I’m at the Reason in Amsterdam weekend and greatly enjoying the discussions and the camaraderie. My afternoon panel was a cordial debate on “Freedom and Jihad” with a Danish critic of Islamism (but not only that, but of Islam), Helle Brix. The exchange was, I hope, enlightening.
I argued that it would not do to define Islam as inherently illiberal; it’s a contested issue and I believe that it’s presumptuous to tell other people what their religion means. Ms. Brix both proclaimed Islam to be inherently illiberal and then asserted her willingness to work with liberal Muslims. I don’t think I made it quite clear enough that that is an incoherent position; if Islam is inherently illiberal (i.e., if she endorses the interpretation of the religion offered by radical political Islamists), then there are no liberal Muslims, for if they are liberal, they aren’t Muslims, and if they are Muslims, they aren’t liberal. I favor working with liberal Muslims to help them in their struggle for freedom and toleration, whereas she implicitly suggested a war with Islam. (Her book is titled Islam’s Colonization of the West and she concluded her presentation with a call to a “battle,” which I said, given her remarks about “Islam’s Colonization,” could only mean a battle with Islam, not with intolerant interpretations.) When Christians were burning infidels at the stake and waging pogroms against Jews, would one have concluded that Christianity is inherently incompatible with freedom? Would the right response to the killing undertaken in the name of the Christian faith have been to declare war on Christianity, or would it have been to help Christians who interpreted their religion as demanding toleration and freedom to promote their view of the religion?
I’ve been trying to upload my Powerpoint notes (in both Powerpoint and PDF formats), but I’ve failed completely, so far. I hope to have the presentation posted soon.
P.S. A really excellent book, which I have endorsed before, is Perez Zagorin’s How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West.
Tom – I look forward to your slides. One “structural” difference between Islam and Christianity which makes Christianity more susceptible to liberalization is the difference between the Bible and the Koran. In the Bible, the Old Testament is clearly the product of multiple authors using a variety of literary styles; and the New Testament is just as clearly the product of numerous authors often in a highly personal form of epistle, some of which are depicted disagreeing about what is “the law” (e.g., Peter and Paul arguing over adherence to Judaic law, whether to bother converting Gentiles, etc). Different denominations solve issues of interpretation and authority in a variety of fashions, with most Christians embracing a non-literalist model. When laity gained access to the Scripture in all its complexity and messiness (through the combo of increased general literacy, vernacular translations, and wider availability of printed materials), Reformation follows (not so nicely, but generally speaking). My thesis is that the obvious interpretive issues surrounding the Bible make a broad spectrum of “reasonable readings” possible, even if Christians vehemently disagreed, did lots of awful things to one another, and took until the 20th century to really get ecumenical intellectually even after the bad behavior stopped. With the Koran being received as the literal word of God revealed to a single prophet, Islam strikes me as having less inherent flexibility, a narrowwer spectrum of “reasonable readings.” Would love to hear your thoughts on this. Enjoy Amsterdam!
Tadd: you’re absolutely right. The fact that Muslims believe the Qur’an to be the literal word of God makes it harder to have as wide a range of interpretations as if it were, like the Bible, a text that was written by men.
On the other hand, the lack of a clergy also means that there is no official entity that can determine what is the correct interpretation, which means anyone is free to act on their own opinion on any religious matter. Of course, this unfortunately means that Osama bin Laden is as entitled as anyone to provide his own interpretation of the religion.
This is why I don’t believe there’s anything inherently illiberal about Islam: while the book itself is more authoritative because of its provenance, illiberal Muslims can’t claim to have be more “correct” than liberals in their interpretations. It’s their political and economic rhetoric that resonates with people, and why their interpretations are given respect. Without the grievances, the bin Ladens of the world would continue to preach but their words would fall on deaf ears. In my opinion, of course, for what that’s worth.
Adam – That’s a good point on absence of clergy (or at least centrally-controlled clergy). Pre-Reformation Christianity certainly had strong, hierarchical entities in the Western and Eastern churches which exercised control over clergy to varying degrees, and were usually the only game in town in their geographies with some interesting exceptions (like the early Church in England, which was more Celtic than Roman before being more tightly integrated into the Roman hierarchy). Even post-Reformation, uniformity in many areas was enforced by the territorial ruler. Today clerical uniformity varies tremendously, particularly in the US, where Roman priests and bishops sometimes take stances publicly contra the hierarchy, or in the Episcopal Church, where many individual priests in their theology fall outside the bounds of traditional Christianity altogether.
