a part of Shinto or at least not desirable in the future course of Shinto. I applaud you for expanding your scope to include them and trying to bring in a more realistic assessment of the history of this religion.
One positive side I've noted to Shinto is that as it is currently practiced, it fosters a respectful dialogue between conservative and progressive elements of society, bringing them together in an era of intense polarization, when cooperation is becoming more and more critical.
Jeg vil først si jeg syntes dette var et intressant innlegg., jeg ønsker bare å dele noen tanker. Selv driver jeg som tryllekunstner og har stadig opplevd at det å fortelle om det er ekte eller ikke skader opplevelsen for tilhøreren. Om jeg bøyer en skje og sier det er tankens kraft, så mister jeg mange tilhørere som mener dette er juks og bedrag. Om jeg sier at dette ikke er ekte, men at det er en optisk illusjon, så mister jeg alle de som faktisk ønsker å tro på noe. Jeg har full tro på tankens kraft og derfor en tro på alternativ medisin så langt pasienten tror på det. Jeg har gjort flere show og foredrag for foreninger som Humanetisk forbund, der jeg gjør opptreden som synsk og sier det ikke er det. Men det er det ? Det spiller ingen rolle. Det viktige for en tryllekunstner er å fortelle skeptikerne at det ikke er det, iog de troende at det det. For vi er bare der for at de ikke skal bli skuffet. Jeg er ikke der for å overbevise eller undergrave. Bare for å underholde :) Om jeg kan svare deg på noen spørsmål en gang er det bare å ta kontakt på. http://www.jonasb.no
In a session at the American Academy of Religion’s annual meeting last November, titled “Confronting Islamophobia. How to Prevent a Holy War”, Stephen Prothero suggested that in some contexts establishing trustful dialogue would simply be asking too much from ordinary believers. More realistically, he suggested, we should aim at a kind of elementary “civility” which (according to Prothero) means that “we behave as if we like each other”.
Reading Iselin Frydenlund’s interesting reflections about civility, I also recall James Davison Hunter’s use of the notion “ethic of civility” in his book about “Evangelicalism” from 1987. Hunter’s basic argument is that conservative evangelicals, to the extent that they engage themselves in local community work or in national politics, over time may become more tolerant of others’ beliefs but also more “tolerable to others” in the sense that intolerant, religious absolutism (again, over time) tend to be underplayed in faithful interaction with citizens of other convictions. One may discuss whether Hunter’s observations from the nineteeneighties have actually come true, in US and elsewhere. But the still valid point of his reasoning is that engaged citizenship (as opposed to seclusive fundamentalism) simply tends to make people more “civil”.
Frydenlund’s observation is that such elementary civility does not happen automatically, since there are so many social conventions in the religious traditions that draw in the opposite direction and offer themselves as munition for confrontational identity politics. In Frydenlund’s notion of critical civility, a reflective element comes in: showing solidarity to those who do not belong to one’s cultural or religious in-group seems to require a critical decision.
In other words: Whereas some forms of (etiquette-oriented) civility is nurtured by tradition, critical civility needs to be fostered by new forms of social behavior. In my view, this is where interreligious dialogue comes in. Entering into long-term, committed dialogue with significant others reflects a critical recognition that traditional ways of relating to others does not necessary foster group-transcending solidarity and equal citizenship. New forms of relating, based on critical awareness of religion’s desctructive potential, are needed.
Against Hunter, I would suggest that a change in the direction of “ethic of civility” does not always come by itself, not even through political participation. This corresponds to Henrik Syse’s observation (in his response to Frydenlund) that for religion to be “civilized”, a critical change in religious attitudes is often needed. With Frydenlund and Syse, I hold that some kind of critical decision is normally needed – in both Varanasi, Sri Lanka and other places.
This is where, in my view, the phenomenon of interreligious dialogue comes into the picture. In theories of interreligious dialogue, the possibility of deep change in attitudes is often linked to face-to-face interaction over time. Such interaction (unless it is merely superficial) is normally based on a critical decision to counteract divisive tendencies by establishing structures for trust-building dialogue. In societies ridden by religious identity politics, the counter-measure of dialogue needs to be organized and firmly institutionalized simply because it does not come by itself, and is always threathened by the opposite tendency of identity politics.
I believe this understanding of interreligious dialogue tunes in with Iselin Frydenlund’s concept of critical civility. With Henrik Syse, I would emphasize that there are in fact rich theological traditions to draw upon when engaging other believers in faith-based dialogue. But also when mobilising the potential resources of theological traditions and sacred scriptures, (self-)critical thinking is necessary. For the tension between open dialogue with other traditions and confrontational identity politics is found not only in contemporary society, but in the sacred traditions themselves.
