Muslim woman cites gym after interrupted prayer

[Details]

The point of all of this was that the Muslim woman inconvieninced another paying member of this gym. The lady obvioulsy didn't feel like she should wait for the woman to finish praying and she was right to think that. Maybe she had things to do , maybe she didn't who care. i said it before and I will say it again, if it was a baptist praying in front of that locker everyone would be making fun of that "crazy jesus freak" .

... actually, I think we'd be making fun of the obnoxious rude person, but crazy jesus freak works too

If I am expected to keep my Christianity under wraps in public

you aren't

for fear of offending people then the same should go for all religions.

.. and they shouldn't be either

Maybe people are a little anti-islamic nowadays, can you blame them? Who was planning to blow up infidels shopping for Christmas?

One single nut job. Plenty of christian nut jobs exist too.

Sure they aren't all bad, but the bad usually spoil it for the good.

If we fall into that trap, the bad can spoil it for everyone, help us to make enemies of people who are not our enemies, get people who are moderate to say, "maybe the extremists are right, maybe the western world is on a crusade to eliminate islam". That's the dream of the terrorists, to get us to overreact enough to create the religious war they desire. If we don't, they're isolated terrorists - a threat, but not a full world war. If we do......... you really want to see a war between Christians and Muslims? The terrorists want to see that, that's their goal. If ordinary muslims, who believe in live and let live, see that we are treating all muslims as probable terrorists - hey, they'll look ahead like any minority would, worry that this is the coming of something like the Jewish Holocaust, be scared, and things will spiral worse and worse.

This case was just someone being rude, then trying to excuse it based on her religion. It's really not complex. The manager reacted fine, and it's over - but some reporter saw a chance for a hotbutton story. If it were a christian or a jew doing the same thing, it would never have reached the papers.

 

[Details]

Absolutely. We would know little if anything of Plato and Aristotle; it was Islamic translations that kept such thinkers alive during the 1,000 years when their works were lost. We would still be burning witches to cure the flu; it was Islamic doctors who expanded medical knowledge during centuries that found Christian nations mired in poverty and ignorance.

Islam was the great beacon of knowledge and intellectual investigation during the so-called "Dark Ages" of Christianity.

Actually, I think that's part of what makes it worse - they've got the knowledge that once they were the greats, and now they're the ignorant ones. Unfortunately, they cling to their religion, and prefer to blame the fall on the Crusades, rather than on their own actions. And there could be some little truth to that, but not all, and they've had plenty of time to choose who they wanted to be. But, it's a backdrop, and it affects how they see the world, just as every country and ethnic group has their own backdrops.

 

[Details]

My question is why does the prayer have to be a show? Can't she pray silently? If prayer is that important and must be done with prostrations and voice why not schedule your workout at a time when you don't pray?

I can pray and meditate silently without anyone being the wiser. I prefer to have my foreign sounding chanting and prayers at home or in the spiritual community center where horns, cymbals, bells, drums etc are welcome.

At the same time almost any time we put the word "Muslim" in any story it seems to make people crazy.

It's interesting, I was reading something about the differences in the religions a little bit ago, that makes this a bit clearer. Christianity, in general, is a spiritually based religion - you go by the spirit of the rules, not the letter, and the rules are open ended - "love thy neighbor". Islam, as well as Judaism (according to this program), are legalistic religions. You have rules, and god wants you to follow those rules, period. So, you pray 5 times a day, and the exact form of the prayer, including what direction you bow down, is specified. This is what you do, period. There are exemptions for if praying will threaten your life in some way (a key sign of a legalistic religion - the exemptions are written in, rather than the rule assuming you can use your own judgement about how to follow it, if, for example, prayer time should come when you are the pilot of an airplane that has just hit a pocket of bad air). So, a silent prayer - it's just not written in to the religion.





Of course, neither is genital mutilation, burquas, and a great many other things - but that's a different part of Islam, and probably where the worst of it comes - in the 'traditions' that can be written into the religion by the clerics.

 

[Details]

I am not sure what you mean. When will domineering behavior over women stop them? When the Muslim men decide? And the violence. I can not think of a group that treats their women worse than them. Sorry but that's how I see it.

