I question the format of this essay, as it's really an outline for a syllabus, a way of approaching how with the increase in advanced technology do we grapple with primitive forces, religious absolutism that can underlie a barbarism that our enlightened mentality can't understand. Right now the question is whether Islam is inherently so narrow, so removed from secularism or more enlightened belief systems that we can't defeat the current manifestation, ISIS, the Islamic Caliphate, and still bestow it with all the protections and privileges that this country provides for all under the rubric of "religion." I will include articles and books that are diametrically opposed to my thesis in the addendum.
This essay refers first to this article (called diaries) on Dailykos titled, ISIS is Islam, so say the new apostates, The general attitude of that website has been to castigate those who opposed Islam, such as promoting constitutional prohibitions against Sharia Law -- depicting this as being the work of bigoted narrow minded conservatives. This was the nature of the first comments that followed my diary, to the point of placing a marker that the essay should be removed from the site. Reading the comments will give some idea of how this writer was accused of being a bigot, originally with no attempt by those who were part of the Muslim group to address the substantive issues that I made. Some of the comments did become substantive later on. After reading the Dailykos article, the theme will continue here.
This essay you are now reading includes the Dailykos essay linked above, along with ancillary material that is still being developed. Part of this presentation is a hesitancy among the Dailykos readers to give support of my diary by official recommends which could be traced to their user name, which may have personal identification. It could well have been actual fear, as criticism of Islam can be considered an action that must be revenged. The Fatwah against Salman Rushdie did result in the murder of at least one person, his editor in Japan. The outrage against the short anti-Islam film "The Innocence of Muslims" did result in at least fifty deaths.
In considering the religion of Islam, it must be viewed as a practice- a social movement, but also it's theology- that which scholars within the religion explain are its principles: The following is from such a source, a colloquy of such Islamic theology Al-Islam org.
-----------------
The western powers have some cards up their sleeves that are very readily used against any country that they do not like--cards of human rights, democracy, and minority rights.-------------
Take, for example, the case of the Branch Davidian cult and its leader David Koresh in Waco, Texas. It was a minority religious group. The US government forces put them under siege for 51 days, and finally, on August 17, 1993, their whole compound was burnt down; 95 lives were lost. The US government presented it simply as a "law and order" issue: that a group had piled up arms and ammunitions illegally, and, therefore, the government was justified in taking the extreme action.
The US public as well as the international community --with all its propaganda apparatus of human rights, democracy and minority rights-- readily accepted that justification. Now if this same case had taken place in Iran with some Bahā'is or in Egypt with some Coptic Christians --that a minority religious group committed illegal action and the government took appropriate action to enforce its laws-- I am absolutely certain that the so-called international community and its media, the UNO, and the human rights organizations would have portrayed the issue as a Muslim country persecuting its non-Muslim minority!
What I mean to say is that if you hear that a member of a minority has been prosecuted in Iran, it does not automatically mean that it is because he is a non-Muslim. It could be that he has committed a crime and has therefore been convicted of that crime. Many groups try to gain political mileage out of such cases; they would exploit it and present it as a violation of human/minority rights.
This statement conveys the distorted understanding of the United States, our culture and perhaps the entire enlightenment enterprise represented by this statement as being factual: "The US public as well as the international community --with all its propaganda apparatus of human rights, democracy and minority rights-- readily accepted that justification (for burning the Branch Davidian Compound"
Not only was the raid and slaughter of the Branch Davidians condemned by most Americans, it was similarly refuted broadly by all who are allowed to think about the place of religion, government and freedom of conscience. This Muslim scholars above could not even accept this reality. To me this shows that these Muslim intellectuals are so imbued with the concept of religious authoritarianism such as exists in the Muslim community, that they could not believe that individuals in the West found the destruction of this sect to be abhorrent.
------------------
The following is from a comment from Dailykos comment section that confirms the reality of the consequences of apostasy:
Muslim teaching in most countries is that: 1) the father's religion (not the mother's) determines that of his children, 2) that a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim unless he converts to Islam, and that 3) converting away from Islam is a crime -- apostasy (punishable by jail, lashings, or death in some countries). This is not a new interpretation, and it is not associated only with terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda.
This 1978 (original Arabic Document) by the head of the Fatwa Council at Al Azhar University in Egypt (founded in the 10th century, c.970 AD). Al Azahr has long been widely regarded as one of the highest centers of Islamic teaching in the world. The ruling speaks for itself:
In the Name of Allah the Most Beneficient the Most Merciful.----------------------
Al-Azhr
Council of Fatawa.
This question was presented by Mr. Ahmed Darwish and brought forward by [name obscured] who is of German nationality.
A man whose religion was Islam and his nationality is Egyptian married a German Christian and the couple agreed that the husband would join the Christian faith and doctrine.
1) What is the Islamic ruling in relation to this man? What are the punishments prescribed for this act?
2) Are his children considered Muslim or Christian? The Answer:
All praise is to Allah, the Lord of the Universe and salutations on the leader of the righteous, our master Muhammed, his family and all of his companions.
Thereafter:
This man has committed apostasy; he must be given a chance to repent and if he does not then he must be killed according to Shariah.
As far as his children are concerned, as long as they are children they are considered Muslim, but after they reach the age of puberty, then if they remain with Islam they are Muslim, but if they leave Islam and they do not repent they must be killed and Allah knows best.
Seal of Al-Azhr
Head of the Fatawa Council of Al-Azhar.