Denne kommentaren, og for øvrig HEFs kampanje, er preget av en dogmatisk tro på det som finnes av vitenskapelige resultater per i dag. Inndelingen av verden i to kategorier: "sann" og "falsk" er forenklende inntil det dogmatiske. Intellektuelt er dette "langt bak mål", for å ta kommentatorens egen formulering. Fordi:
Hva vitenskapen til i dag har klart å bevise, bør virkelig ikke forstås som endestasjonen for vår erkjennelse. Vitenskap frambringer stadig ny viten. Ting vi ikke forstod for hundre år siden, har vi i dag gode vitenskapelige data på, og vår viten ekspanderer stadig (DNA! Partikkelfysikk!). Moderne vitenskap kritiserer og utvider stadig seg selv (sånn sett kan man lure på om det egentlig er vitenskapelighet HEF og denne kommentatoren representerer når de i så sterk grad snakker om "bevis"). Etter hvert som nye felter utforskes empirisk, må tidligere viteskapelige teorier revideres eller sågar forkastes. Å legge det vitenskapelig bevist per i dag til grunn for hva som er riktig, gjør det vanskelig å komme videre. Åpenhet er en forutsetning for ny erkjennelse.
Dette var en av de mer sakelige kommentarene etter thelles innlegg. Men,
"Å kalle brukerne av alternativmedisin lurt eller narret, er å degradere deres valg."
Det er ikke helt riktig. Alternativ medisin kan til tider virke legitimt, og det er flere utdannede personer som fortsatt tror at homeopati, kiropraktikk og akkupunktur er behandlingsformer som fungerer. Det er rett og slett ikke så lett og sette seg inn i all forskningen som er tilgjengelig der ute. Men faktum er, at brukerene av alternativ medisin blir lurt, og det har ingen ting med å degradere deres valg. Det har med at det ikke ligger positiv forskning bak noen av behandlingsformene.
Da spiller det ingen rolle om en blir mer avslappet av å gå til en healer eller at placeboeffekten slår inn etter at du har tatt en homeopatipille. Det de reklamerer med er pseudovitenskapelig humbug, uten et snev av bevis. Da lurer de aktivt sine pasienter. Vi vet at dersom en går til en homeopat så er det ikke behandlingen som fungerer men oppmerksomheten og praten i forkant, der en homeopat hører på alt du har å si om sykdommen din. Hvorfor ikke tilby mer av dette? Og fjerne det "magiske" mellomleddet. Hvorfor prøve å selge inn noe overnaturlig, når god gammeldags samtaleterapi fungerer like godt?
Det virker som om du har misforstått hva aksjonen faktisk handler om:
"Det er mulig at HEF-kampanjen ”Ingen liker å bli lurt” primært er rettet mot alternativ behandling, men den sparker i grunnen mot alt av spiritualitet, alt ”alternativt” og stort sett det meste som ikke har tung medisinsk industri eller tilsvarende bak seg."
HEF-kampanjen sparker ikke bevisst etter alt alternativt som ikke har tung medisinsk industri bak seg, men alt alternativ som ikke har tung medisinsk bevisførsel bak seg. Industri finner du bak de fleste alternative behandlingsformer også, som homeopati og healing. Det HEF er interressert i er bevisførsel. Kan en behandlingsform bevise at den faktisk fungerer, så vil den heller ikke komme under "ingen liker å bli lurt"-kampanjen. Da er det nemmelig ikke alternativ medisin lenger, men medisin.
"...er rommet til å finne opp nye ting i samfunnet eller prøve å gå nye veier..."
Dersom du med denne settningen mener å finne opp nye behandlingsformer, så ja. De aller fleste av oss har ikke medsinsk bakgrunn, som vil derfor tilsi at dersom jeg finner opp en ny måte å bli kvitt influensa på, så er den nok basert mer på anektodiske beviser og placebo, enn faktisk grundig forskning.
"Folk finner uansett på all verdens merkelige hobbyer og bruker masse penger på det, så hvorfor blir det plutselig galt hvis en gjeng sitter i en ring hjemme hos noen av dem og forsøker å sende engler til et katastrofeområde? Burde de heller råne rundt i bilene sine mens de ventet på neste fyll?"
Dette er et tåpelig argument! Aksjonen heter "ingen liker å bli lurt". Dersom du driver på med råning og fyll, så er det en "fritidsaktivitet" som holder det den lover. Du får kjøre rundt i bil og drikke alkohol. Dersom du i steden for velger å bruke pengene dine på udokumentert medisin og behandling, så blir du lurt. Det handler ikke om hva folk driver på med på fritiden sin. Dersom du vil sitte hjemme og spise blåbærstilker i den tro at det vil fjerne influensaen din, så må du gjerne gjøre det. Det er når du åpner en nettbutikk og selger blåbærstilker med lovnad om at det skal kurere influensa det blir et problem. Da går du ut og lurer folk.
