I’m enjoying Wael B. Hallaq’s very enlightening book The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law, which is an excellent complement to Harold Berman’s Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. (Berman’s second volume, which is important, but much less so than volume I, is Law and Revolution, II: The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on the Western Legal Tradition.)
People who wish to understand the Islamic tradition would do well to try to start with an examination of the role that Islam played in the development of law, rather than with the various Muslim-bashing books that have appeared recently. (And for those who see the western legal tradition as somehow entirely secular and rational and the Islamic tradition as entirely scriptural and tribal, Berman’s work shows the central roles that religion and tribal law played in the western legal tradition, and Hallaq shows the role played by deductive and analogical reasoning in the Islamic tradition.)
I doubt Mr. Palmer has even read the koran, at least not the one I read.
To apply a western mindset to islam is his first mistake.
To use ad hominem attacks shows his immaturity.
Lee, I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that I’m an unbeliever. I’m not going to defend Christians or Christianity except insofar as to say that I don’t know when recently Christian doctrine has pushed people toward evil. (Well, there is the general business of faith, which has pushed crazies toward doing terrible things from time to time. Making faith a virtue can be dangerous.) Adolf Hitler, to the best of my knowledge, was baptized and confirmed as a Roman Catholic, and he never renounced nor was renounced by Holy Mother Church in his lifetime. OK? I have absolutely no problem admitting Christians, in all their multitudinous varieties, can do terrible things, as can Jews.
Are people pretty much the same all around the world? You can say that, and biologists will tell you that you’re pretty close as far as the old genome is concerned. OTOH, the Holocaust was caused by Germany of the Third Reich, not New Zealand, not Thailand, not Botswana. That’s because we are all more than genomes, and to that extent, Lee, we are not pretty much the same all over the world. We can be pretty different, which has its good and its bad points.
Now I’m going to give you the same Koran quote I gave you before. Pay attention.
“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”
It’s my contention that such ideas, and worse, make it more likely for adherents of the book promulgating those ideas to hate Christians and Jews than the books of the Christians and Jews make them hate Muslims. Admittedly there are a few bits in the New Testament which are hostile to Jews, but it’s mild stuff compared to what’s in the Koran, not to mention extra-Koranic teachings which insist that Jews have deliberately falsified their own holy writings in order to eradicate all the prophecies of Muhammad which were supposedly there.
Basically, what I am saying is that ideas have consequences. Islam is a collection of ideas, and just like any other ideas, they have consequences. I don’t think those consequences are often positive. Islam promotes mercy and compassion, and then tells husbands to beat disobedient wives and to distrust all Christians and Jews, and that the best road to Paradise is a Jihad martyr’s death. What sort of consequences do you think such ideas have?
Charles, I understand your point about scripture. But my whole point is that scripture is a lot less important than people give it credit for. I also am not very religious so I don’t have many bible quotes lying around. But I’m pretty sure that in the old testament the punishment for adultery is death by stoning. By your logic, this dangerous idea should predetermine that West will be violent towards women. In fact, the West treated women like crap for most of it’s existence, until the idea of the women’s rights movement, enabled by time-saving technological advances became the commonly accepted norm. Looking back, lot’s of people have justified human rights movements in Christianity, arguing about Jesus as a figure of love and tolerance and respect. But if the words and scripture themselves were so powerful, why did it take 2000 years for the seemingly basic idea that women and men should have equal rights to appear?
I would argue that most of the Muslim world today is very similar to the United States about 70-100 years ago. The problem is not in the scripture, or in the religion itself, they just haven’t gotten around to the liberal reforms that we have in the West. But those reforms have almost nothing to do with the underlying scripture supporting or opposing it. You’re right, ideas have power, but ideas come from all over, and thinking that specifically religious ideas are the end all and be all of muslim society, and always will be is both ignorant, short-sighted and innacurate.
For example, before the current turn towards Islam in the late 60s, communism was all the rage in the Middle East. If we were having this debate then, I’m sure you would be talking about the dangers of Communist ideology, and Islam would barely enter the picture.
For a liberal Muslim (‘westenized,’ some would say, but I see myself as just believing in human values), this is all a very interesting question. Do I exist? I think I do, but some people think I don’t. am I in a minority? Yes, I am. Sorry, we’ll try to do better, for all of our sakes.