Abdullah al-Mishadd (عبد الله المشد)
23rd September 1978.
As we see the failure of the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt and the growth of ISIS, it is time to look at what Islam means, going beyond the current simplistic view that all religions are beyond criticism of their essential meaning. The following is an excerpts are from a scholar of Islamic Studies, Adibah Binti Abdul Rahim, of The International Islamic University Malaysia present the issue clearly.
The Impact of Secularism on Religious Beliefs and Practices Broken Link
Conclusion (of the article being quoted)
Islam is not compatible with the idea of secularism despite the numerous attempts to reconcile them. We cannot compromise with secular ways and institutions as it will lead to a dilution of Islam in all fields of activity. Muslims should have a full consciousness of their traditions, values, and beliefs in order to free themselves from the dangerous infiltration of secular and alien influences. They do not need to look for secularism as inspiration for progress and development since Islam itself endorses progress and development within certain limits. Islam also enjoins the use of reason. However, it is considered secondary to Divine guidance, unlike secularism, which gives no importance to Divine guidance; instead it emphasizes on human reason and self-interest as supreme values.
Secularism is completely unfit for Muslim life. It denounces the objective of Islam that is to purify the soul as well as to reform society. In fact, the Qur’Én provides many verses that emphasize the relationship of religion with state and society. Unlike Christianity which has defined for the church a certain domain, that of the salvation of the soul, Islam legislates matters of state and social relations. It leaves human reason and experience to lay down specific institutions, theories, and laws for the Islamic state within its determined philosophy, ideals, criteria, and objectives. Although the Qur’Én does not directly ordain a state for Muslims and does not mention in detail a constitution for an Islamic state, that does not mean that there is no relationship between religion and state. The Qur’Én prescribes certain religious duties, which cannot be fulfilled without the establishment of an
Islamic state....
I want to insert this column written in 2002 by arch conservative Pat Buchanan. It is laying out the argument whether Islam is inherently brutal, something expressed most famously right after 9-11 by Rev. Franklyn Graham and opposed by President George W. Bush. Has the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate, ISIS changed the equation? As this country considers engaging in a long war with ISIS, the Islamic Caliphate, it seems appropriate to evaluate whether this violent organization is legitimately an outgrowth of Islam. The very thought of criminalizing any religion or ideology is anathema to the liberal enlighten sensibilities yet it has been done before. Here is the link from the Wikipedia article on the Smith Act, which did exactly this during the Second World War and the Cold War that followed. The ideologies that underlies of our enemies,, fascism and communism, and the promulgation of them were made a federal crime. It was deemed that, even though ideological opposites, were both incompatible with American democracy.
It behooves us to ask whether this applies to one of the world's largest religions, and then, as we did during earlier times, choose the path that is right for our times.
-------------
This is a review of "Fields of Blood" by Karen Armstrong, that comes to a different conclusion than this essay, that "religions" contain both elements of comity and of violence, and that geo-political forces determine how they will be skewed. She could very well be right in principle, in the long view. Yet, there are decisions to be made in this era, this decade, that may have to be more pragmatic, based on the survival of one's country and culture. One need not assume that Islam is uniquely and intransigently violent to conclude that it must be combated based on strategic ends.
Al,
ReplyDeleteGood to find your blog. It looks like there are some interesting things on it.
I'm Ted Gemberling, the person you responded to on the NY Times. Here's an additional comment.
I would argue the fundamental reason for the difference between Islam and Judaism on secularism is that the Jews were stateless for centuries, so they could not impose their religious law on society as a whole. Because Muslims had their own states from an early time, they imposed their laws on entire societies, apart from the partial dispensations they provided to various "people of the book." Basically, civil law and religious law were the same.
In fact, I think this analysis enlightens the nature of anti-semitism. The Jews started the modern age in Europe as the preeminent representatives of pluralism, since they were on the edges and not recognized as citizens until the French Revolution (and later in other parts of Europe). After they got citizenship, some Jews did better financially and professionally than some gentiles, and this provoked resentment: "How come these people who used to be below me are now above me?" I think anti-semitism is basically a discomfort with pluralism. People wanted to have a settled, predictable social hierarchy, and suddenly that got unsettled.
However, the basic point I was making on the Times is that I don't think there's anything INHERENT in Judaism itself that would promote pluralism. Like Islam, you would expect it to be a faith imposing religious rules on society as a whole. But the social condition of Jews worked against that possibility, and even Orthodox Jews today live more freely than they would have if Jews had never lived in non-Jewish societies.
I think Christianity does have one element that favors secularism. The teaching of Paul rejects law in favor of "the Spirit." It rejects any attempt to codify religious behavior. I think in the Middle Ages, Christians, after taking control of society, did attempt to develop their own religious law. Maybe that's inevitable once you take control of civil government. But with Luther, and his hearkening back to Paul, that broke down. Once he put the emphasis on the individual and his/her own understanding of the Spirit's guidance, even Luther himself could not control the directions churches would go. Eventually things like women ministers came out of it.
Actually, there are more historical factors that made pluralism possible in the West, but I don't think I'll go into them right now. Thanks for considering these points.
Al,
ReplyDeleteGlad to find your blog. I enjoyed your diary on DKos today.
We could use more objective discussion of Islam, such as this. At the present time there are the Islamophobes and the Islamophiles, with damn little in the middle.
Regards,
gzodik