Does Islam need a "reformation"?

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by thipps

The followers of the madhhabs [schools of thought] are not all the same. Some of them are mujtahids [those who do Ijtihad] within their madhhab, and some are followers (muqallids) who do not go against their madhhabs in any regard.
Al-Buwayti, al-Muzani, al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajr were followers of Imam al-Shaafa’i, but they were also mujtahids in their own right....etc., etc., etc., etc.,

Hi thipps.

Again, with all respect, instead of even acknowledging the questions in my last post (see above), you've retreated into a legalistic exposition of the current status of ijtihad. It's all very interesting, but do you have any opinions/responses at all to my questions? I mean even if you feel I shouldn't pose such questions, or you feel they're for some reason irrelevant, I would humbly ask you to tell me why.

Peace.

[bloodnf]

There is no simple answer to this question. Any answer would have to start with "What is meant by reformation?" And then it would move to "Who would carry out this reformation?".

Islam, specifically the 85% that is Sunni, has no hierachy or unified Church if you will. We have various religous leaders and learned scholars who are followed to various extents by some muslims. But this is not set in stone. So there is no organized church to reform.

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by bloodnf

There is no simple answer to this question. Any answer would have to start with "What is meant by reformation?" And then it would move to "Who would carry out this reformation?".

Greetings. I agree. There are no simple answers. But of course these aren't the forums for simple answers - or shouldn't be.

But I must admit that my use of the term "reformation" has not proved very useful so far. Let me try to clarify a little.

There are two major senses to the word. One sense refers specifically to historical events in Europe over a period of centuries leading to the so-called modern era. It resulted in the break up of the hegemony of the Catholic Church over Christendom. So no, Islam could not have a reformation in that sense, although it wasn't a matter in the European case either of some authority "to carry out the reformation" as you suggest. That's more the idea of the Counter Reformation, which was an internal reform by the church to keep its adherents in the fold.

The second, more general sense of the word "reformation" is the one I intended. It's the radical (in the sense of "going to the roots") movement to reappraise and reform the ideology of a tradition in terms of its legal and doctrinal structures. In the case of Islam, since we're talking reform and not revolution, it doesn't involve any change to the Quaran itself, but certainly involves revisiting the long and complex history of how this scriptural base has been elaborated upon and employed in the world.

So why have a "reformation" in this sense? A tradition needs reformation when it falls into crisis; for Europe it was the crisis of a developing modernity. The suggestion here - and the reason people like me even use the word reformation - is that Islam appears to be similarly in crisis, and similarly in a crisis of modernity.

So it's not a question of exactly following any prior model, or "who carries it out". That will be up to Muslims, all Muslims to sort out. But the question is do Muslims in general need to mobilize to seriously, radically address the questions I've raised here and the manifest dysfunctions of the tradition.

But again, leaving all quibbles of definition aside, I've yet to hear from anyone that substantially addresses the real issues at hand (see above), the issues that mean life & death on a daily basis.

So once more, let me rephrase the question: do Muslims in general need to consider a radical transformation in the way their faith is interpreted & applied in the world, under its many forms? And, if so, do you as a Muslim have some good ideas along that line, on how that would get done?

I know there is much variety of opinion among Muslims on these issues. I don't purport to be offering solutions from the outside. I'm only eager to hear some good ideas. I'm only pleading for Muslims to bring those good ideas out here, for the benefit of everyone. Such contributions are as important as anyone can make to these forums, and surely repay the efforts of all the fine people who make it happen.

Peace.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Vimalakirti

Hi thipps.

Again, with all respect, instead of even acknowledging the questions in my last post (see above), you've retreated into a legalistic exposition of the current status of ijtihad. It's all very interesting, but do you have any opinions/responses at all to my questions? I mean even if you feel I shouldn't pose such questions, or you feel they're for some reason irrelevant, I would humbly ask you to tell me why.

Peace.

I think a particular problem may be that you are focussing very much on negative Western perceptions of Islam, and then asking thipps to be a spokesperson on how Islam needs to redefine itself to present a more positive Western perception of Islam.

If so, it's a little unfair to put any Muslim on the spot to answer the perceptions of others - sort of like throwing accusational comments at Anglicans for being Christian and to support their faith against a background of IRA bombings in Ireland, Mafia shootings in Italy, and Army of God kidnappings in Uganda.