Spencer’s book is a part of a healthy discussion, but that doesn’t make the book’s thesis correct. We Muslims should be challenged, but the challenge is to interpret our religion in terms that make sense, and not to confuse the requirements of a tribal society in ancient Arabia with the requirements of modern life, or to throw reason away when people insist that they and only they can tell us what to believe. That goes for the radical Islamists and for Robert Spencer.
Spencer’s book, from the copy I browsed through in a bookstore, overlooks so much and is written in such a nasty style, throwing the good out with the bad, that it’s hard to take it seriously. It doesn’t set the low standard for personal attacks — that was set by our own ‘Islamists’ — but it does fail to rise above them. It’s hardly surprising that Tom Palmer responded negatively to the book. I welcome such attacks, not because they are right, but because they force us as Muslims to develop an understanding of our religion that is defensible and compatible with the modern world.
Lee, my point would be: Scripture seems to be a lot more important in Islamic societies than it does in what we might call Christendom these days. Can Islamic societies evolve away from this? Sure. OTOH, even such societies as seem to have undergone such evolution can rapidly snap back — the obvious example being Turkey.
Omar, I sympathize with your attempts to find a more humane interpretation of Islam, but I have to wonder whether it wouldn’t make more sense, if apostacy weren’t so dangerous, to just abandon Islam in favor of Christianity or unbelief. I find Muhammad to have been an extremely unsavory individual, so it seems pretty hard to humanize a religion which takes him as the exemplar of the ideal human. As a free marketer I have a problem with Jesus’s violence against those Temple moneychangers (they seem to have fulfilled a necessary purpose), but aside from that, he doesn’t seem to have been a bad guy. Just my interpretation.
I suppose I should add that for unsavoriness Muhammad has nothing on those favorites of the Hebrew God, David and Solomon, bloodthirsty hypocrites the pair of them.
“For the first time in over a thousand years, since before the Roman Emperor Constantine proclaimed himself a Christian and legalized Christianity, the smart money was on the complete disappearance of Christianity — and the relegation of virtually every Christian in the world to dhimmi status.” (p. 155) ”
Granted this may not be the most elegant of sentences, but the meaning is obvious: by the middle ages (around a.d. 1300+), the advance of Islam portended the end of Christianity as a dominant religion in the West. That is, absent the Crusades, Islam might have overrun Europe, subjecting the Christian population to dhimmi status. He certainy was not saying that the term “dhimmi” had any meaning during Constantine’s time.
Charles, I think you’re missing my point. I’m arguing that I don’t think scripture is that important, and I gave several examples of possible alternatives for causing behavior that you attribute to scripturally based actions.
Your response is to say, “Scripture seems to be a lot more important in Islamic societies than it does in what we might call Christendom these days.” There’s no reasoning or evidence there. That’s just an assertion.
I’m genuinely curious why you think that modern anti-western sentiment is based on Islam, and not a host of other factors. For example, in the 20s and 30s, America was actually admired in most of the Middle East for their anti-colonial stances. They were seen as the protector against the colonial French and British. Does that mean that all those Middle Easterners were going against Islam?
Lee, I believe that Scripture, and religion in general, are more important to Muslims than to Christians in influencing them to evil actions because so many more Muslims than Christians cite Scripture and religious tradition in defense of their evil actions. Have you been missing this? Do I have to give examples? Gloriosky, how could you miss this?
I don’t doubt that there exist factors other than religious ones influencing attitudes toward the United States. But disliking another country’s policies doesn’t always translate into taking suicidal terrorist acts against its population. Did the Soviet Union ever engage in anything vaguely similar to the 11 September 2001 attacks, even at the height of the Cold War? Did the United States ever do anything like that to the Soviet Union? Of course the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were states, and states avoid actions like that because they result in war. What we are opposing today is not a state. It is a group defined by religious fanaticism. And I’m not talking about wild Buddhists.
Roman Catholics have their little problems too. Just look at Cardinal Mahoney and the latest priestly pedophilia payout. But I don’t have to worry about a gas attack on the D.C. Metro ordered by the Pope, or his cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, monks, or nuns. I do have to worry, we all have to worry, about the insane things Muslim religious leaders encourage their followers to do.
