Jump to content

Talk:Mutaween/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sources and separtation

A few suggestions for clarity and NPOV. Claims about each country should be verified with references, and it should be made clear in the article what kind of activites each force has been involved in, rather then lumping them into a combined paragraph--nixie 04:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Trying to look it over and do that. Right now, giving a seperate section for Saudi Arabia, since theirs is apparently the most well-known mutaween force. If you find any articles, let me know. Thanks. --Mitsukai 16:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Reference request

Yuber, if you would to say that they exist only in these countries, could you supply a good reference that confirms that, please? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be you providing me sources that they exist in countries besides Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria?Yuber(talk) 22:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
You're the one wants to make the positive claim. I'm simply leaving it open as to whether they exist elsewhere, because they do in various forms: state-sanctioned, partly state-sanctioned, and not state-sanctioned but tolerated. If you want to make a more definitive claim, you need a reference and I'd say with a complex issue like this, an academic reference would be best. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Also, if you google mutaween, you'll find almost all the articles are about Saudi Arabia. This term isn't even used in Iran, but it should be included because the religious police there are almost exactly the same as the Saudis.Yuber(talk) 22:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Google isn't a good way to do research of this kind, and in any event, they may be referred to as something else, as you point out yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Find sources that refer to what else they may be called and add in those countries. One more thing, what makes a country "Islamic"? The mutaween are clarified as Islamic in this article so that part is redundant.Yuber(talk) 23:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I supplied a reference of a highly anti-Islamic site that only says Nigeria, Iran, and Saudi are the places with official mutaween.Yuber(talk) 23:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Yuberr, you've violated 3RR. I'm pointing this out so you can take the opportunity to revert your last edit and avoid being reported for it. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:37, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Done, but you seem to have ignored the fact that I gave you the source you wanted and actually added countries.Yuber(talk) 23:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Here is the source: [1].Yuber(talk) 23:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, how have I violated the 3RR and you haven't?Yuber(talk) 23:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
You reverted the first sentence five times today. I have not violated 3RR. Check the diffs for yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
You asked for the source, I gave you one. What was the problem with said source?Yuber(talk) 23:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I'll check out your reference in a minute as I have to pop out briefly, but the website is called bible.ca so it's not looking promising. We need a heavyweight academic reference on this, because the religious police exist in many different forms, so we need to find an expert. I have some Third World Quarterly volumes here and they're very good on Islam; I'll look to see whether there's anything in them. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
The source is very anti-Islamic so that's why I used it. If any people would want to confirm the existence of mutaween in Islamic countries they would be the most anti-Islamic ones. By the way, I reworded the first sentence, tell me what you think.Yuber(talk) 23:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I think it was a complex revert; apparently you'll do anything to remove that wording. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
You seem to know something about complex reverts with your more than 20 reverts in the Jizya article.Yuber(talk) 00:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Nice attempt to deflect the question; you must have missed your own edit history on that page. Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
As have you, coming to this page to tell me I make complex reverts when you make them all the time.Yuber(talk) 00:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Come on, Yuber, play fair. You've deleted "exist in some Islamic countries" seven times today from the first sentence.

SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you're counting reverts that way, then I guess I'll have to list yours as well:

Yuber(talk) 00:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Don't cheat. The diff you're calling the 4th revert was me correcting a typo after you'd reverted yourself back to "exist in some Islamic countries." Instead of restoring the sentence, you reverted to an old version, which meant you deleted some material I'd just added about the number of police. So I had to go back into another version to retrieve it, and in doing that, I made a typo in the first sentence and corrected it. Look more carefully and you'll see what I mean. But this is what's wrong with reverting so much. Everyone gets confused and it's a complete waste of time. Let's try to find an academic reference we can all regard as authoritative and stick with what it says. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:56, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