Perhaps it may be more pertinent to examine more the role of religion in political movements, the variety of different expressions of belief, and use of media scapegoating in society.

It seems perhaps that the turmoil of lack of understanding is ultimately within yourself, and but rather than looking within for a solution to this turmoil, you are looking for an outside sign to resolve it??

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I think a particular problem may be that you are focussing very much on negative Western perceptions of Islam, and then asking thipps to be a spokesperson on how Islam needs to redefine itself to present a more positive Western perception of Islam.

If so, it's a little unfair to put any Muslim on the spot to answer the perceptions of others - sort of like throwing accusational comments at Anglicans for being Christian and to support their faith against a background of IRA bombings in Ireland, Mafia shootings in Italy, and Army of God kidnappings in Uganda.

1. My aim was not to put any particular person on the spot. The thread was not addressed to a particular person. It was put out there as a general call for ideas & responses, with the aim of bringing out the fact that there is much interesting & varied opinion among Muslims on this general problem. (Check the link I posted on the "Pluralism and Islam" thread for illustration.) To bring that out, I thought, would be of service to everyone, including to Islam in general. Thipps freely answered the thread. To restate the question to him was hardly coercive or unfair on my part.

2. “Answering the perceptions of others” was precisely not the point. As I’ve already noted elsewhere, too many of us seemed more concerned with perception than actual facts on the ground. If we’re so afraid of being “negative” that we can’t say anything real, we keep real negativity bottled up, and that’s poison. I was pointing to real situations. In the interests of increasing understanding across sectarian lines, it’s my contention that we have to do more than wring our hands over perceptions. At some point we all need to be more honest and direct.

3. On the question of “accusation”, certainly one needs to be careful. I’m writing from Canada. My wife is nominally Anglican and I have nothing to accuse Anglicans of other than being, well, a little soporific!

But look at an example in North America. We’ve experienced in the past bombings of abortion clinics and shootings of doctors. No, we can’t blame Episcopalians or Baptists, but we can rightfully cite the preachings of some fundamentalist Christians as constituting contributing causal factors to these events. Certainly, the point can be argued, but it can hardly be dismissed out of hand. As well, there’s good reason to believe that the aggressiveness of American foreign policy has been to some degree influenced by the power of the Christian right in the Republican Party. One may think that’s a good thing, that American foreign policy is just fine, but it’s certainly legitimate to argue the point. And there’s a further reason: that is, that this kind of influence impacts on others, not just on the sectarians in question.

In the case of the Islamic world, we have a widespread set of problems that can only be addressed by Muslims as a whole. It’s widely understood, for example, that Al qaeda in part is the result of a kind of civil struggle that’s been going on for decades in Saudi Arabia, but which has now spread far beyond the peninsula to non-Arab as well as Arab Muslim states, and beyond the Islamic world as well. It’s a generalized problem that affects the whole world, not just Muslims, so in my mind it’s perfectly legitimate and morally justified for non-Muslims to raise this issue, and to ask for more information on how Muslims are thinking about and responding to this problem. As people directly impacted, we have a right to our questions, and who is going to give us insight & hope on these problems if not Muslims?

4. To me, there’s a fine line between sensitivity to the perceptions of others and simply patronizing others; so-called respect can be disrespect in disguise. I understand that without a basis of trust, we’re stuck with euphemism and circumlocution, but again at a certain point we need to test the waters of direct speech, at least if we want to make any substantive headway toward authentic communication.

5. But the bottom line is the results. If nothing positive comes of this thread, then it’s an indicator that this line of questioning doesn’t work, at least not at this juncture, and in this forum, i.e., that there simply isn’t the necessary basis of trust. Fair enough, the thread will die a natural death. So far, it obviously hasn’t worked, and I stand convicted of misjudging the culture of these forums and what this culture considers within the pale – but obviously I’m a repeat offender in this regard!

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Perhaps it may be more pertinent to examine more the role of religion in political movements, the variety of different expressions of belief, and use of media scapegoating in society.