I shouldn’t have had to wonder whether the Pope would make it out of Turkey alive. I’m happy he did, despite many calls for his death. These were not the result of border disputes between Turkey and Vatican City.
Look, there is a preponderance of religion in the Muslim world generally, not just related to violence. It’s the way people talk to be persuasive about anything. In many ways this is because the regimes of the region destroyed any other potential sources of dissent.
Initially, opposition to governments in the Middle East took much more normal, political forms. There were a diverse array of political parties in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and probably others although those are the countries I know best. Then, one by one, the rulers of these governments methodically destroyed the opposition, killing or imprisoning them, while the rest of the world did nothing. In Syria and Iraq, it was the Baath party (although very different Baath parties) while in Egypt it started with Nasser and continued on through to the present day.
As a result, people turned to Islam to save them from their governments. It didn’t help. The massacre at Hama (where the Syrian government killed up to 20,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood) and the imprisonment and killing of much of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Plus, Saddam, until 1990 or so wasn’t so Islam-friendly either.
After these overt acts of repressions, the Islamic opposition got wise. They started spreading opposition to the governments subtly, and through culture. In Egypt, wearing the hijab for women became a sign of being politically active, and in some ways against the political elites who were overtly and aggressively secular. Of course, today it has gone the other directoin and it is now being anti-Islamic that is considered subsersive in many ways. But my point is that there are reasons for the dominance of Islam in political and daily discourse in most of the Middle East. Simply to say that because people talk about it more, and justify actions with it more make it the actual cause aren’t necessarily true. The soviets were avowed atheists and often criticized the US for its religion. Did that make their desire to nuke us on account of their immoral atheism?
Also, I would argue that being willing to engage in a nuclear war and wipe us out being a few steps more dangerous than 9/11.
Finally, one last religion leading to violence parallel. What about the Klu Klux Klan that dominated the South for a long time, couched their rhetoric in Christian terms, and because of them, many young black civil rights workers were, “lucky to make it out of the south alive.” To paraphrase your Turkey example. If not for a historically rare and charismatic leader like Martin Luther King, what do you think the US would look like today? We might just now be starting the civil rights movement in earnest, and would have very little of the moral high ground that we assume we have today.
Were the Klan inherently un-Christian? I would argue no. They were doing what everyone does. Using religion to justify immoral actions they want to take for other reasons. Was Christianity, or Christian scripture driving the Klan? I would argue no more than the Koran and Islamic scripture is driving terrorism and Bin Laden.
Lee, I’m not terribly familiar with the ideological roots of the 20th Century Ku Klux Klan, but they may have included some Bible references. But aside from toleration of slavery, and a common misunderstanding about Ham as ancestor of blacks, the Bible pickings would be pretty slim, and opponents of the Klan could easily come to an opposite interpretation of what constitutes Christian conduct. In any case, I don’t see crazy Christians as a major problem today.
Islam, on the other hand, is a religion which became a state within the lifetime of its founder, who is regarded as the religion’s ideal practitioner. Jesus did not, as far as we know, commit child molestation, robbery, assassination, or aggressive warfare. He didn’t own slaves, and didn’t condone the rape of women taken as spoils in combat. Muhammad did. I can’t imagine how you think that none of this has consequences for those who hold him up as an ideal.
If you don’t think that Islam, as part of the cultural background of Muslim terrorists, has a very genuine influence on making them terrorists, I would have to say you have a curious blind spot.
I am completely flabbergasted by this:
“Also, I would argue that being willing to engage in a nuclear war and wipe us out being a few steps more dangerous than 9/11.”
Uh, Lee, 9/11 HAPPENED. The Nuclear Holocaust which was a common theme of an enormous number of science fiction stories of the 1950s… didn’t. Your comparison is completely off the wall.
“Look, there is a preponderance of religion in the Muslim world generally, not just related to violence. It’s the way people talk to be persuasive about anything. In many ways this is because the regimes of the region destroyed any other potential sources of dissent.”
Why do you find it misguided to attribute the way Middle Eastern (and not only Middle Eastern) Muslims handle themselves to the religion they follow? Maybe they talk in religious terms because their religion insists that everything must be addressed in religious terms. Maybe they are contemptuous of those of other religions because their religion teaches contempt for those of other religions. You seem to attribute a lot of stuff to “That’s the way Middle Easterners are” without considering that they may be that way because of the attitudes taught by the religion they follow.