No-one has explained to me yet why the sentence describing the mutaween existing in Saudi, Iran, and Nigeria instead of some Muslim countries is more POV. I'm not talking about Jayjg, by the way, as he just reverts any edits I make and hasn't provided any reasons for this article.Yuber(talk) 00:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
The reason I object to limiting it to these three countries is that there are religious police elsewhere too, with varying degrees of power. The sentence saying that they "exist in some Islamic countries" is more accurate, so far as I know. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
From what I've researched, the mutaween only exist officialy in Saudi, Iran, and Nigeria. It would be better to specify which Muslim countries we know for sure before we say "some". Also, what makes a country Muslim? Doesn't the wording countries with Muslim majorities sound better? Do we in this encyclopedia call America a Christian country?Yuber(talk) 01:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
But what's the sense in which Saudi Arabia is simply a country with a Muslim majority? It is in every sense an Islamic state with no tolerance of dissent, so I don't know see what benefit there is in the wording you suggest. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Fine, Iran and Saudi are Islamic states. But then you speak of Muslim countries. Are countries such as Lebanon that have a majority Muslim population but are very liberal compared to Saudi Arabia still considered Muslim countries? Where is the differentiation here? The first sentence of an article should be concise and accurate and this one is neither. It should describe specifically where the mutaween, or Islamic religious police, are found.Yuber(talk) 01:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree, but I think the whole introduction probably needs a slight rewrite, introducing very precisely which countries these police exist in, what they're called in those countries, what their various powers are, and very briefly summing up of the criticism made of them. That's more or less what it does now, but it would be nice to have more precision, as you say. That's why we need good academic sources. The journals I said I'd check here don't seem to have anything, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Here's an article about them in Malaysia. [6] Is the difference between us here that you would not want to call them religious police? Granted, they're not called police in Malaysia, but the courts appear to treat them as such and mete out punishments for the violations, so they're what I would call police. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:35, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well, that article states that the government restricted their powers after the latest incident. I'd have to check to see if they still have power. Also, if we are going to extend the definition of religious police to any Islamic cleric that can condemn things, then we'd have to include many more countries, including some European and central Asian ones. Not to mention, Malaysia isn't a religious theocracy, so that would have to be taken into account as well.Yuber(talk) 01:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, I'm going to assume good faith here, because it's starting to look as though you're being deliberately obtuse. The Malaysian govt is having to curb their power because they have power, including the power of arrest and detention. This is not equivalent to a Muslim cleric expressing an opinion in Europe, where they have no power whatsoever. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:37, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
No offense, but you're really misguided if you think Malaysia has mutaween the likes of Saudi and Iran. It is one of the more liberal Muslim countries. There are places in Europe where Islamic extremism exists, most notably Wahhabis in Bosnia and parts of Turkey.Yuber(talk) 02:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Read the article I linked to. I know that Malaysia is relatively liberal (though I have a girlfriend who lives there and the stres is on "relatively"), but these people do have the power of arrest and detention. It is not liberal by any standard I understand. And Turkey is not part of Europe. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Now you have opened up a whole new can of worms. I do not wish to debate with you that "Turkey is not part of Europe" for whatever reason.Yuber(talk) 03:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Then I'll clarify and say I was thinking of Western Europe when I wrote that clerics have no power there. It might help if you could say what you're defending here, or what POV you're trying either to inject or keep out. Are you defending the religious police, or are you trying to make the point that some/most Islamic countries are more liberal than Saudi Arabia? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:40, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
I despise the religious police but that's not why I'm editing this article. Reading through this article, one thinks that the actions of Saudi and Iranian religious police exist in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, etc... I can tell you that this is very far from the truth. You can socialize in Egypt without having a religious policeman come and break you up, you can wear whatever you want, etc etc.. Until this article can differentiate between Islamic clerics and actual restrictive religious police it reads in a very vague and generalizing way.Yuber(talk) 04:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Definition/Naming

As I research this topic more and more, I am coming to find that mutaween as the specific word is only applied to Saudi Arabian police and Nigerian police. Either this article should be moved to "Islamic religious police", or it should focus specifically on Saudi Arabian and Nigerian police.Yuber(talk) 02:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I chose to use the term mutaween throughout my edits of the article, because it seems to be a generic word for it. I'm not in the mood to offend overly sensitive types who might take offense at the western term "Islamic religious police". At the same time, however, I'm aware that someone might take the overt use of mutaween for the Saudi concept offensive. If you've got a better suggestion, please, by all means, feel free and change it. --Mitsukai 03:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

My understanding parellels Yubers; we have to keep in mind the local nature of government in traditional Islamic societies. Most important is not imposing our Western idiom of a separation of religion from state. I think all we have to do is follow what legal authority any sort of clerical enforcement of Sharia law exists, irregardless of who they draw their paychecks from. User:Nobs