Depends on the country. The Taliban - sure. Backwards (yeah, my opinion, and I've got no problem with it) tribes that are Islamic in name only, really, they're just following old tribal customs - sure. But this is not Islam in general. Take a look at this (not an unbiased source, but still, facts are facts):http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=4821994963136&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE2

For example, the largest Muslim nation, Indonesia, has elected a woman President, Mrs. Megawati Sukarnoputri. She is still the President, her photo is published in the front page of the Nov 26 issue. She is covering her head, too, as she is attending prayers in the Mosque. Also, Pakistan elected Benazir Bhutto twice in 1988 and 1992. Turkey elected Tansu Chiller as a Prime Minster in the 1990s and she visited the US during the Clinton’s presidency. Bangladesh has an elected female Prime Minister right now. I know that Ireland has a female President, Britain elected a female Prime Minister, and there is a female Prime Minister in Norway. But Germany, France, Italy, and the United States have not elected a female as a president or a prime minister yet. The same applies to most of the Western nations.

The problem isn't muslims, it's branches, splinters, or tribes of people using Islam as their label, dirtying the name of the many, for the faults of the few.

 

[Details]

and... it's up to the rest of us to decide how much we are going to tolerate and take from them, while they are "figuring out where the faith will take them"......!

Yeah, you can believe whatever religion you like, but you follow the laws of the country you live in. I think that has to be an absolute. Consideration to others, trying to take the other's point of view into consideration when you are doing something (whether deciding where to pray, or deciding whether or not you need your locker this very minute), is an additional nice level to have, but following the rules so everyone can live together is a must.

If you want to keep primitive tribal traditions in your family and be able to enforce them, go live in a primitive tribal country that agrees with you - not here. But - while you're whining about how horrible the living conditions are there, how your children won't have the opportunities there - think that maybe those customs you so want to enforce that we don't allow might possibly be part of the gap between the two countries opportunities.

Of course, this is wildly off the topic of one person's rudeness and attempt to use religion as a trump card....

 

[Details]

...There is a very real crisis in Islam at this time. Just as there is a movement in our Christian denominations as to who shall be the dominant Christian voice with fundamentalists gaining strength the same thing is happening in the Muslim world.....

To some degree, I see this as something that we may need to handle the same way it is handled in Christian denominations - by recognizing and labelling the different groups. There's fundamentalists, evangelicals, liberal and conservative Christian sects and churches. Just because a conservative Christian based church does something - OK, to my biased point of view - stupid - doesn't mean I have to think all Christian churces are that way - just the conservative ones. Same for Islam, there's a ton of different groups, different approaches. Let them be labelled, rather than taking a religion that spans the entire world and billions of people as if it is all the same. Islam is as different as the taliban on one side, to Turkey on the other side, to modern American Islamic churches that are very liberal. Huge differences. It's really not all one religion, any more than Christianity is. All they agree on, barely, is that Mohammed was a prophet.

 

[windovervocalcords]

Yeah, you can believe whatever religion you like, but you follow the laws of the country you live in. I think that has to be an absolute. Consideration to others, trying to take the other's point of view into consideration when you are doing something (whether deciding where to pray, or deciding whether or not you need your locker this very minute), is an additional nice level to have, but following the rules so everyone can live together is a must.

If you want to keep primitive tribal traditions in your family and be able to enforce them, go live in a primitive tribal country that agrees with you - not here. But - while you're whining about how horrible the living conditions are there, how your children won't have the opportunities there - think that maybe those customs you so want to enforce that we don't allow might possibly be part of the gap between the two countries opportunities.

Of course, this is wildly off the topic of one person's rudeness and attempt to use religion as a trump card....

I think that all people who want to fit in have to balance how they can stay true to their faith or culture with how they must adapt in order to survive.

It's a balancing act.

IMO Muslims need to move in the direction of the larger community in order to understand the context their actions take. The larger citizenry/community needs to cut them some slack and reach toward understanding Muslims and other minority faiths and cultures.

The anger serves nobody.

I must say I take exception to the last sentence of your post. Whether we call it the "race card", the "trump card" or the "gay card" it misses the point from the view of the minority.

 

[Nova]

Actually, I think that's part of what makes it worse - they've got the knowledge that once they were the greats, and now they're the ignorant ones. Unfortunately, they cling to their religion, and prefer to blame the fall on the Crusades, rather than on their own actions. And there could be some little truth to that, but not all, and they've had plenty of time to choose who they wanted to be. But, it's a backdrop, and it affects how they see the world, just as every country and ethnic group has their own backdrops.