Tom:
It’s somewhat disturbing the hostility you show to Mr. Spencer. It is quite apparent to me that you chose to hate him and his work well before you read anything.
You believe that Spencer is endorsing the “version” of Islam that the terrorists have. Should we worry about the peaceful ones?
What if the terrorists are just following the Qu’ran literally? The Qu’ran is supposed to be the literal word of god himself.
Can you not understand why Qu’ranic literalism is a problem if the religion is ever going to be peaceful in the western sense?
According to the teachings of Islam, the terrorists are logical followers of their faith. Can you not understand how western types such as yourself have trouble believing that?
Ask yourself: do you just not want to believe it?
Many people refuse to believe that terrorism and Islam is linked���¢�¢?�¬���¦mainly because the consequences of that truth are very bad for the world.
Charles M
Charles M.,
What a load of swill. You start by asserting that you and Osama bin Laden are the correct interpreters of Islamic thought, and no one else: “According to the teachings of Islam, the terrorists are logical followers of their faith.”
As to whether I am hostile to Spencer, I can assure you that I had never heard of him before I picked up his nasty little “PIG” book and read his arrogant and hate-filled tract for myself. My hostility is not to him personally (I’ve never met him, so I can’t comment on his personal traits), but to his demonstrated arrogance. (But really, creating a mirror-image of the various “Politically Correct” whitewashes of Radical Political Islamist terror [the ridiculous Noam Chomsky, who embraced Hassan Nasrallah when I was last in Beirut, where I am now, comes to mind] by writing an equally unhinged attack on all Muslims and then glorying in how you are being “Politically Incorrect” is quite simply something to be ashamed of. I am unimpressed by the Michael Moores and the Ann Coulters of the world, who just mirror each other, just as I am by the nasty whitewashers of radical Islamist violence and the Muslim bashers who mirror them. )
No text interprets itself. The issue at stake is what is the correct interpretation of texts and traditions. It’s dishonest of Spencer to insist that, as a non-Muslim, he knows better what Islam “really” means or requires, despite being in disagreement with plenty of Muslims. I don’t insist that Islam requires this or that, just as I don’t presume to tell Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, or Jews what their religions demand of them if they insist that it’s a disputed matter.
And, yes, I do think that Spencer’s work serves as a recruitment tool for al Qaeda, by 1) demonstrating active hostility to Muslims per se he reinforces the Islamist claimst that the non-Muslim world is “against them,” and by 2) insisting that, if they were really and truly Muslims, they would have to join al Qaeda and try to kill you and me.
Tom:
As Mr. Robert Spencer pointed out, it not just our interpretation of Islamic texts but of all the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence. You seem to have the deluded notion that the followers of the religion can only dictate what the religion represents. You should read the Qu’ran and other Islamic texts. The texts and teachings are the religion, not what the followers that you like better stand for.
Again you resort to such crude tactics that people in rational debate generally look down upon. You assume Spencer is trying to balance the world opinion of Islam? Why, just because Spencer is at the ‘extreme’ in view points, must he be wrong? Maybe it is you who is being intolerant?
Tom, you insist that Spencer has no right to interpret the texts or religion. Think about this for more than 3 seconds. Can you read our constitution as a non-American and decide what it is about?
And again for the 3248525th time, these “interpretations” are not just Spencer’s or mine, or Bin Laden’s. He tells you about the leading and reputable scholar’s interpretation and how this is passed down to the people. So maybe you should take your argument to them? Tell the men long dead now that they interpreted “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find themÃ?Â?Ã?¢Ã?¢?Ã?¬Ã?Â?Ã?¦” wrong, in you opinion.
In reality, it is people like you who insist that the west is somehow to blame for the way Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, Sudan, Thiland, France, Chechnya, Nigeria, ivory coast, Afganistan, Phillipeans, Indonesia, Turkey/Greece, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea, Chad etc. are acting. Even worse is when you insist that learning what inspires terrorism, suicide bombing, honor killings, abuse of women etc. only inspires more.
If you hadn’t already convinced yourself that that “hate-filled tract” is wrong, maybe you could realize that all of those things are justified by the texts, and the mainstream interpretation of them.