Nobs, I don't quite follow what you mean about following what legal authority exists regardless of who pays them. Could you clarify? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Ok so far I see three types of religious police discussed in this article
  • Mutaween - these types exist in Iran and Saudi Arabia and have the power to make arrests and are very conservative, they are supported by the religiously theocratic government
  • Islamic clerics - these types exist in Egypt, Yemen, and Malaysia and don't have the power to make arrests as their power is limited by the government, all they can do is condemn things and such
  • Tribal clerics - these types exist in countries such as Nigeria where it is unclear to what level Islamic law exists

This is just a rough sketch of what I see. If the definition for religious police can be narrowed down it would be much better for this article.Yuber(talk) 03:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd say anyone with the power of arrest and detention can be called police, if sanctioned by the state, whether paid by the state or not. But that might be to miss the point, because they're not called police in most or any of these countries either. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:44, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Our understanding of "police" is of being employed by a governmental entity. It is being on the payroll that gives them authority, in our idiom. This is not necessarily so in an Islamic society. See Islamic Republic where it says "laws of the state are theoretically required to be compatible with the laws of Islam" (new Afghan govt included). If a cleric percieves that the state is either not making "laws compatible with Islam", or not enforcing "laws of Islam", these clerics simply enforce the laws themsleves, which, in the theory of an "Islamic state", is legal. Also, these (we would consider vigilanti) clerical enforcers can be highly localized, not necessarily acting at the discretion or control of a national government, and yet under that system, it is entirely legal. Nobs 03:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Extending the specifically Saudi term "mutaween" to refer to Iran's "religious police" goes beyond even original research; this is quite simply coining a neologism. An article under this title has no business talking about anything but the Saudis and the Saudi-inspired Nigerians. - 64.81.54.23 19:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

As you can see from what I wrote above, I used the term because I thought it to be a catchall. It is not coining a neologism, nor is it an attempt to offend anyone. And as I also stated, if you have a better term for it, by all means, feel free to suggest one. Part of this is to come up with a happy medium that will suit all needs.--Mitsukai 20:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

From the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions:

During the 19th cent., the Wahhābīs in alliance with the Saūd family began to expand territorially. Within the new kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Wahhābīs became dominant in conservative control, introducing mutawwiūn, ‘enforcers of obedience’, a kind of private religious police, monitoring not only public but also private conformity to Islam (since before Allāh there is no distinction between private and public).[7] Nobs 21:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is the full citation from Oxford source:
Wahhābīya. An ultra-conservative, puritanical Muslim movement adhering to the Hanbalite law, although it regards itself as ghair muqallidīn, non-adherent to parties, but defending truth. It arose in Najd in the Arabian peninsula during the 18th cent. Its founder, Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhāb (1703–87 (AH 1115–1201)) found a champion in the tribal leader Muhammad ibn Sa'ūd of the Dar'iya region, and from then on the Saudis became the main supporters of the movement. They believe that the Muslims have abandoned their faith in One God (tawhid) and have distorted Islam through innovations ( bid'a) which run counter to pure Islam. The Wahhābīs accept only the Qur'ān and the authentic Sunna, and all Muslims who do not accept their creed are regarded as heretics, especially the Shī'a, who are considered as archenemies of Islam.
During the 19th cent., the Wahhābīs in alliance with the Sa'ūd family began to expand territorially. Within the new kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Wahhābīs became dominant in conservative control, introducing mutawwiūn, ‘enforcers of obedience’ a kind of private religious police, monitoring not only public but also private conformity to Islam (since before Allāh there is no distinction between private and public).
How to cite this entry:"Wahhābīya" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of New Mexico. 25 May 2005 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t101.e7882>
Comment: The "mutawwiūn" entry says "see Wahhābīya" thus I quoted it at length. It appears safe to say "mutawwiūn originated in the Wahhabi sect", even if today they exist among other sects; further, it appears they are adamantly hostile to the Shia sect, thus some revision or more careful research may have to be applied in the cases of Iran so-called "religious police" and also among Iraqi Shias. Also, it may be safe to conclude "religious police" (and "clerical police") is a journalistic invention for non-Islamic consumption, and ‘enforcers of obedience’ is more correct. An ambiguity remains about "monitoring not only public but also private conformity to Islam (since before Allāh there is no distinction between private and public)." Does this refer to Government vs Private person, or public vs private conduct; I suspect both. Their authority, it seems, comes not from the state (a pure Western understanding of Law). It is rooted in the Hanbalite and Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law. Enforcement powers do not require the backing of a national state government entity, or prince etc; enforcement power comes from the Koran, i.e. Allah himself as spoken through his Prophet Mohammad. Nobs 15:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Opening