Here’s the money question, though – is Islam theologically open to something like a reformation? Not that reformation = liberalization, but for Western Christianity at least it seemed a necessary step. Another question – would individual Muslims/identifiable segments thereof be open to such a development?
Tadd: I don’t understand your thesis. How does the multiple authorship of the Bible lend itself to liberal interpretation more than the (alleged) single authorship of the Koran?
Both books are supposedly the literal word of God; both books are unclear, even contradictory, and require substantial interpretation.
I think that with these books, whether they are interpreted liberally or illiberally tends to depend on whether they are being read by the liberal or the illiberal, and the resulting interpretations are based less on what the books say that what the believers want them to say.
Tadd: I don’t understand your thesis. How does the multiple authorship of the Bible lend itself to liberal interpretation more than the (alleged) single authorship of the Koran?
Both books are supposedly the literal word of God; both books are unclear, even contradictory, and require substantial interpretation.
I think that with these books, whether they are interpreted liberally or illiberally tends to depend on whether they are being read by the liberal or the illiberal, and the resulting interpretations are based less on what the books say that what the believers want them to say.
Tadd, I agree with you 99%. I recommend you both an article that touches the issues you’ve raised about Islam and Christianity.
There are many nuances within Islam that worth to be discussed, but basically our values which are of Christian inspiration are not compatible with Islamic goals, regardless of the school of thought, or interpretation.
Islam’s Trajectory by David Forte
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/islams_trajectory.html
Tadd, I agree with you 99%. I recommend you both an article that touches the issues you’ve raised about Islam and Christianity.
There are nuances within Islam that worth to be discussed, but basically our values which are of Christian inspiration are not compatible with Islamic goals, regardless of the school of thought, or interpretation.
Islam’s Trajectory by David Forte
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/islams_trajectory.html
Without rehashing the debate about Islam, I’d like to argue against the so-called contradiction. One can use the words Islam or Muslim in a narrow sense or wide sense. I often used the word Islam to mean the doctrines of Mohammad as found in the Koran, Hadith, and Sira. But I use the word Muslim to refer to a demographic group regardless if they actually practice the religion or practice it only partially or even if they don’t practice it at all. For example my Almanac says that Turkey is 99.8% Muslim. For many this is just a nominal label.
Thus, there is no contradiction. There is philosophy and there is sociology. In one subject the word many mean the doctrines and required practices. In the other subject it is merely a nominal label still used by people whose ancestors took the religion seriously and also used by the devout who still do.
The most important thing is that we see different kinds of people. And some are open to our ideals. We may never agree on what the doctrines mean just as they may never agree with each other. But we needn’t be shy about coming to conclusions from reading the texts.
Maha: Thanks for the reference – will check it out.
Charles: My theses were that: a) since both religions have a source of authority in particular books, the nature of those books might give us some insights into how flexible each religion is; and b) since the Bible’s authorship (relative to the Koran) is more diverse with respect to time, literary form, and particular authors, it could give Christianity more flexibility than Islam because there are more ways to “read” Christianity. Nothing here is air-tight because I’m struggling a bit with how to articulate the question.
I am not making the case with regard to either religion that their founding books account for all differences.
I agree with you that people tend to interpret Scripture according to their predilections. I disagree, however, with the blanket statement that the Bible is “supposedly the literal word of God” in the same way the Koran is. The Koran claims to be God’s revelation via Gabriel to the Prophet, dictated without fail. While the Bible includes some quotes attributed directly to God and to Christ, the majority of it is not written as if dictated by God. And the range of denominations readily identifiable as Christian have a range of opinions on how to interpret Scripture: some take it as readable as the literal word of God, as you said; but most do not – certainly Roman Catholics are not literalists, nor are most mainline Protestants. Most use terms like inspired, or God-breathed.
Let me try expressing my point a different way: if Islam’s holy book had multiple authors and had been written over a longer time period (centuries), my hypothesis is that Islam would be a less uniform religion that it is now – within constraints, in the same way Christianity is diverse within constraints.
The underlying question is: How possible is it to have a tolerant strain of Islam?