I agree, Brian. All these things are important, but we also have to guard against using these issues as mere diversion; I mean, particularly “media scapegoating”. My feeling again is that your anxiety not to offend – and perhaps your sense of responsibility to keep the conversational peace – makes you unwilling to look at these things head-on.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

It seems perhaps that the turmoil of lack of understanding is ultimately within yourself, and but rather than looking within for a solution to this turmoil, you are looking for an outside sign to resolve it??

I’m sorry, Brian, but this is just beneath you – an ad hominem attack one might hear from a defrocked Jesuit priest into the sauce. And it speaks again to the double standard I’ve detected here. We’re acculturated to accept that one is justified in rising in self-righteous anger if one’s dogmatic beliefs are besmirched, but to show any exasperation, or to speak with any passion, in the face of dogmatic belief and the way it limits discussion, well, that’s another thing. So yes, I’ve expressed some of that exasperation to you in private, and since I would prefer never to say a negative word, sure, I’d take some of it back. But come on, Brian, can’t you see that what you’re saying is just a little hurtful and dismissive? And how does this kind of accusation fit in with your code?


Anyway, no doubt I’ve once again said too much. I concede again that this thread isn’t working. I take responsibility for that, and won’t be prolonging its life from my end, other than to issue a disclaimer to hopefully head off any further misunderstanding.



Please forgive any harshness in my language or thoughts expressed here. No doubt, what I’ve pointed to as your hurtful accusation was partly the result of my manner and some of my intemperate comments. Please understand that I’m sincerely attempting to be of benefit, but that I also need to be honest in my reactions.

Best wishes.

[Vimalakirti]

DISCLAIMER

This thread was addressed to Muslims who are members of this forum for reaction & comment. It's been brought to my attention that the questions may have been framed in a way that could produce misunderstanding, or might even cause offence. This of course was not my intention, but it may be that the basis of trust is not yet present for this kind of straightforward approach not to be misunderstood. Let's all pray for the day when we all have the confidence to speak freely across sectarian lines, heart to heart, with no illusions, and with truth only as the aim.

I'll add no more input to this thread. My Muslim brothers & sisters may use this space for discussion or not, as seems best.

Peace.

[Bandit]

hey Vim

i dont think anyone is trying to be mean. i do also have a hard time understanding what you are trying to say & it makes it hard to respond.

i dont see you trying to hurt anyone either. there is no way we are going to fix everyones problems, no matter how much we want to help & communicate.

cant stop a waterfall, it has to go somewhere.

i think it just takes time to get to know how to relate to everyone.
so hang in there.

[I, Brian]

Vimalakirti, you seem to have brought more than a few preconceptions of various faiths here with you, and are generally showing a sense of turmoil and angst in terms of trying to reconcile your thoughts on them. I find it hard not to observe that in you, but if you would prefer I not mention it in a thread, then I'm fine with that.

[thipps]

Originally Posted by Vimalakirti

Hi thipps.

Again, with all respect, instead of even acknowledging the questions in my last post (see above), you've retreated into a legalistic exposition of the current status of ijtihad. It's all very interesting, but do you have any opinions/responses at all to my questions? I mean even if you feel I shouldn't pose such questions, or you feel they're for some reason irrelevant, I would humbly ask you to tell me why.

Peace.

h| Vimalakirti,
umm.. i dont know why you thought i was trying to answer your question.. cause i wasnt.. i wasnt even speaking to you specifically in that post... maybe you didnt notice but i did quote bananabrain's text in that post and it was related specifically to ijtihad.
Be patient... there are alot of people here asking questions... and most of them ask one question at a time.. easier to answer them in the light of time constraints.. your post has quite a few.. i'll try to get to them inshallah [God-willing].
by the way, if i had thought that the post was not suitable, I would have done something about it.
peace.

[InLove]

Hello, and Peace to All Here--

I have been keeping up with this thread, and I am compelled from the heart to just drop in long enough to say that it has helped me understand some things about Islam I could never understand otherwise without years of study. It has also helped me understand more about how my own faith is perceived by others. There have been issues addressed and questions asked and answered intelligently and faithfully, and even though words do get in the way sometimes, the thread itself seems to be overcoming that in some way. I, for one am grateful that it exists, and if it continues, that would be great too...