"Deres tro er jo ikke vitenskapelig dokumentert, så da er det vel svindel? "
I utgangspunktet ja. Bevisførselen ligger alltid hos den som hevder noe ekstraordinært. Da kreves gjerne ekstraordinære bevis også. Igjen så må en presisere at det ikke er snakk om personlig religion. Dersom en person ønsker å være kristen, så er det ingen ting jeg eller noen andre kan si på det. Men dersom den personen starter å forkynne og hevde ting som at han kan heale personer og at jorden er 5000 år gammel, da beveger han seg ut på et felt der hans påstander kan motbevises. Og da er religion i lik kategori som alternativ medisin.
"Dermed bør det meste forbys, og de særlig aktive straffes?" Dette er en annen diskusjon igjen. HEF har aldri snakket om avstraffelse. Det hele handler om kunnskap og bevistgjøring i samfunnet. Dersom kampanjen kan hindre vekst i et alternativt miljø som ikke holder det de lover, og på den måten både redde liv og skape et smartere samfunn, så er det en vellykket kampanje.
Et ønske om "åpenhet" og "dialog" er den veikeste formen for kritikk man kan komme med. Det bunner i en skam over å ta feil, og når man ikke makter å komme med vektige motbeviser når man HAR blitt bevist feil, er motstanderens "arroganse" og "manglende åpenhet" alt man kan skylde på. Jeg beklager, dette er lite overbevisende, og intellektuelt langt bak mål.
HEF peker på at det finnes store mengder evidens for at akupunktur, healing, ørelysbehandling, spirituell coaching, kopping, skraping, aurabehandling, bønn, krystallbehandling o.l. IKKE fungerer. Dette er overveldende godt dokumentert, og måten man imøtegår slik kritikk på er ved å peke på hvor bevismaterialet bryter sammen, og hvilke motbeviser som eksisterer. Kan du ikke dette, er det du som skal i tenkeboksen og forstå at du antakeligvis er på jordet. Om du ikke klarer å takle dette, er dette en karaktersvakhet som ligger hos DEG, ikke hos meningsmotstanderen, og ikke noe du ikke rister av deg ved å skrike om manglende åpenhet.
Takk for en ryddig og fin gjennomgang! Det var informativt!
Til tilretteleggerne: Hvis det først skal brukes referanser, så skulle jeg gjerne sett en litteraturliste! Det vil gjøre det lettere å følge opp tankene, og lære mer!
anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Islam Nets Peace Conference 2012: Fredligt budskap i utmanande form’
IslamNet and Dialogue
I strongly appreciate Ulrika's effort to respond to my comment. But her response also raises new questions. Ulrika claims that IslamNet's conference showed room for dialogue, despite IslamNet's strong claims for owning the truth. I certainly agree that in order to engage in dialogue one does not have to submerge in total relativism. Even more, it can be more fruitful to start off with the idea that one's own beliefs are (a bit) better than those of others and then openly discuss the similaties and differences with the other (i.e. to agree that one disagrees), than to force oneself into the idea that all beliefs are equal.
However, in the case of IslamNet's conference, I am very curious where that space for dialogue was actually given. As far as I know (I could not attend the conference but did read the posters) all speakers were salafi-oriented men. No speaker of an other religion or denomination was invited to actually have a dialogue with. IslamNet's actions outside the conference are relevant here, because the organisation's strong record of Facebook-harassment (and its general unwillingness to participate in constructive talks where others get the chance to speak for more than 5 seconds) indicate that IslamNet is not so open to dialogue at all. Ulrika is right that her original post was about the conference specifically and not about IslamNet as a whole. But this does not mean that the conference should be analysed totally out of context.
Yes, IslamNet manages to translate its beliefs to a language that both Muslims and non-Muslims can understand, thereby giving outsiders the chance to take notice of their stances. But is that by default dialogue, or is it just preaching? It is still possible that the conference did express room for dialogue, but with the given context that requires some explicit evidence.
Skrevet av: Margaretha Adriana van Es
anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Islam Nets Peace Conference 2012: Fredligt budskap i utmanande form’
Dialogue and Defence of the True Faith
As I wrote in my original post, all Muslims believe that Islam requires that one follow the Prophet's sunna. I am indeed aware that there are other ways of doing this than the way represented by IslamNet's invited preachers, as I have a life-long (literally) familiarity with Islam in its various everyday forms. However, my blog was about IslamNet's conference specifically, because the interviews and statements given by other academics and debaters expressed the view that IslamNet and its conferences are representations of an extremist Islamic standpoint.