PS. I recommend reading the link in Maha’s post. The author (who I think would disagree with my hypothesis) locates the source of Islam’s intolerance/inflexibility in subsequent interpretation/elaboration by various schools of thought that produced Islamic law. Thanks for the link, Maha.
Tom, you said:
“I argued that it would not do to define Islam as inherently illiberal; it’s a contested issue and I believe that it’s presumptuous to tell other people what their religion means.”
I’m not sure if I buy that argument, on various levels:
1) In principle, if someone has researched an issue thoroughly and then come to a conclusion, is this really being presumptuous (in the sense of “presuming something to be true”)? While I don’t know anything about Helle Brix and her work, I would include that condition in determining if she has been presumptuous.
2) If you meant presumptuous in the sense of her being an outsider, I would strongly object. Must someone be part of a group to criticise it, even in such a strong manner? When you did your work when communism was still in force, how would you have reacted if someone had told you that you couldn’t define “their” communism or “their” Soviet state (for example) in a similar way? Similarly, if a non-libertarian studied libertarianism and categorised it as (say) inherently unworkable, would their position outside the libertarian camp render their opinion excludable?
3) Even if it is a “contested issue” I don’t see why someone can’t have definite ideas on an issue, assuming that their ideas have been subjected to some rigorous thinking.
Hi Dr.Palmer,
I posted a comment before on your Ibn Rushd presentation. Just in case you haven’t read it, I wanted to say that it was a delight to meet you, and that i enjoyed listening to your presentations. As for Islam and freedom, i think it’s a mistake to identify Islam with fundamentalism; Radicals, so eagerly sought after by media news outlets, show nothing of the tolerance and freedom Islam have always preached. The Meddina constitution, for instance, treated the protection of non-muslim minorities, namely, the Jews and the Pagans who lived in the same community. They were governed by their own laws and treated according to the principle “let there be no compulsion in religion”Surah2;256. Islam encourages tolerance-outside Islam and within it. Before the Saudi Wahhabi rule in 1932, Mecca was open and cosmopolitan. Followers of the four Sunni schools of thoughts, along with Shai, Ismaelis, Zaydis..etc and people of different ethnicities-Turks, Moroccans, Indians…etc- all acknowledged their differences, but could identify with one source- the Koran.
Whether Individual Muslims or Islam itself espouses development; I think it does. In the period between the eighth and the fifteenth centuries Muslims were engaged in a world-wide economy where they not only exchanges goods, but also ideas. They freely produced and circulated literature including pre-islamic Hindu, Greek, and Persian work.If Islam alone ensured prosperity, why open up to others? It’s because early Muslims realized that for them to develop, it’s essential to share and be open to what others might come up with. At least i know that, as a Muslim individual, i’m open for such developements.
Islam cannot be moderate — well, not moderate according to our principles and values.
The Holy Qu’ran is all of divine inspiration; it is the word of God (literally) and it is not like we can pick up some verses that we agree with, and ignore others which advocate the slain of all infidels. It just does not work like this.
Aside from that, there is a high level of prejudice and hatred towards the non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians.
We often talk about the need to reform Islam, but as I see the events today, that will have to wait. Like 100 years or more. Muslims had to pass through a horrific era (like Inquisition and play the Crusaders role — actually repeating our steps in history) and when they’ll had enough blood on their hands, only then will a new enlighten generation rise.
A reformation of Islam will have to touch the following:
-empowerment of women in Muslim countries
-willingness of Muslims living in the West to speak in favor of secular values, but the question that rises is: are they still true, faithful Muslims?
People like Irshad Manji, Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie are living targets. I can tell you what a very knowledgeable, absolutely brilliant Muslim friend of mine once told me about Irshad and people such as her. He said (I cannot remember the exact words but this was the idea)– subduing to injustices is not moderation; it is weakness that no one can tolerate. We are followers of Allah, and who are you to mess with our God and to tell us what is right and what’s wrong?! — so, I think it is pure fantasy to think Islam in terms of liberal and moderate for the time being.
Dear Maha,
I am very much curious if you have any intellectual ability to prove your below statements with facts (not your opinion, i ask facts plz!) from real sources of Islam.
1 “Islam cannot be moderate — well, not moderate according to our principles and values.” What are your principles? if it is liberty, freedom and so on, how do you confidently say that it is only YOUR principles, not the others as well? Show Evidence!