InPeace,
InLove

[thipps]

Originally Posted by THUNK

Please guys, this is not meant to be inflamatory, but an 'outsiders' question to try and find some respect for Islam;

QUESTION: Here in the UK, charity is a fairly significant part of our cultural make - up. Why do I not see Muslims fairly represented at Charity events such as the London Marathon or Red Nose Day?

h|,
i assume your not implying that charity is not part of Islam. One of the five pillars of islam is zakat which entails 2.5% of one's yearly holdings if it is above the minimum level... thats like compulsory charity... God and His Prophet (pbuh) exhorted people to regular charity time and again. e.g.
And be steadfast in prayer; practise regular charity; and bow down your heads with those who bow down (in worship). [Qur'an, 2:43]
Being a miser is not liked by God either. See the following:
(Nor) those who are niggardly or enjoin niggardliness on others, or hide the bounties which Allah hath bestowed on them; for We have prepared, for those who resist Faith, a punishment that steeps them in contempt; [Qur'an, 4:37]

But in response to your question... i am not aware of what happens in those events that you mentioned.... could be simply that they violate the muslim code of conduct one way or another and you not being a muslim are not aware of it. BUT i'll put in something extra to make you understand of our ways. Allaah says in the Qur'an:
Not those who spend of their substance, to be seen of men, but have no faith in Allah and the Last Day: If any take the Evil One for their intimate, what a dreadful intimate he is! [Qur'an, 4:38]
A fault opposed to niggardliness, and equally opposed to true Charity, is to spend lavishly to be seen of men. It is mere hypocrisy: there is no love in it, either for Allah or for man. [Yusuf Ali's Commentary on 4:38]
Now, a hadith to shed some more light on the subject (See #6):
Narated By Abu Huraira: The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, "Seven people will be shaded by Allah under His shade on the day when there will be no shade except His. They are:
1. A just ruler.
2. A young man who has been brought up in the worship of Allah, (i.e. worship Allah (Alone) sincerely from his childhood).
3. A man whose heart is attached to the mosque (who offers the five compulsory congregational prayers in the mosque).
4. Two persons who love each other only for Allah's sake and they meet and part in Allah's cause only.
5. A man who refuses the call of a charming woman of noble birth for an illegal sexual intercourse with her and says: I am afraid of Allah.
6. A person who practices charity so secretly that his left hand does not know what his right hand has given (i.e. nobody knows how much he has given in charity).
7. A person who remembers Allah in seclusion and his eyes get flooded with tears."
[Sahih Bukhari, Vol 2, Book 24, Hadith #504]
-----------------
I know these things that have been mentioned above... so even for myself, i am always inclined to not do charity in public for the fear of showing off ... and also, no doubt, to have a chance to be in His shade when, on the Day of Judgement, there will be no other shade.
im not saying that it is wrong to do charity in open.. that is simply not the case but the above things mentioned might be contributing to what you observe. Just something else for your perusal:
If ye disclose (acts of) charity, even so it is well, but if ye conceal them, and make them reach those (really) in need, that is best for you: It will remove from you some of your (stains of) evil. And Allah is well acquainted with what ye do. [Qur'an, 2:271]
Those who (in charity) spend of their goods by night and by day, in secret and in public, have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. [Qur'an, 2:274]

Hope this helped.
And Allaah knows best.

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Vimalakirti, you seem to have brought more than a few preconceptions of various faiths here with you, and are generally showing a sense of turmoil and angst in terms of trying to reconcile your thoughts on them. I find it hard not to observe that in you, but if you would prefer I not mention it in a thread, then I'm fine with that.

Hi Brian. (sigh)
I wish you could take a leap of faith and give my unorthodox point of view the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry you couldn't resist one final sniping comment, which again I don't think is appropriate for you, especially in your position as administrator.

I'm not going to convince you, it would seem, that you're off base with these assumptions, but my forays into these forums have little to do with "misconceptions". I'm looking at things a little differently, and from some other sides than you're used to, and maybe pointing into some uncomfortable directions for some. My approaches may seem negative to you, but to me they're only a line of questioning. They're not meant to debunk religion, but to point out the dangers of dogmatic & fixed ways of thinking everywhere it exists, including in religion.