This is what I intended to nuance, by saying that THE PREACHERS AT THIS PARTICULAR CONFERENCE (as distinct from what other people associated with IslamNet or Salafism may or may not have said and done over the years) preached a much more mainstream message than one could read out of other descriptions of the same event. Nevertheless, they do all represent a specific Islamic methodology in applying hadith to everyday life which distinguishes them from other Muslim scholars. At the level of doctrine and discourse the difference is palpable. When these preachers (nb: these) talked about "ignorance" on behalf of those who criticize Islam, or their way of understanding Islam, it was an invitation to majority society to listen to their arguments.
As I said in my reply to Ellen Reiss, dialogue does not require agreement but the readiness to listen to the other's arguments. There was nothing that was said in the lectures that excluded readiness to listen. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church in the document Dominus Iesus (2000) defines all other Christian churches as heretics who should return to the only true teaching that is represented by the Roman Catholic Church, and Jews and Muslims as potential converts to Roman Catholic Christianity. This exclusivity does not prevent the same Roman Catholic Church from practicing dialogue with Muslims, for example, or with other Christians. IslamNet's preachers represent a similar position vis-à-vis other Muslims (Shiites, Sufis, rationalist theologians, etc.) and other religions: they are wrong and should return to the truth. But as with the Catholic church, this does not exclude the possibility of dialogue.
Skrevet av: Ulrika Mårtensson
anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Islam Nets Peace Conference 2012: Fredligt budskap i utmanande form’
Expanding from the Conference to the Context
It is true that all the preachers invited to the Peace Conference belong to the Ahl al-Sunna wa'l-Jama'a ('The People of the Sunna and the Community') and their specific methodology. However, there are Question and Answer sessions in which anyone can pose questions. Fair enough, the time is then limited, as Margaretha points out. But it is also up to other Muslim organisations and the general public to invite representatives of IslamNet.
The lecture by Abdurraheem Green at the conference about the controversial concept al-Wala' wa'l-bara' ("loyalty and disavowal") was a clear opening towards both other Muslims and non-Muslims compared with other more exclusive interpretations of the same Quranic concept. To some Salafis this concept means that Muslims must be loyal only to Muslims, and among Muslims only to those of the true faith, and that they must disavow and distance themselves from erring Muslims and non-Muslims. Green instead offered an interpretation which he referred to the Saudi Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymin, saying that "loyalty" must not be confused with "affection" and "love", and that Muslims could and should love erring Muslims and non-Muslims. The question of "loyalty", according to Green, becomes important only when Muslims are pressured to renounce or violate Islam or fellow Muslims, at which point their highest loyalty is with Muslims. Then of course the question remains as to what constitutes violation of Islam?
As I wrote in my original post, all preachers explained Sharia and Islam in terms compatible with Norwegian law. And, following Margaretha's recommendation to draw in some "context" to the conference, the preacher (Shaykh Shady Suleiman) at a somewhat later conference organised by IslamNet in Trondheim, in a reply to my question, explained that Sharia must comply with Norwegian law. Furthermore, on another question from the audience, he explained that Muslims must solidarize within the community, even across traditional "sectarian" lines. In his lecture he emphasised that Muslims (of both genders -- in appropriate ways) must engage in all of society: education, politics, professional life, as part of da'wa. So yes, there is a lot going on in the "context" to the Peace Conferences.
Skrevet av: Ulrika Mårtensson
anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Islam Nets Peace Conference 2012: Fredligt budskap i utmanande form’
Islam Net and the "correct" Islam
It is admirable that Ulrika has taken the effort to attend a conference by an organisation that has had a lot of negative attention in the media; and that she has tried to sketch a more nuanced image of Islam Net. But after reading her blog, I wondered whether she has ever visited any other Muslim youth organisation.
As a historian studying minority organisations (with a special focus on Muslim organisations) I must say that many of the things she praises Islam Net and its conference for, are actually very common among Muslim youth organisations in Norway and in other European countries. The willingness to enter into dialogue and explain different opinions and religious practices, the use of jokes and "modern" examples, the increasing role for women, the critical, active and self-conscious attitude with which youngsters engage in text-interpretation (often with the help of the internet): you can find it anywhere across denominations (Twelver Shia, Hanafi Sunni, Salafi, etc.), and across the demarcations of being "conservative/fundamentalist", "traditional" or "liberal/modernist" (whatever those terms may mean).