2 “there is a high level of prejudice and hatred towards the non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians.” Really? Did you read it in Quran? Show Evidence
3 “Like 100 years or more. Muslims had to pass through a horrific era (like Inquisition and play the Crusaders role — actually repeating our steps in history) and when they’ll had enough blood on their hands, only then will a new enlighten generation rise.” – How do you know that? You dont see any christian-caused warfare anymore like in Serbia, etc.? How do you assure this recipe for Muslims? Show Evidence!
Finally, I thank Marwa for her great description of Islam which I absolutely agree.
(Apologies for mistakes, write this in a very rush…)
I’m sure we’ve all seen lists of Koranic verses that are at their core anti-western or anti-Enlightenment, or that promote violence (cf. http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/verses.html).
Can someone more familiar with the subject point to other Koranic verses that could support a move toward liberalism and tolerance, or a post-Enlightenment worldview? I’d think that to be anywhere near successful, such a reform movement would have to have some basis in Islam itself. I’m assuming sch verses are in there somewhere, so which could be cited as Koranic evidence that reform is theologically sound?
“Can someone more familiar with the subject point to other Koranic verses that could support a move toward liberalism and tolerance, or a post-Enlightenment worldview?”
You could start with the second verse that says “there is no compulsion in religion.” That’s the first thing off the top of my head…
My impression was that people who send their comments speak their own mind. I have lived and studied with Muslims, heard sermons and since I am not a religious person I build my opinions on facts. For me facts speak louder than words.
It is sufficient to observe Muslim behavior in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, London, Michigan, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, etc. to see what Islam teachings are. I did say that there are more than one interpretation of the Qu’ran, Hadith and Sunnah — personally, the Sufis seem to be less dangerous emphasizing a predominantly mystic approach to religion — thus lots of nuances, but in the end the message cannot be ignored.
I think that you may enjoy Fred Halliday writings (Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics, by Ann Elizabeth Mayer, Westview Press: Boulder, 1999, review of the book by Reza Afshari, Professor of History, Pace University published in Human Rights Quarterly 22.1 (2000) 314-322), who said that, “The central issue is not, therefore, one of finding some more liberal, or compatible, interpretation of Islamic thinking, but of removing the discussion of rights from the claims of religion itself.”
This idea may prove to be very interesting to follow, with one crucial inconvenience — in a state governed by Sharia Law, Islam organizes the private, political, social and economic life of believers. There is nothing outside Islam. Hence the principles I so much cherish (liberty of speech, separation of state and the church, equal rights and respect for men and women, the right to be a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, right to change my religion, and many, many other issues as important as the above) are not possible in Islam.
Read the Qu’ran/Hadith yourself; I’d recommend the version translated by Maulana Muhammad Ali.
It is time for me to enjoy the week-end away from discussions on Jihadists 🙂
“There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!” Hadith, Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985. As far as I can remember Georges Vajda (Juifs et Musulmans selon le Hadit) has wrote extensively about the Hadith parts that directly mentions the Jews and Christians. I have copies of his essay, but not on me. Look it in a library.
Treatise on jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21353
Women as Seen in Islam (there are plenty of verses )http://www.middleastwomen.org/html/womenaseen.htm
Maulana Maududi (also Sayyed Qutb, Hassan Al Banna) said Islam is in itself liberty, freedom, you name it. No need to seek knowledge outside it.
Try this article as well, I do not agree with all the opinions expressed in it, but it’s a pretty good reading.
http://www.policyreview.org/feb05/gould.html
That one is pretty vague, and even if taken to heart its reach seems pretty narrow.
When you throw in the contradictory passages that come to mind (e.g., “Fight against [the unbelievers] until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme,” and “Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not”), it becomes even less convincing.
I’m sure there are other, better verses, because if that verse is all we have to go on, we don’t have much.
No passage of a religious book interprets itself or even reads itself. Context matters. I suggest that plucking passages out of context is not what textual criticism or interpretation is about.
Dr. Palmer says that it is a “contested question” whether Islam is compatible with liberty. If anyone contests it – and it seems like people are contesting it – it’s contested. Since I know people who are Muslims (or at least they claim to be Muslims and the claims are pretty convincing) who are moderate, tolerant, freedom-loving people, it seems to me at least UNobvious that Islam is incompatible with freedom, or that, as Maha states, “Islam cannot be moderate — well, not moderate according to our principles and values.”