I changed the opening from "Islamic countries" to "Islamist countries" to make it clear that it is mostly the more militant Islamic nations that feature this institution, not necessarily just nations with a Muslim majority. Are there objections to this wording? Firebug 05:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I like most of your changes, Firebug, but we need a reference before we can state categorically that the mutaween exist in only these three countries officially, and we'd have to say what we mean by "officially." SlimVirgin (talk) 06:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I used the list of three nations because it was already in the text. Sourcing would definitely be helpful. I would use "officially" to mean "with governmental sanction", but I don't know if that is what is being described here. Firebug 06:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Mutaween, it appears is the name of a bureau in the Saudi government. I think what we are seeking is the basis in Islamic law that allows such a tradition to exist, essentially vigilanti clerical enforcers (and it may not be limited to clerics) performing amputations etc, simply because they are appointed judge, jury and executioner and are filling the void created when a weak national government fails to enforce Islamic laws. And the national government (1) being weak is powerless to act against them (2) fears acting against them would only validate the government are un-Islamic. Clearly this is a tradition of Islam that is more powerful than any statutory or constitutional law. Nobs 16:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
It is not traditional Islam to have mutaween. If mutaween indeed do originate from Wahhabism as you claim, then it is a very new thing. All I'm looking for is the source of this claim.Yuber(talk) 22:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Source material I used is cited above from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. It is my imression over time from observations that (1) mutawwiūn or mutaween originated in the Wahabbi sect; (2) for the most part exist only among adherents to Wahabbism; (3) were created precisely to enforce the Wahabbi brand of Islam; (4) do not require secular or state authority to back them (5) are properly defined as ‘enforcers of obedience’ to the Wahabbi brand of Islam; (6) "religious or clerical police" is a Western journalistic invention to explain the phenomenea to a Western readership. This is done for two purposes: (a) to reduce a large and complex subject regarding Islamic law, traditions, and Wahabbism to few simple words Westerners can understand, and (b) to belittle traditions Western journalists have limited understanding or sympathy for. The fact that Saudi Arabia has large economic resources available to it and has a close relationship with the United States that has led to its national government constructing somewhat of a Western style bureaucracy in no way should be confused with the idea of a state run, state funded, stated empowered police force. Under the doctrines of Wahabbism, this phenomenea of enforcers of Islamic law (as interpreted by Wahabbis) would exist with or without a central government budget funding these operatives. Their authority does not come from the government of Saudi Arabia (or any man-made institution); it comes from Allah. Nobs 23:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
That is a POV statement. The Mutaween's authority does not come from God, it comes from the government. If it did come from God then all Muslim countries would have mutaween, however, only a minority have them.Yuber(talk) 23:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
From U.S. Department of Commerce: There is no written constitution. There is no concept of the separation of religion and state. The Government enforces adherence to the precepts of a rigorously conservative form of Islam[mdash]a position that enjoys near-consensus support among Saudi citizens. The Mutawwain, or religious police, enforce adherence to Islamic norms by monitoring public behavior. [8] Nobs 23:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but their authority does not come from "allah", their authority comes from the Saudi government in which there is no concept of the separation of religion and state. The mutaween are a man-made institution and they get their power from a man-made institution. If their power did come from God then all countries with Muslim majorities would have mutaween, which is certainly not the case. But once again, this all belongs in the Saudi mutaween section of the article.Yuber(talk) 23:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Their "authority", such as it is, stems from the same source as that of the Gestapo. They rule by fear, and legalities have nothing to do with it. They exercise powers delegated to them by a medieval monarchy.