What seems to differentiate Islam Net from many other youth organisations in Norway is first of all their admirable amount of financial and personal resources. Many youth organisations with similar numbers of members can only dream of renting Ekeberghallen for a conference. This is probably one of the reasons why Islam Net has received so much attention from the media and from the academic world - both positive and negative. Secondly, Islam Net stands out for its strong claim of "owning the right Islam in contrast to all other Muslims." I can only agree with Marius Linge and Ellen Reiss when they write that many Muslims have been called "kafir" simply because they had different points of view. Not long ago, Islam Net''s leader claimed publicly that Muslims who don''t support death penalty are "kafirs" and should not be called Muslims. A public and critical response by another Muslim youth organisation led to several months of Facebook-harassment by Islam Net''s leadership - room for dialogue was far to be seen.
In my opinion, Ulrika should be far more critical towards Islam Net''s claims about the "correct Islam". She writes:
It is really a mistake to believe that other Muslims are less actively engaged in interpreting sacred texts and applying them in their daily lives. There certainly are differences between individuals, but the effort can be found everywhere: not more within Islam Net than among other organisations. Also the ethical principles that Ulrika mentions can be found everywhere. But different groups and individuals reach different conclusions, and few groups have such a strong truth-claim as Islam Net.
I hope that Ulrika does not mean to say that Islam Net''s members are more self-conscious - or less ignorant - about their religion or that they are more active in finding out the "truth". Supporting Islam Net in their claim for the truth would not only be wrong from an academic point of view, it would also be dangerous. We live in a world where many Muslims are persecuted and killed simply because they have the "wrong" faith. We only have to look at the regular killings of Twelver-Shiites in Parachinar by Taliban-sympathisers in Pakistan, the bombing of pilgrim sites in Iraq, the oppression of non-Wahabis by the Saudi government or the recent terrorist attack on a Shiite mosque in Brussels by a salafi-oriented Muslim to find examples. A returning argument for these persecutions is always that the victims were "kafirs" that had to be killed to prevent them from "ruining the religion from within." Fortunately we have not witnessed this in Norway yet.
In short: Ulrika has written a nuanced blog about a highly controversial conference. But real religious dialogue always starts with admitting that the believer is not all-knowing, and with admitting that disagreement does not always mean ignorance.
Skrevet av: Margaretha Adriana van Es
'anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Fundamentalism and structural differentiation’
Reflection over Steve Bruce\''s comment
Steve Bruce''s comment is most valuable and highlights the problems with the term: applying it too broadly or too narrowly, as Torkel Brekke also points out and makes as the starting point for his limitation of the term to post-1850 rejection of secular modernity and structural differentiation. Steve Bruce limits the application of this use of ''fundamentalism'' even further by removing notably the American Christian Right, which is usually seen as the paradigmatic case, because it in fact accepts structural differentiation, not least in the legal sphere.
This is an important move, and Steve Bruce accompanies it by breaking down the Fundamentalism Project''s ''family traits'' further into the categories religious-ethnic political movements, strong religion, etc. However, take the case the Muslim Brotherhood, which does seek to have a religious (sharia) frame of reference (marja''iyya) for legislation. It is a religious-ethnic political movement with a strong grounding in Arab ethnic identity and Arab nations as the foundation of reform of current majority Muslim nation-states into Islamic states (meaning democratic constitutions, according to their party platform, the Freedom and Justice Party). But what warrants the definition ''fundamentalism'' is the belief that the sacred scripture is a source for the reformation of society and individuals, and that this religious reform has the capacity to link the Islamic nations with the divine destiny and power. This is something which the Muslim Brothers have in common with sections of the American Christian Right, and which distinguishes them from ''mainstream'' Muslim theologians and jurists. It also makes them a specific type of religious nationalism, as stated by the founder Hasan al-Banna.
Because the Fundamentalist Projects combines religious traits with social approaches I think they capture important religious traits which are easily missed if one only looks at the socio-political behaviour of fundamentalist movements and churches. It may well be that the American Christian Right respect a secular law, but they do want legislation to be in line with religious values, and they do believe that there is a divine destiny which true believers can connect with, and which determines the history of nations. I would maintain that to focus on these common traits is not to blur important distinctions but it actually furthers the understanding of the belief-dimension of fundamentalism.