Charles M.
P.S.
I also enjoy how you say on November 20 that Spencer “has gotten himself very upset at” your remarks. The idea that any real emotion displaying Robert as “very upset” was at all present in his responses to your slanderous review is laughable. Maybe you would just like to make yourself feel important that you conversed with a two time NYTimes Bestselling author? And then even more important that you managed to make him “very upset”? Does it make you sleep better at night to believe that you stuck it to the man? Do you feel like you’re fighting a righteous battle? Perhaps you are simply compensating for the fact that he is more knowledgeable about the subject than you could ever hope to be?
Charles M., you make your case so well, you must be right.
In summary T.G Palme says that those who are not Muslim would do well to just ignore the core Islamic texts and the interpretations of the principle schools of jurisprudence because to do so is to invite more extremism. In effect Islam is to be given a special pass for the violence that is commanded of its followers just because we who are at the sharp end of Islam’s sword will inflame the situation.
His invective against Robert Spencer is puerile at best; he makes no attempt to refute the doctrinal support for violence that Mr Spencer highlights in his books. Books which I might add have done more to raise awareness about Islam’s expansionist and supremacist ideologies then any other. If we were to listen to Mr Palme we should rely on the small number of individuals who are trying to reform Islam while millions of Mohammed’s followers engage in open warfare against all those who would question Islam’s motives. This is perhaps one of the most inane ideas I have ever come across.
Mr Palme is unable to address the arguments outlined by Mr Spencer and others on this site and so resorts to ad-hominem attacks to try and salvage his own crumbling intellectual position.
One final point that I would like to add is that for all the so called advances that Islam is supposed to have achieved (which a thorough understanding of history shows that the majority are appropriations from other societies or from dhimmis that have been subjugated under Islam) none outweigh the risks associated with its violent expansion.
Palmer has responded with some strong words to a book that is full of strong words, and for that the fans of Robert Spencer call him impolite! This reminds me of the person who kils his parents and asks for mercy from the judge because he is an orphan.
I do not read the remarks of Palmer like Kevin McCairn does. Palmer is not ignoring Islamist violence and he is not giving them a special pass. He is instead doing more to combat it than the hard-talking anti-Muslim fanatics. Do you want to help Muslims to find peace or do you declare war against all of us? I don’t want war with you and I don’t want to be killed by radicals. I want peace and freedom. What do the followers of Robert Spencer want? I think I know: it is a war of civilzations. God help us all if they and the Islamist radicals are successful, for we will all suffer from it.
I am afraid Omar that it is Islam that has declared war, we are now just responding to your canonical texts.
Until Muslims take a step towards reformation then it looks like this impasse will remain. It is not for us to initiate this reformation our responsibility is to recognize the danger Islam presents in its current manifestation and analyze this threat at every level. Something Robert Spencer has done with great clarity much to the dismay of apologists like Mr Palmer.
I am sorry if this offends your sensibilities but Sharia law and Islamic supremacism offend my sensibilities. Maybe you don’t want war with us, and I am sure you do not want to be killed by radicals but be honest Omar would your ultimate vision of freedom involve instigation of the sharia?
In response to Charles R.L, and vaguely to other people…
Charles, you’re still neglecting my main argument. If Islam necessitates violence against the West and non-muslims generally, why is it only recently that Bin Ladenism emerged? The Koran hasn’t changed in 1400 years, so why is it that we are only now seeing the development of a mass anti-Western movement? What about 30 years ago? 70 years ago? 200 years ago? Is it just technology? Were muslims in the 1920s thinking to themselves, “man, if only we had some explosives so I could strap them to myself and go kill some Westerners!”
Islam has been around for the last 100 years, so why is it only now that we see the emergence of Bin Laden’s movement?
It is a simple social science question. How can something that has existed for so long unchanged (like Islamic scripture) be at fault for a modern and new phenomenon?
I would argue that it is much more plausible that a confluence of socio-political-economic factors are at work rather than the inherent doctrines of a religion.
Well Lee what about 300 hundred years ago, does Jan Sobieski and the gates of Vienna ring a bell. What about the Ottomen empire.
The reason there was a lull in the early part of the 20th century was that secularism did take a hold and was expressed as Arab nationalism through groups like the Baath party, however as they kept being soundly beaten by the Jews Islam made a resurgence.