I wouldn’t condemn Christianity wholesale because I had been to a convention of the religious right and heard the speakers rant against gays and call for them to be imprisoned. For the same reason I have an open mind about Islam and don’t condemn Muslims because some who are Muslims or claim to be Muslims do and say terrible things — often to other Muslims.
The question isn’t whether some people are mosconstruing Islam. Rather, the question is: do the tenets of the faith allow for liberalism, such that a practicing Muslim–following the dictates of the Koran–can be a moderate, or promoe liberal ideas?
Certainly there are “Muslims” who are also liberal. But they might be Muslims because they grew up that way, because their families and neighbors are, and because that’s the culture they know best, while not actually practicing what the faith requires. They might have, as Dan Dennett says, a “belief in belief” rather than a true, strict belief in Allah’s teachings. In other words, they might publicly acknowledge Allah as the one true God, and recognize that belief in Allah is superior to lack of belief, but they don’t organize their lives around Islam the way, say, a suicide bomber might.
That’s the question. And it’s apparently pretty otly contested. But it is fundamentally incorrect to say that it’s a contradiction to argue that Islam is inherently illiberal, but that there are some liberal Muslims. The question turns on how one defines “Muslim.”
I think Richard Pryor can solve this one for us. Back in 1982, he made this observation:
“You have Muslims….then you have Double Muslims. Double Muslims, them’s the ones you don’t want to fuck with–dem double Muslims. ‘Cause them motherfuckers can’t wait to get to Allah. And want to take eight or nine motherfuckers with ’em.”
So we might be able to work with “Muslims,” but never “Double Muslims.”
Pardon the language, but that’s Richard Pryor…
i spend about 15 years of my age studying at alazhar institution , i study sharia and law for 2 years before dismissing me from alazhar university , and all my studyings before was in alazhar relegious institutes in egypt ..
i prefered to initiate with this to explain somethings may be not shown to some people who do not know much informations about islam ( i mean definitly islamic jeurisprudence which muhammad says that it can be applicated in any period or place !! ) .
we can accept islam as relegious beliefs , we have not the right to prevent muslims to pray to their god , but in the same time , we must not allow them to obligate others to follow islam , in islamic jeurisprudence , nonmuslims is not equal to muslims , if they do not believe in islam must pay some taxes ( called jezeyah in arabic language ) , they have not the same rights granted to muslims , if muslim man kill nonmuslim ( in the islamic state ) he will not punished as if he kill the muslim , he may pay compensation to his relatives , but it forbids to punish muslim by excuting him if he kill nonmuslim ( if muslim kill muslim ntentionally , he must punished by excuting in islamic shari3ah ) …
i do not write from my mind , we study it when i was in alazhar , and if i can write well in english i will be explain well , so forgive me for that .
i see the solution in complete seperation between relegion and life , that regardless islam is courage terrourism or not , regardless islam law treat women bad or good , regardless islam accept the others who is different or not , we must blieve that the suitable place for relegions in the worship places , outside it , we must forget that we are relegious , we must deal with each others outside this worship places with the civil laws which not distinct between people in any basis …
Hi Tom –
Such a position is not incoherent if Islam punishes apostasy with death and the liberal Muslim in question dares not leave Islam.
I personally hope that this not the case for Islam. It does appear to be true for certain current brands of Islam.
The punishment of apostasy makes any religion deeply illiberal, particularly when the penalty is death or the loss of one’s children.
One straightforward measure of the success in the efforts to effect a “liberal reformation of Islam”, such as Irshad Manji’s Project Ijtihad, would be to gauge what percentage of the Muslim world believe in punishing apostasy. Some would say that this is an insignificant percentage. The recent cases in Afghanistan and Malaysia belie this notion.
This is the new Berlin Wall.
I get the feeling, particularly from the Malaysian case involving Lina Joy, that there is a fear that a liberal decision would open the floodgates.
Directing this criticism closer to home, I would also suggest that there are brands of libertarianism that are illiberal for similar reasons. Once one buys into the notion that selling yourself into slavery is okay, out of a misguided notion of self-ownership, the line’s been crossed. There are even new forms of “left-libertarianism” that have explicitly bought into this unholy mutation.