Skrevet av:
'anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Shinto's sacred forests’
Good assessment of Shinto
I think you have a well-balanced assessment of Shinto. It is popular among progressives and environmentalists worldwide to stress the environmentalist aspects of Shinto as newly discovered, world-saving religion, but this is misleading. Environmentalism is only one aspect of Shinto, just as "love," "hope" and "charity" are real, but limited aspects of modern Christianity. As a practicing Shintoist, I love the modern academic discourse on Shinto and its relation to older societies, which were by their very nature "sustainable" out of necessity. It can illuminate our path back to sustainability. Also, women play a much bigger role in Shinto than is officially acknowledged. This I see as part of the dichotomy recognized in Japan between "tatemae" and "honne." However, I have also seen a few cases in which people, not only foreigners but also Japanese, have offended Jinja Honcho or other conservative elements in Shinto by implying that they are not a part of Shinto or at least not desirable in the future course of Shinto. I applaud you for expanding your scope to include them and trying to bring in a more realistic assessment of the history of this religion.
One positive side I've noted to Shinto is that as it is currently practiced, it fosters a respectful dialogue between conservative and progressive elements of society, bringing them together in an era of intense polarization, when cooperation is becoming more and more critical.
Patricia Ormsby
Skrevet av: Anonym
anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Ingen liker å bli lurt - åpenhet og kritikk’
Ingen liker å bli lurt. Eller gjør vi det ?
Jeg vil først si jeg syntes dette var et intressant innlegg., jeg ønsker bare å dele noen tanker. Selv driver jeg som tryllekunstner og har stadig opplevd at det å fortelle om det er ekte eller ikke skader opplevelsen for tilhøreren. Om jeg bøyer en skje og sier det er tankens kraft, så mister jeg mange tilhørere som mener dette er juks og bedrag. Om jeg sier at dette ikke er ekte, men at det er en optisk illusjon, så mister jeg alle de som faktisk ønsker å tro på noe. Jeg har full tro på tankens kraft og derfor en tro på alternativ medisin så langt pasienten tror på det. Jeg har gjort flere show og foredrag for foreninger som Humanetisk forbund, der jeg gjør opptreden som synsk og sier det ikke er det. Men det er det ? Det spiller ingen rolle. Det viktige for en tryllekunstner er å fortelle skeptikerne at det ikke er det, iog de troende at det det. For vi er bare der for at de ikke skal bli skuffet. Jeg er ikke der for å overbevise eller undergrave. Bare for å underholde :)
Om jeg kan svare deg på noen spørsmål en gang er det bare å ta kontakt på.
http://www.jonasb.no
Skrevet av: Anonym
anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Religion, civility and conflict: towards a concept of critical civility’
Critical civility and interreligious dialogue
By Oddbjørn Leirvik
In a session at the American Academy of Religion’s annual meeting last November, titled “Confronting Islamophobia. How to Prevent a Holy War”, Stephen Prothero suggested that in some contexts establishing trustful dialogue would simply be asking too much from ordinary believers. More realistically, he suggested, we should aim at a kind of elementary “civility” which (according to Prothero) means that “we behave as if we like each other”.
Reading Iselin Frydenlund’s interesting reflections about civility, I also recall James Davison Hunter’s use of the notion “ethic of civility” in his book about “Evangelicalism” from 1987. Hunter’s basic argument is that conservative evangelicals, to the extent that they engage themselves in local community work or in national politics, over time may become more tolerant of others’ beliefs but also more “tolerable to others” in the sense that intolerant, religious absolutism (again, over time) tend to be underplayed in faithful interaction with citizens of other convictions. One may discuss whether Hunter’s observations from the nineteeneighties have actually come true, in US and elsewhere. But the still valid point of his reasoning is that engaged citizenship (as opposed to seclusive fundamentalism) simply tends to make people more “civil”.
Frydenlund’s observation is that such elementary civility does not happen automatically, since there are so many social conventions in the religious traditions that draw in the opposite direction and offer themselves as munition for confrontational identity politics. In Frydenlund’s notion of critical civility, a reflective element comes in: showing solidarity to those who do not belong to one’s cultural or religious in-group seems to require a critical decision.
In other words: Whereas some forms of (etiquette-oriented) civility is nurtured by tradition, critical civility needs to be fostered by new forms of social behavior. In my view, this is where interreligious dialogue comes in. Entering into long-term, committed dialogue with significant others reflects a critical recognition that traditional ways of relating to others does not necessary foster group-transcending solidarity and equal citizenship. New forms of relating, based on critical awareness of religion’s desctructive potential, are needed.
Against Hunter, I would suggest that a change in the direction of “ethic of civility” does not always come by itself, not even through political participation. This corresponds to Henrik Syse’s observation (in his response to Frydenlund) that for religion to be “civilized”, a critical change in religious attitudes is often needed. With Frydenlund and Syse, I hold that some kind of critical decision is normally needed – in both Varanasi, Sri Lanka and other places.