As I've already pointed out to you, rigid thought, ideological thought is not confined to religion, but it does find some of its roots there. The irony to me is that many good folk, for the best reasons, see religion as quite remote from the ideologically driven hatreds that still beset us. That's perfectly understandable, since many are following the best, not the worst of their traditions, making a positive impact in their own circles, and genuinely trying to reach across sectarian lines. And at this stage of history, I would even agree that religion is more sinned against than sinning in this regard.

But ideological, dogmatic, rigid, absolutist thinking in religion is still a habit I feel we all need to face up to as alive and well and in need of being addressed. Just when we're most comfortable, it will rear its head, and derail what we thought was our impeccably compassionate view of life. So far from misconceiving the aims of religion, I fall into a very traditional line of hard self-questioning, and of stripping the self-satisfied ego of its supports. And where does the ego go when stripped of its supports? Many members of these forums will have an answer for that.

One more note on style. My approach has been more “literary” and indirect than some have been interested in. That’s understandable, in that it’s not the usual procedure followed here. On the other hand, some of the reactions to my posts have only illustrated my thesis. That is, some members are so habituated to citing only scripture, some officially sanctioned text, that to deviate from that norm derails a positive response. And the level of negativity in a response is to me only an index of the level of rigidity in one’s thinking. (Let me add here that I make no claims for the quality of my texts as writing, and that if I sound pompous at times it follows from an addiction to words and rounded sentences, not intent.)

Of course, I’ve had some wonderful & perceptive responses to my posts as well, for which I’m very grateful, so this is nothing like a blanket description of other members. I’m only dealing with your assumptions, and addressing anyone else who shares them.

I think Bandit’s post just above is more – forgive me – honest and to the point. Sure, I come from left field, and I’m a pain in the a**, but I mean well – and isn’t that what most of us interested-in-religion types are all about?
Thanks Bandit, and In Love, for allowing me some closure on this exchange. Cheers.

CORDELIA
[Aside] What shall Cordelia do?
Love, and be silent.

[thipps]

Originally Posted by Vimalakirti

Hi Thipps.
I appreciate what you mention about the tradition's own internal mechanisms to stay on the straight path. I recognize that these mechanisms have been and will be of use, and that Islam will find its own way on these issues. But you have not addressed the core questions I began with:
Peace.

H|,
assuming you are still here... the purpose was to give you an understanding of what i thought would be needed while in the meantime PluckyAli was attempting to answer your questions. I personally wasnt trying to address your questions at that time.. just giving what I thought was relevant background.... and its relevancy, for me atleast, lies in teh fact that i keep hearing this word in the media 'Wahhabi' but i have never met one. The media has a bad habit of making things up while the target audience has little idea of what it means or its reality in truth since often these are christian terms. The reason i gave you that information was so that you know the real and logical basis (proved from authentic hadith) what one should follow.
If the one doing this is termed in the media as a 'wahhabi', then so be it eventhough those people dont call themselves that.
Do you think Osama bin Laden is/was a wahhabi?

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by thipps

H|,
assuming you are still here... the purpose was to give you an understanding of what i thought would be needed while in the meantime PluckyAli was attempting to answer your questions. I personally wasnt trying to address your questions at that time.. just giving what I thought was relevant background.... and its relevancy, for me atleast, lies in teh fact that i keep hearing this word in the media 'Wahhabi' but i have never met one. The media has a bad habit of making things up while the target audience has little idea of what it means or its reality in truth since often these are christian terms. The reason i gave you that information was so that you know the real and logical basis (proved from authentic hadith) what one should follow.
If the one doing this is termed in the media as a 'wahhabi', then so be it eventhough those people dont call themselves that.
Do you think Osama bin Laden is/was a wahhabi?

Hi Thipps. I’m not actively posting on these forums, since I don’t feel I currently have anything of value to contribute. So I’m really very reluctant to respond. I’m only doing this out of a sense of unfinished business, and out of respect for you.

But again, I’m puzzled by what I see as basically verbal sparring on your part. Since you have access to this site, I know you must also have access to Google. A quick search there of “Wahhabi” turns up all the information you need to know about what people outside of Saudi Arabia are talking about when they use the term. I’m not sure how this history is taught in KSA, but my information is that in the 1700’s a man by the name of Abdul Wahhab led a movement to return Islam to what he considered it’s purest form. I’m told that this form of Islam later became dominant in the peninsula, particularly with the rise of the Saudi royal family; that this form of Sunni Islam even now is distinctive to Saudi Arabia, and differs in important respects from other forms of Sunni practice. I’m told that within Saudi Arabia this approach, let’s say, to Islam is called “al-muwahhiddun”, the monotheists, or “al-ikhwan”, the brethren.