Maha, I think you are engaging in proof by example — but this doesn’t work for establishing a general principle. You’re correct that there are illiberal Muslims and illiberal Islam — but no matter how many times this is shown it doesn’t establish the impossibility of liberal versions.
On the other hand, the example of Marwa (above) shows that liberal Islam is possible. Similarly, note Jason’s observation that the vast majority of Turks are Muslims and seem more interested in joining the EU than destroying it. Jason and I may argue over “liberal Muslim vs. lax Muslim,” but the larger point is that Muslims can indeed develop versions of their religion compatible with a free society.
Tadd, I think I get your point — but am still not sure I agree. I think the diversity in Christianity derives from historical factors, not from the various authors of its Bible. The geographic separation of the Church, the breakup in the Great Schism, and the Reformation are good examples. I don’t think the various authorship played a fundamental role. And the things that liberalized Christianity were the introduction of Aristotelianism (by the Scholastics, but thanks only to the Muslims, who preserved Aristotle), and most especially the Enlightenment, which began carving out a secular world that constrained the dominance of religion and the church.
I think, BTW, that Islam is less homogeneous than we in the west often think.
At any rate, the Islamic world would benefit from an Enlightenment; it certainly is not impossible to develop interpretations of Islam that are compatible with libertarianism, and that’s useful work.
Personally, I would like to see *all* revealed religions debunked and forgotten, and doing that is also useful work. But there’s nothing special about Islam in this regard.
Christianity is inherently liberal by the foundation of its beliefs. Some Christians choose/chose to act contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Islam is inherently illiberal, as were the teachings of Mohammad.
Marxism was inherently illiberal based on the teachings of Marx.
This isn’t rocket science. Are you trying for PR or a rational argument?
Anonymous writes: “Christianity is inherently liberal by the foundation of its beliefs. Some Christians choose/chose to act contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Islam is inherently illiberal, as were the teachings of Mohammad.
Marxism was inherently illiberal based on the teachings of Marx.
This isn’t rocket science. Are you trying for PR or a rational argument?”
Anonymous, your argument is indeed not rocket science. And I appreciate your interpretation of Jesus teachings — but it’s an interpretation. Other interpretations find something quite different. You could go to [www.reformed-theology.org] for an extreme example of illiberalism based on the literal words of Jesus and the rest of the Bible.
It isn’t even clear which alleged Gospels are the real words of Jesus, if any. Which books count as the Bible (including the Gospels) wasn’t even determined until around AD 400.
The Bible, including the alleged words of Jesus, is an unclear book, containing apparent contradictions, and requiring a great deal of interpretation to make any sense of it.
This is true for the Koran as well (although there may be less doubt about the canon). And there are Muslims who interpret the Koran as being libertarian, and argue that readers who think otherwise are misunderstanding what is written.
And it isn’t even clear that current versions are of the Koran are faithful to what was written — e.g. the argument from language scholar “Christoph Luxenberg” re virgins vs. raisins.
In short, the case is hardly so clear cut as you claim.
Charles, I believe that if a reformation of Islam will take place (similar with the Enlightenment)then we may see some form of arab/muslim liberalism flourishing. For the time being, those who adhere to Western type of liberalism are accused of not being true belivers. It is a tough subject, with pros and cons, but in the end Muslim actions show us what their belief, goals, etc are.
Casey: apostasy and homosexuality carry the dead punishment in Islam, period. If you follow the Sharia law, there is no way you can avoid it. So once again the question that arises is: when is one a good Muslim?
Charles – Agree you are right about other factors contributing more to Christian diversity. More original point was just speculating about whether the structure of the two foundational books sheds any light on their flexibility. I think the answer is “maybe, but weakly compared to other forces.” And, as you note, Islam appears to have some diversity, which presents opportunities to strengthen the hand of those with a point of view that is friendly to liberty.
Interesting article on a US-based Muslim organization electing a woman to leadership:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/religion/cst-nws-muslim29.html
I disagree about revealed religions being debunked, however. Without getting into whether they are true or not, from the standpoint of advancing liberty, I think we will have better luck showing people that (a) their beliefs contain threads of thought friendly to liberty and (b) as a practical matter they can co-exist in civil society with others who believe differently. A good change management formula from the business world is “empower those who support, convert those who are in-play, and weaken those opposed.” Convincing people that to abandon their religion takes too long and doesn’t guarantee they will come out of that process as friends.