This is where, in my view, the phenomenon of interreligious dialogue comes into the picture. In theories of interreligious dialogue, the possibility of deep change in attitudes is often linked to face-to-face interaction over time. Such interaction (unless it is merely superficial) is normally based on a critical decision to counteract divisive tendencies by establishing structures for trust-building dialogue. In societies ridden by religious identity politics, the counter-measure of dialogue needs to be organized and firmly institutionalized simply because it does not come by itself, and is always threathened by the opposite tendency of identity politics.
I believe this understanding of interreligious dialogue tunes in with Iselin Frydenlund’s concept of critical civility. With Henrik Syse, I would emphasize that there are in fact rich theological traditions to draw upon when engaging other believers in faith-based dialogue. But also when mobilising the potential resources of theological traditions and sacred scriptures, (self-)critical thinking is necessary. For the tension between open dialogue with other traditions and confrontational identity politics is found not only in contemporary society, but in the sacred traditions themselves.
Skrevet av: Anonym
'anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Ingen liker å bli lurt - åpenhet og kritikk’
Dogmatisk tro på dagens vitenskap
Denne kommentaren, og for øvrig HEFs kampanje, er preget av en dogmatisk tro på det som finnes av vitenskapelige resultater per i dag. Inndelingen av verden i to kategorier: "sann" og "falsk" er forenklende inntil det dogmatiske. Intellektuelt er dette "langt bak mål", for å ta kommentatorens egen formulering. Fordi:
Hva vitenskapen til i dag har klart å bevise, bør virkelig ikke forstås som endestasjonen for vår erkjennelse. Vitenskap frambringer stadig ny viten. Ting vi ikke forstod for hundre år siden, har vi i dag gode vitenskapelige data på, og vår viten ekspanderer stadig (DNA! Partikkelfysikk!). Moderne vitenskap kritiserer og utvider stadig seg selv (sånn sett kan man lure på om det egentlig er vitenskapelighet HEF og denne kommentatoren representerer når de i så sterk grad snakker om "bevis"). Etter hvert som nye felter utforskes empirisk, må tidligere viteskapelige teorier revideres eller sågar forkastes. Å legge det vitenskapelig bevist per i dag til grunn for hva som er riktig, gjør det vanskelig å komme videre. Åpenhet er en forutsetning for ny erkjennelse.
4) Det finnes faktisk en del forskning som har vist til positive effekter av alternative terapiformer. Se for eksempel:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub3/pdf/st...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001218.pub2/pdf/st...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003193849190543W
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453008002199
http://gradworks.umi.com/MR/80/MR80208.html
Skrevet av: Anonym
anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Ingen liker å bli lurt - åpenhet og kritikk’
Taper?
Ja, det var dialogen sin det. Må bare vedgå at Thelle har et poeng når du starter med å kalle ham for "taper".
Skrevet av: Anonym
anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Skeptiker eller en som er lurt?’
Kommentar
Dette var en av de mer sakelige kommentarene etter thelles innlegg. Men,
"Å kalle brukerne av alternativmedisin lurt eller narret, er å degradere deres valg."
Det er ikke helt riktig. Alternativ medisin kan til tider virke legitimt, og det er flere utdannede personer som fortsatt tror at homeopati, kiropraktikk og akkupunktur er behandlingsformer som fungerer. Det er rett og slett ikke så lett og sette seg inn i all forskningen som er tilgjengelig der ute.
Men faktum er, at brukerene av alternativ medisin blir lurt, og det har ingen ting med å degradere deres valg. Det har med at det ikke ligger positiv forskning bak noen av behandlingsformene.
Da spiller det ingen rolle om en blir mer avslappet av å gå til en healer eller at placeboeffekten slår inn etter at du har tatt en homeopatipille. Det de reklamerer med er pseudovitenskapelig humbug, uten et snev av bevis. Da lurer de aktivt sine pasienter. Vi vet at dersom en går til en homeopat så er det ikke behandlingen som fungerer men oppmerksomheten og praten i forkant, der en homeopat hører på alt du har å si om sykdommen din. Hvorfor ikke tilby mer av dette? Og fjerne det "magiske" mellomleddet. Hvorfor prøve å selge inn noe overnaturlig, når god gammeldags samtaleterapi fungerer like godt?
Skrevet av: Anonym
anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Hvem lurer hvem?’
hva "ingen liker å bli lurt" ikke er.
Det virker som om du har misforstått hva aksjonen faktisk handler om:
"Det er mulig at HEF-kampanjen ”Ingen liker å bli lurt” primært er rettet mot alternativ behandling, men den sparker i grunnen mot alt av spiritualitet, alt ”alternativt” og stort sett det meste som ikke har tung medisinsk industri eller tilsvarende bak seg."