Great post, Details, but I want to correct your history a bit. The Crusades were largely defeats for the Christians; Islam eventually pushed Westerners out of the Holy Land and thrived for centuries. Are you sure Muslims (Arabs, really, for we're not talking about Indonesians here) blame the Crusades for the condition of the world?

Like the rest of the world, Muslim countries were eventually colonized by Western technology. But that was hundreds of years later.

 

[Nova]

It's interesting, I was reading something about the differences in the religions a little bit ago, that makes this a bit clearer. Christianity, in general, is a spiritually based religion - you go by the spirit of the rules, not the letter, and the rules are open ended - "love thy neighbor". Islam, as well as Judaism (according to this program), are legalistic religions...

Sounds like a definition written by a Protestant. It's hard to imagine a more legalistic sect than Roman Catholicism (and I'm quoting my Catholic friends here)!

But you are certainly right that prayer is not "silent" in some traditions.

 

[windovervocalcords]

Sounds like a definition written by a Protestant. It's hard to imagine a more legalistic sect than Roman Catholicism (and I'm quoting my Catholic friends here)!

But you are certainly right that prayer is not "silent" in some traditions.

It's not particularly silent in mine either but since we're supposed to be practicing 24/7 you got to adjust to the situation.

 

[Nova]

To some degree, I see this as something that we may need to handle the same way it is handled in Christian denominations - by recognizing and labelling the different groups. There's fundamentalists, evangelicals, liberal and conservative Christian sects and churches. Just because a conservative Christian based church does something - OK, to my biased point of view - stupid - doesn't mean I have to think all Christian churces are that way - just the conservative ones. Same for Islam, there's a ton of different groups, different approaches. Let them be labelled, rather than taking a religion that spans the entire world and billions of people as if it is all the same. Islam is as different as the taliban on one side, to Turkey on the other side, to modern American Islamic churches that are very liberal. Huge differences. It's really not all one religion, any more than Christianity is. All they agree on, barely, is that Mohammed was a prophet.

Yet another post that we should all read at least once a day. Well done!

 

[Details]

...I must say I take exception to the last sentence of your post. Whether we call it the "race card", the "trump card" or the "gay card" it misses the point from the view of the minority.

I disagree. In this case, it was not about the view of the minority, it was just about this woman being rude. Just because she has to pray, doesn't mean she has any right to block others from their activities - it's not a religious issue. And, sometimes people do play cards. No reason not to call it what it is, just because some others abuse that term, and claim that someone is playing the race card or whatever, when they really aren't. But when race, religion, whatever are falsely used, it should be called out.

Or - do you really think this woman was in the right, that it's a religious freedom issue for her to be able to block another patron's locker during her prayers? If not, IMHO, you're saying she's playing a religion card, whether or not you want to use those words or other words. What you call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

 

[Details]

Great post, Details, but I want to correct your history a bit. The Crusades were largely defeats for the Christians; Islam eventually pushed Westerners out of the Holy Land and thrived for centuries. Are you sure Muslims (Arabs, really, for we're not talking about Indonesians here) blame the Crusades for the condition of the world?

Like the rest of the world, Muslim countries were eventually colonized by Western technology. But that was hundreds of years later.

I know it's a hugely, hugely sensitive point there. And Westerners lost the crusades, but they did a ton of damage. I think the crusades, along with the colonization were considered two parts of the same impulse of the western world to control and destroy the muslims, which is why it's such a hotbutton word. But JMO, along with some articles I've read which I don't have on hand right now.

 

[Details]

Sounds like a definition written by a Protestant. It's hard to imagine a more legalistic sect than Roman Catholicism (and I'm quoting my Catholic friends here)!

Oh, yeah - it sure is - but I think even Catholicism (and I was raised in it - Catholic aerobics every Sunday!) is less legalistic than islam, by far. After all, for Catholics, you confess, and that's the end of it - if you're sorry, it's OK.

 

[Nova]

I know it's a hugely, hugely sensitive point there. And Westerners lost the crusades, but they did a ton of damage. I think the crusades, along with the colonization were considered two parts of the same impulse of the western world to control and destroy the muslims, which is why it's such a hotbutton word. But JMO, along with some articles I've read which I don't have on hand right now.

I believe you. But I think the Crusades were used as symbols of foreign oppression, more than they were actual grievances to modern Muslims.