Hi Adam, you said that you’d like to know about other knoranic verses that preach tolerance and understanding. Verses like “let there be no compulsion in religion”.
There is a verse that reads as follows:
“If it had been the Lord’s Will, they would all have believed- all who are on earth: will you then (Muhammad) compel mankind, against their will, to believe?” Qur’an, 10: 99. This verse teaches that religion belief depends on people’s free-will and choice.
Another one:
“O humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know and deal with each other in kindness (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God (is he who is) the most righteous of you, and God is Knower, Aware.” Qur’an, 49:13. The verse states that people were created differently so that they deal with and understand each other; not bombard one another.
Another one goes like:
“If any one kill a person, it would be as if he kill the whole people, and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole people.” Qur’an, 5:32 Islam does not preach violence. It harshly condemns the killing of any indivdual -irrespective of her or his religion- by equating the act to the slaying of all mankind.There some other verses, but i won’t mention them all. Hadiths (oral traditions concerning the words and actions of Muhammed) are also as authoritative as the Koran. There is a hadith recorded by Bukhari in the name of Amer Bin Rabiha. It reads as follows:
Once the Prophet was seated at some place in Madinah, along with his Companions. During this time a funeral procession passed by. On seeing this, the Prophet stood up. One of his Companion remarked that the funeral was that of a Jew. The Prophet replied, “Was he not a human being?” the hadith shows that before anything else, an individual is honored by his or her humanity regardless of religious affiliation.
Yes, there are some verses that may seem anti-western or may seem to preach violence. It should be noted, however, that, as with passages in the Torah and Bible, each verse has a historical context. Some of the verses were revealed addressing specific people or specific issues current to that time of history, while others were revealed addressing general principle or matter applicable to every time and place. I’d very much like to give an example, but i don’t have the space to develop all my ideas. I do ecnourage you, however, to check the fllowing web-site:
http://www.isalmic-study.org
under the headline
Qur’anic misinterpreted verses.
Hope this will clear away any misconceptions
Marwa
Tadd: I now think there’s more to your contention about Christianity vs. Islam than I initially believed. In framing my own arguments against you I started realizing this: after all, there was considerable dispute simply determining which books constitute the Bible, hence a tradition of debate and questioning whether Christians wanted it or not.
As for debunking — I agree it isn’t the way to promote libertarian ideas. And I think establishing a general respect around the world for liberty is a necessary and probably sufficient condition for human civilization to flourish.
That said, I think religious thinking is the source of enormous confusion and harm, and humans will be much better off by shedding mystical dogmas and replacing them with reason & truth. And in fact, I think this will occur, slowly, if there’s sufficient freedom of thought and action.
Marwa: good comments. The point ought to be clear to everyone — it is certainly possible for people to read the Koran and find it preaches tolerance and peace. Liberal Islam is certainly possible…after all, it exists!
This thread is old, but… Free Muslims Against Terrorism have just released a TV spot commemorating Sept. 11. The spot attacks terrorism, using passages from the Koran, and calls Bin Laden & co. “liars.”
Downloadable & worth seeing, link available on my blog or go straight to [www.freemuslims.org]
Thanks, Charles, for the info on the Free Muslim Coalition. Here’s an article by one of their Advisory Board Members (and fellow Twin Citian) that’s apropos.
Death Sentence for Apostates
http://www.freemuslims.org/document.php?id=49
Shahid Islam writes, “The death sentence for apostates has nothing to do with the Qur’an, or to safeguard the religion. Truth does not require force to safeguard itself. Instead, death sentence for apostates is a political tool to silence critical voices.”
The reason why Christianity is more susceptible to liberalization than Islam is the separation of church and the state (government). This separation enabled our religious freedom, and freedom is required for liberalization. Differences between religions don’t affect religious behavior, freedom affect religious behavior. Freedom gives you choice, before the American Revolution, heresy was a deadly sin. You didn’t have the choice either you believe in Bible (as interpreted by the priests) or you will hang. This ends in promoting an effect that people becomes more fundamental on religious matters, first as a natural defensive (surviving) behavior – don’t want to be declared as heretic and hanged, then as a habit (religious fundamentalism becomes a norm).