I still think this article fails to grasp what mutawwain are and imposes a Western cultural and Anglo-American POV (I prefer the term "idiom" to POV) upon the concept.Nobs01 21:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problems

What the article fails to address is

  • mutawwain are more than just police (in the Western cultural bias sense) as they are presented; they often exercise judicial powers (in the Western sense) and act as executioners (judge, jury & executioner)
  • they perform their duties often with public popular support, based on whatever local society they function in, as being the true interpreters of Wahhabi Islam. In otherwords, they are not simply the dictatorial arm of an oppressive regime, as the article implies.
  • mutawwain clearly is the enforcement arm of Wahhabi Islam.
  • There is no separation of church and state in Islam; the Sa'ud ruling klan are the servents of Allah, hence mutawwain derive their "just powers" from Allah as spoken through the mouth of his Prophet Mohammad. Their legal authority does not derive from the state.

Perhaps if the article separated all references to how they function in the various nation states named in the opening (in otherwords, make no reference to any individual country in the opening), and gave a simple, clearcut, straightforward definition of what it is and where they came from, then proceeded on a case by case basis what is known and reported. The problem seems to be that because Saudi Arabia is a filthy stinking rich country (compared to other dirt poor ones) where mutawwain operate, the government of Saudi Arabia has funded something resembling an official government bureau, with a budget, and automobiles etc. But none of that is what gives the mutawwain their legal authority. Nobs01 01:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd have to say that the whole idea of a "legal" authority in Saudi Arabia is rather absurd. It is a country ruled by a dynasty which obtained its power through conquest. The people of the Arabian Peninsula have never had an opportunity to choose legitimate leaders.
Anon uses "opportunity to choose"; Question to Anon: Can you cite a time when there was ever a indigent democratic movement within the Arabian Penninsula before you bring such obvious Western & Anglocentic POV to this discussion? Thank you. nobs 16:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
As I'm sure you know, the Arabs of the peninsula have never had a legitimately constituted government which ruled by the consent of the people. Does this sad fact somehow excuse the house of Saud? BTW, if you consider democracy to be "Western and Anglocentric", then you must have a very low opinion of the rest of the world.{{unsigned|Anon|}
Let's ask the question again: In the 1400 year history of Islamic domination of the Arabian Peninsula, name one person with a popular profile who stood for democratic elections to establish a "legitimately constituted government" that would "rule by the consent of the people". Thank you. nobs 16:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what you're tryijng to insinuate here. Are you suggesting that Arabs aren't entitled to liberty and self-determination, or that they are somehow incapable of having a post-medieval civilization?
No. The question is specific: Name one person with a popular profile who stood for democratic elections to establish a "legitimately constituted government" that would "rule by the consent of the people", or was an outspoken advocate of human rights. nobs 16:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Can you define a "popular profile"? Any number of Arab dissidents living under socialist, fascist, royalist or theocratic dictatorships have called for democracy at one time or another, going back to at least WW I. Some of them meant it, some of them didn't.

NPOV Tag

I have added an NPOV to this article. The reason why is because we've reached a point where there are edit wars and somewhat viceral reactions in this. Some of us are trying to reach a neutral point of view, and others are doing the same, but we've reached the point where cultural differences are hammering what each others' though of neutrality is - what one person might think is neutral is "flagrantly pro-Western culturally biased" or some such; vice versa in other cases.

I think we need to get some others in on this as well. Maybe request some assistance from someone (aside from myself) who's working in the Eastern disciplines?

Oh, and not naming names, but there's someone involved in this that really needs to check out Wikipedia:Wikiquette because we're trying to work on an article here, not get involved in the "Great Clash of Cultures/Neo-Crusades/insert jingoistic catchprase here" --Mitsukai 00:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree we need input from a non-Western cultural standpoint. "Clerical police", while discriptive, is no more than a journalistic phrase invented by non-Islamic newsreporters trying to explain a phenomenea to a Western readership in a language they understand; it is a shortcut that attempts to explain Islamic, Law, religion, tradition and a host of other social phenomenea in bumpersticker like soundbyte.Nobs01 00:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this article is very slanted. It describes a pack of murderous theocrats who would drive innocent children into a burning building as if they were no more evil than traffic cops. One might as well call the sturmabteilung a youth-oriented athletic club. The Mutaween are thugs. If they enjoy popular support, so what? So did the brownshirts.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mutaween/Archive_1&oldid=1057708832"