Now, some of this information may be incorrect, and I’m sure there’s much more to be said. You may feel I’m ill informed on the true nature of Islam, especially as practiced in your country, or perhaps you may view the Saudi form of Islam as simply pristine Islam, and other forms of your faith as in error. That I can understand. But when I use the term “Wahhabism” you surely know what I’m referring to, and it should be no barrier to advancing the discussion.

My concerns, as I’ve said now several times, were not about the niceties of the Hadith, or finding a better term for what outsiders mean by “Wahhabism”, but such issues as the funding of terrorism through Saudi charitable organizations, and the disturbing news of some of things that are taught in the madrassas, and so on. Like many other non-Muslims, I’m curious to know what Muslims think about all these things, and what actions or non-actions they feel should be taken. And if some of these things have been misrepresented let Muslims make these corrections and get everyone closer to the truth.

Similarly, your question on Osama Bin Laden again seems to me to be only rhetorical. Here’s my information: Osama Bin Laden is a member of a very important business family in Saudi Arabia, especially involved with construction projects; he had a falling out with the Saudi ruling family over the presence of American troops on the Peninsula (no doubt there were also other issues); Osama was raised and instructed in the Saudi form of Islam; he claims to be a strict believer, and has used, channelled – and I would say – perverted the religious feeling of some of his fellow believers to carry out, applaud or at least tolerate his violent & egotistical projects. Does that make him an al-muwahhiddun? Not unless you believe that’s what this form – or any form – of Islam stands for – and I don’t think anyone does.

But you’re quite right that Western media in general is a wasteland when it comes to reliable information on Islam and its many facets. So to my way of thinking, any solid information that Muslims can get out, on a person to person basis, the better all around. And again this is just my opinion, but while battling prejudice and correcting misconceptions is important, not all effort can be absorbed by the project of apologetics. Some of it I believe has to go to addressing hard questions.

One last word about the way I framed the questions. I’ve been accused of having “preconceptions” about religion. In a sense, that’s true. But my preconceptions have more to do with communication. This may mark me as a secular type, but I value and really only have interest in the person-to-person kind of communication I just mentioned. When anyone rains scripture or scriptural commentary over my head, my eyes almost immediately glaze over. Not that I dismiss the importance of these things. All these intricacies have their place. I’m happy to look up the references. But to me, all this comes after, not before. I want to hear the authentic voice of the person I’m talking to first. I value actual contact with the concrete situation. For me all the ideological supports, as nearly as possible, need to be bracketed, or at least temporarily set aside. Otherwise, I feel that I'm talking to a text, and not to a person.

Maybe this ill equips me for carrying on the kind of discussion you would prefer. If so, we can only bow and depart as friends.

But please! I have nothing really of interest to add. Please pull the plug on my verbal life support! I would only ask you to leave off the semantics and quibbling, and to either agree with the Administrator that my questions are improperly or too broadly put, and just drop the whole thing – even call me a fool, I don’t mind – or carry on with a discussion of the substantive issues I’ve raised, not for my benefit – I matter not in the least - but for the benefit of other members, Muslim and non-Muslim, and for Islam as a whole.

Naturally, this is only a request, and feel free to carry on the discussion in any direction you prefer, as seems best to you.

Peace & Blessings

[Vimalakirti]

Addendum
Interpretations of the Quaran and the Hadith are of course very important for a whole range of issues in Islamic cultures, including the status of women, the relation between secular and sacred power, and so on. And such discussions on this forum are interesting and welcome. But I think that most of us would be shocked to hear that there’s any significant support in scripture for Osama Bin Laden. (And I think that any person who does believe this would hardly be worth your effort to refute.) His motives and those of his followers, reasonable people assume, are political and personal, when they’re not deranged. Osama and others have used scripture to their own ends, and ultimately it’s up to Muslims to assert what the proper uses of scripture should be. But the immediate question is not interpretation of scripture. The immediate question is what has been happening on the ground, in real time and to real people. And that’s why I keep asking for real responses.

Peace