 

[windovervocalcords]

The crusades started in 1095 CE, with the speech made by Pope Urban II. In that speech, Pope Urban II referred to the Christians as the noble race of the Franks. He encouraged Christians to join the armies to get Jerusalem from the Muslims. Most of the crusaders that left Europe to fight the Muslims were actually aiming to form kingdoms and acquire the wealth found in those lands. That is why the many groups of crusaders were often quarreling amongst themselves over rule of places when they conquered cities.

The crusaders were against everyone who did not follow their religion and did not look like them. This included Muslims, Jews, and even dark-skinned Christians, all of whom were attacked and murdered by them. They even sacked the city of Constantinople, which was ruled by the Eastern Church (the Byzantine Church).

http://www.albalagh.net/kids/history/crusades.shtml

Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

 

[reb]

luthersmom-- good points, but- they have no reason to be surprised or offended when they get lumped together with the bad guys. look what has happened in the past several years. name some recent muslims who have won nobel peace prizes or accomplished any outstanding humanitarian efforts, discovered anything that has benefitted humanity. and aside from people like me 'lumping them together'- they real question is,, WHY do THEY want to be lumped in together with the kind of people who want to destroy humanity and civilization? so... what do they expect?

 

[windovervocalcords]

luthersmom-- good points, but- they have no reason to be surprised or offended when they get lumped together with the bad guys. look what has happened in the past several years. name some recent muslims who have won nobel peace prizes or accomplished any outstanding humanitarian efforts, discovered anything that has benefitted humanity. and aside from people like me 'lumping them together'- they real question is,, WHY do THEY want to be lumped in together with the kind of people who want to destroy humanity and civilization? so... what do they expect?

A Norwegian parliamentarian has nominated Ayaan Hirsi Ali for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize (article in Dutch). Christian Tybring-Gjedde, who is conservative, argues that there is no better candidate. "She fights for equality, equal treatment, freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of religion with its life as commitment", he told Dagsavisen newspaper about the Dutch moderate-conservative parliamentarian, feminist, and atheist.
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1137527411.shtml

Indian Muslim Leader Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize 2003 [url="http://www.turks.us/images/topics/topic_news.gif"]f[/url]WASHINGTON, September 9 (IONA) – An Indian Islamic leader was nominated for the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his commitment to serving and uplifting humanity, according to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

“Syed Hasan has dedicated over sixty years of his life for the betterment of others, as he is the founder and director of INSAN (Urdu for "Human"), an educational and humanitarian mission based in India.”
The INSAN Institute has been promoting for almost 40 years education and educational awareness, educational accessibility to financially disadvantaged, adult literacy, pre-teen/teen marriages, local economy and employment to disadvantaged, and humanitarian assistance.
The Institute, housed in bamboo huts in Kishanganj at the junction of India, makes up the Insan School and College, is winning many hearts in the process.
http://www.turks.us/images/topics/topic_news.gi

2 December - The South African AIDS actionist group Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. TAC is nominated together with its founder and leader, Adurrazack (Zackie) Achmat, a South African Muslim who earlier had founded the National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality.
The South African activists are nominated for their tireless fight for the rights of HIV infected in South Africa. TAC under the leadership of 40-year old Mr Achmat has demanded that people with HIV/AIDS get a government-sponsored treatment - a fight that only last month brought victory.
http://www.afrol.com/articles/10649

And here is another Muslim woman who is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize
http://www.baltimoregroupblog.com/2006/09/11/rebiya-kadeer-muslim-uighur-activist-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize/

 

[reb]

bravo-- good detective work!

i still don't like their religion. the culture itself-- well, all cultures are unique and fascinating-- in terms of architecture, decorative arts, music, cuisine, that sort of thing. but that koran, and their belief system--- no way.
it's good to see some muslims doing great things, but still, why associate yourself with such evil human beings?

 

[Details]

bravo-- good detective work!

i still don't like their religion. the culture itself-- well, all cultures are unique and fascinating-- in terms of architecture, decorative arts, music, cuisine, that sort of thing. but that koran, and their belief system--- no way.
it's good to see some muslims doing great things, but still, why associate yourself with such evil human beings?

What don't you like about their religion? And, the evil human beings associated themselves with Islam, not the other way around. Would you change religions if alQueda decided to convert to your religion? Should all Christians change their religion if a bunch of Christians form a terrorist group attacking all non-christians, and all christians not sufficiently conservative for them?