Islam has always been expansionist but it is only through modern technology that we are now much more aware of it. And it is for this reason that apologists like Mr Palmer are now so frustrated because their cover has been blown.
I would argue that it is much more plausible that a confluence of socio-political-economic factors are at work rather than the inherent doctrines of a religion.
The typical leftwing/socialist fall back position it must be socioeconomic who would be so silly as to believe in God.
Well the fact is Lee a lot of people do and this drives them to make irrational decisions in our eyes but to them they are doing what they are commanded to do and think will allow them entry into heaven. We in the West need to realise that there are people who think this way and take appropriate defensive postures against them.
Lee, I’ve never said that Islam “necessitates” violence against the West. Islam generally preaches an arrogant and hateful attitude toward those of other faiths, particularly Jews, but much of the time Muslims may see no great percentage in committing terrorist acts which will only provoke undesirable reactions, such as active U.S. military involvement in the region.
However, once a Muslim gets it into his head that murdering a bunch of infidel civilians might be a good idea, his religious beliefs, far from discouraging such atrocious actions, in fact encourage him (and, from time to time, her). It also encourages nasty attitudes whenever a Muslim finds himself by various circumstances in some sort of position of power, witness the nonstop vandalism by young Muslim thugs in France.
And while active military invasions of the West may not be taking place, Muslims haven’t forgotten their duty of subjugating any territory which ever was subjugated, i.e. the Iberian peninsula and much of Southeastern Europe, but of spreading Islamic dominance on from there, with consequent, explicity spelled out constant humiliation, at least, of non-Muslim populations. It is not out of line to point out that Europe is in danger of being overwhelmed by a “peacefully” invading Muslim population which reproduces considerably more prolifically than the natives.
Islam, in short, is nasty stuff. While its followers kept to themselves (from our point of view), we didn’t much care. Now we have to care.
BTW, just because they weren’t committing terrorist acts against the United States during the 50s and 60s, for instance, that doesn’t mean they were acting like saints. Muslim states of the Middle East generally mistreated their Jewish populations, which to me is the major justification for the existence of Israel: it provides a haven not just for European Jews, but for the multitudinous Jews who migrated from other parts of the Mideast, looking for a country which would not mistreat them as a foreign element, forcing their children to recite antisemitic poetry in the schools.
Islam is nasty stuff.
“I would argue that it is much more plausible that a confluence of socio-political-economic factors are at work rather than the inherent doctrines of a religion.”
Lee, why is it so hard for you to admit that religious doctrines might play a role next to socio-political-economic factors? Or as a very large part of that “socio” business?
I’m reminded of various critics of a book which appeared several years ago highlighting German antisemitism as a cause of the Holocaust. The critics pointed out that there were other countries similarly antisemitic which had not acted like Germany. The author responded, correctly, that he had never said that German antisemitism was the only reason the Holocaust happened, but when various other factors entered the mix, German antisemitism entered the mix as one of the essential factors. Just so, I’m not saying every problem in the Mideast is owing to Islam, only that some, perhaps many, problems might be solved were it not for the influence of Islam. Islam isn’t the only factor, but it is an important and necessary factor in many problems such as the spread of terrorism and, I might add, the inability to accept the existence of the State of Israel.
I see the debate continues and, as is usual for the internet, it has become quite heated.
I have a suggestion. Instead of asking if a “moderate Islam” or “liberal Islam” is possible and sustainable; let me ask instead if the Salafi “interpretation” that we commonly call “fundamentalist” is a bona fide interpretation of Islam.
Adherents, of course, will have their opinion of the “other interpretations.” Catholics, Methodists, and Unitarians all have a view on the correct understanding of Christianity. But as a non-Christian, I see these as all viable and bona fide interpretations of the teachings of Jesus.
As an outsider to Islam, can anyone here say that Salafi Islam (i.e. following the ways of Mohammad and the first few rightly-guided Caliphs) is not a genuine interpretation? Certainly it is not the only interpretation but is it not a genuine interpretation that an outsider must acknowledge? Can we agree on that much?