HEF-kampanjen sparker ikke bevisst etter alt alternativt som ikke har tung medisinsk industri bak seg, men alt alternativ som ikke har tung medisinsk bevisførsel bak seg. Industri finner du bak de fleste alternative behandlingsformer også, som homeopati og healing. Det HEF er interressert i er bevisførsel. Kan en behandlingsform bevise at den faktisk fungerer, så vil den heller ikke komme under "ingen liker å bli lurt"-kampanjen. Da er det nemmelig ikke alternativ medisin lenger, men medisin.
"...er rommet til å finne opp nye ting i samfunnet eller prøve å gå nye veier..."
Dersom du med denne settningen mener å finne opp nye behandlingsformer, så ja. De aller fleste av oss har ikke medsinsk bakgrunn, som vil derfor tilsi at dersom jeg finner opp en ny måte å bli kvitt influensa på, så er den nok basert mer på anektodiske beviser og placebo, enn faktisk grundig forskning.
"Folk finner uansett på all verdens merkelige hobbyer og bruker masse penger på det, så hvorfor blir det plutselig galt hvis en gjeng sitter i en ring hjemme hos noen av dem og forsøker å sende engler til et katastrofeområde? Burde de heller råne rundt i bilene sine mens de ventet på neste fyll?"
Dette er et tåpelig argument! Aksjonen heter "ingen liker å bli lurt". Dersom du driver på med råning og fyll, så er det en "fritidsaktivitet" som holder det den lover. Du får kjøre rundt i bil og drikke alkohol. Dersom du i steden for velger å bruke pengene dine på udokumentert medisin og behandling, så blir du lurt. Det handler ikke om hva folk driver på med på fritiden sin. Dersom du vil sitte hjemme og spise blåbærstilker i den tro at det vil fjerne influensaen din, så må du gjerne gjøre det. Det er når du åpner en nettbutikk og selger blåbærstilker med lovnad om at det skal kurere influensa det blir et problem. Da går du ut og lurer folk.
"Deres tro er jo ikke vitenskapelig dokumentert, så da er det vel svindel? "
I utgangspunktet ja. Bevisførselen ligger alltid hos den som hevder noe ekstraordinært. Da kreves gjerne ekstraordinære bevis også. Igjen så må en presisere at det ikke er snakk om personlig religion. Dersom en person ønsker å være kristen, så er det ingen ting jeg eller noen andre kan si på det. Men dersom den personen starter å forkynne og hevde ting som at han kan heale personer og at jorden er 5000 år gammel, da beveger han seg ut på et felt der hans påstander kan motbevises. Og da er religion i lik kategori som alternativ medisin.
"Dermed bør det meste forbys, og de særlig aktive straffes?"
Dette er en annen diskusjon igjen. HEF har aldri snakket om avstraffelse.
Det hele handler om kunnskap og bevistgjøring i samfunnet. Dersom kampanjen kan hindre vekst i et alternativt miljø som ikke holder det de lover, og på den måten både redde liv og skape et smartere samfunn, så er det en vellykket kampanje.
Skrevet av: Anonym
'anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Ingen liker å bli lurt - åpenhet og kritikk’
"Manglende åpenhet" er taperens siste halmstrå
Et ønske om "åpenhet" og "dialog" er den veikeste formen for kritikk man kan komme med. Det bunner i en skam over å ta feil, og når man ikke makter å komme med vektige motbeviser når man HAR blitt bevist feil, er motstanderens "arroganse" og "manglende åpenhet" alt man kan skylde på. Jeg beklager, dette er lite overbevisende, og intellektuelt langt bak mål.
HEF peker på at det finnes store mengder evidens for at akupunktur, healing, ørelysbehandling, spirituell coaching, kopping, skraping, aurabehandling, bønn, krystallbehandling o.l. IKKE fungerer. Dette er overveldende godt dokumentert, og måten man imøtegår slik kritikk på er ved å peke på hvor bevismaterialet bryter sammen, og hvilke motbeviser som eksisterer. Kan du ikke dette, er det du som skal i tenkeboksen og forstå at du antakeligvis er på jordet. Om du ikke klarer å takle dette, er dette en karaktersvakhet som ligger hos DEG, ikke hos meningsmotstanderen, og ikke noe du ikke rister av deg ved å skrike om manglende åpenhet.
Skrevet av: Anonym
anonym@webid.uio.no on ‘Religion og kjønnslikestilling - hva er norske myndigheters politikk?’
Informativt!
Takk for en ryddig og fin gjennomgang! Det var informativt!
Til tilretteleggerne: Hvis det først skal brukes referanser, så skulle jeg gjerne sett en litteraturliste! Det vil gjøre det lettere å følge opp tankene, og lære mer!
Skrevet av: Anonym