Jason, someone would have to elucidate on the various strains of Islam for most of us to answer your question. I’m no expert. I know some of what is in the Koran, and I know something of the generally-agreed-upon facts of the life of Muhammad, who I believe is regarded by all Muslims as a model to be emulated. If there is a strain of Islam which thinks the Koran should be ignored and that Muhammad was a jerk, I’d be fascinated to hear about it. Otherwise, I’m not sure there is much to be gained by delving into the details which may pit various types of Muslim against each other, but which don’t prevent them all from hating non-Muslims.
The reason Islam appears to only be showing it colors now is because of oil. Oil has given them power and wealth. So much that they could make all the Arabs states into wealthy prosperous nations. With no western powers to civilize them they instead chose to follow their religion.
There is no way around the fact the it’s the fault of the religion itself. It is not our foreign policy, its not poverty, and it surely is not Israel. These are all issues they scapegoat to explain to their people why they are living in their own s***. And when their Qu’ran itself condemns Jews on many occasions, its easy to think, as a Muslim, that Zionists are behind all their problems.
In places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.(Muslim countries) people were polled and said that 9/11 was a Zionist plot. They also were polled and believe that 9/11 was a great victory for Islam. There is disconnect with reality and complete loss of rational thought.
I love the example of the KKK in the U.S. being influenced by Christianity like Islamists are influenced by Islam. Big problem ‘though, it is a pre-Civil War type of KKK.
Do we need an Islamic John Brown? Brown was a truly great man inspired by his deep knowledge of the Old Testament and personal experiences of equality and integration. But Brown’s ‘terrorist’ actions intent on starting a Civil War would have come to nothing if H.D. Thoreau had not taken up his cause, calling him “the Christ of our time.”
conversation seems to have died down, but in case anyone is still here, this is an interesting AP article about an Islamic sex information call-in show.
http://arabist.net/arabawy/2006/12/04/islam-sex/
Is the host inherently unislamic as many people on this thread believe? Or is she providing one (of many) equally valid interpretations?
This is my point about religion generally. It is interpretable, and the socio-economic context mostly determines which interpretations will be favored or rejected.
Fascinating Lee, especially since the sexology movement was started in San Francisco and was pro-gay and was part of the free-love movement. My father http://phillips.blogs.com/ started the first Sex Information hotline in the world, San Francisco Sex Information.
While I think it is wonderful what she is doing, it is also very judgmental. The Nazi’s also had a ‘pro-creation sex within marriage is good for the nation’ movement.
I followed her links and she is anti-American and anti-Jewish self-determination.
Perhaps Dr. Heba Kotb is cracking the door open as much as she can, or perhaps she really supports an Islamist agenda. How can we tell?
Like Orahan Pamak, I think Islamists are part of Modernity. Mohamed Atta had a degree in City Planning from Hamburg University. He wrote his dissertation on the integration of Mosques in to modern cities.
Nice that Muslim women can talk about sex, but I’m not sure that reassures me. As far as I know this doesn’t go against the Koran or anything else authoritative. So why should I consider the lady “inherently unislamic”? Who else on this thread does?
Inherently unislamic would be, for instance, such advice as: “Be friends with Christians and Jews so that they might appreciate Islam by your example. Remember that they are your brothers and sisters through our common spiritual father Abraham.And pray for a settlement to be made with maximum fairness to our brothers and sisters in Palestine and in Israel, both our Muslim brothers and sisters and our Jewish brothers and sisters.” By Christian or Jewish standards, that’s a pretty plain-vanilla sort of sentiment. Can you show me a Muslim group which says anything like this?
BTW, is everyone here aware that the Hamas Charter is not only against the Zionists but also against the Rotarians and the Lions Club? Yeah,that last is the bunch which gathers old eyeglasses for poor people. Horrible conspiracy.
spencer got totally pwn3d!
What’s to interpret about the Quran? The language is as plain as day. Thankfully,most people can’t bring themselves to murder,no matter the encouragement from Allah. Interestingly enough,both Shia and Sunni militias in Iraq keep a religious figure handy to pass out death sentences,usually after the victims have been sufficiently tortured. How much murder and mayhem would be going on without Quranic justification is anyone’s guess.
I don’t think any honest writer can write a book about islam and not hurt the ‘feelings’ of the muslims.
I wonder what people think of the book “Judaism’s Strange Gods” by Michael A. Hoffman