Instapundit links to this piece on rising anti-Muslim sentiment by Bjørn Stærk. He makes the point, and it’s a crucial one, there there is a difference between a Muslim and an Islamist. Not all Muslims follow the Wahhabist line. Not all Muslims divide the world into Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam as Sayyid Qutb does. Not all Muslims support terrorism.
Sadly, many of them do, but that no more implicates the Muslim religion as a whole than the Crusades or the Inquisition implicate Christianity.
One of the most important books I’ve read is a book by Canadian feminist and Muslim Irshad Manji called The Trouble With Islam. In this book Manji points out that Islam is compatible with democracy and decency, but only as long as Muslims are willing to abandon the tribalism, hatred, and intolerance of the radicals. It’s an important and eye-opening book, and one that gives new perspective on the Muslim faith.
The problem is not with Islam, the problem is with those who have distorted Islam to match their totalitarian goals. It is a distinction which needs to be remembered. We aren’t just fighting this war for ourselves, we’re fighting this war to free the people of the Middle East from oppression – they are the biggest victims of autocracy and oppression in the region, and they are also the key to reversing the trends of terrorism and tyranny that plague the Muslim world. Unless we learn to work together with them as we have in Iraq and Afghanistan, we cannot hope to win this war.
Can you please elaborate on how the extremists have distorted Islam? Honestly, I have been slowly reading the Koran over the last two years and I don’t see how it is being distorted. I admit the translation I am reading is in English. But assuming the translation isn’t a big deal, I am constantly disgusted by what I read. I keep hearing the news media say that Islam is being distorted by terrorist but I don’t understand when I read about a little girl being consummated in marriage, and the brutality, trickery, deceitfulness towards enemies (non-Muslims). All the “help the poor†and so on in the Koran is always directed towards fellow Muslims. Now I understand that there are nice people that call themselves Muslims, but this is despite of their religion and the Koran.
Yes, but.
Of course not all Muslims are our enemies. I doubt that any Sufis are going to whirl into a suicide-homicide dance. Turkey has shown that Islam can be compatible with a reasonably democratic and modern state, and from what I understand, most Indonesian Muslims have a live-and-let-live attitude, which is why Terrorism Central has to send fanatical apostles from the Middle East to stir things up there.
But it is undeniable that today there is a distinct association between Islam and the wretched conditions in most countries where it holds sway, not to mention terror organizations. Scientists say, rightly, that association is not causation; but when Islamists proclaim quite openly that they are out to impose sharia law on all the world, destroy the Great Satan (that’s us, friend) and kill the Jews, I think we have to acknowledge that we are not exactly dealing with something like the taunts of a rival football team’s supporters. It doesn’t make any difference whether Islamic gang bangers are deluded about the “true spirit” of their faith; they believe they are acting on its behalf.
Now one can object that if we’re out to stop our enemies in their tracks regardless of whether their actions are based on religion or something in the water, what difference does it make? Well, it makes a difference in our tactics. If we are so determined to play the multi-culti fool that we can’t even attack a mob that’s killing our soldiers because they’re hanging out in a mosque, then we are showing Islam more respect than its supposed adherents are.
If, as I believe, the majority of Muslims in the world are smart enough to tell the time, they will understand that we cannot allow those who would destroy us to operate under cover of a religion. Failing that is not to convince them that we are “understanding” and “sensitive” but that we are weaklings who can be manipulated. Whenever the nutjobs get themselves in a corner, they can just whip out the trump card of Islam, and we back off as we appear to be doing once again in Najaf. We’ve got to stop shooting ourselves in the foot just to show that we respect Islam.
I think Sterk goes a bit to far in his piece. As I read him (see especially the end of the piece), he objects to criticism of Islamism, too.
I won’t defend Islam. Sure, there are decent and peaceful Muslims. They’re certainly a small minority worldwide, however. If that shocks you, consider what the average Muslim attitude towards Jews is, or regarding Palestinian resistance/terrorism. Things are better in the U.S., I believe, although I have no guess as to how much better.
I do disagree with Joecrazy, however, insofar as he thinks he can tell anything meaningful about Isam by reading the Koran. I’ve read sizeable chunks of it too, and it’s indeed horrifying. But have you read the Old Testament? Some of the stuff in there will turn your hair white. Not just the violence, but the truly screwed up morality and, well, evil that is held up as righteous conduct. If the Old Testament were used to judge Christianity or Judasim, neither one of those would come out looking too good.
Assuming I am fully understanding what you said, I agree. The people who call themselves Muslims are not the enemy. The ideology of Orthodox Islam is the enemy. Orthodox Islam is not friendly like Orthodox Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism. I got a little sidetracked in my earlier post, but what I wanted to say was that the statement “extremists are distorting Islam†is misleading and false. The extremists according to my limited knowledge and what I have read in the Koran appear to be accurately portraying Islam. It is the moderate Muslims that are distorting Islam to make it friendlier. I would like to clarify that i have no hatred of Muslim people.
Sorry about the double post but spoons snuck his post in.
Spoons: The Old Testament is totally compatible with the New Testament. The actions that you mention can be explained. (I can give you links if you want them). On the other hand I have never once heard a good explanation of the passages in the Koran. The only two explanations ever given to me were…
1) Bad translation, (it doesn’t read the same in Arabic)
2) Bad interpretation (but I am never given the “right†interpretation only that mine is bad)
Until it is better explained those two explanations are cop out answers.
The problem with Islamic civilization is that it has been infected with a sort of memetic AIDS. Allow me to explain.
Traditionally, Islam has been a highly conservative but adaptable religion capable of dealing with the outside world in a generally civilized manner. The Islamic world outstripped the Christian world in almost every aspect but weaponry until the Enlightenment. Islam had a great tradition of religious scholarship dominated by three schools- Strict Constructionism, Greek Rationalism, and Literalism. The authority of the Caliphate kept radical sects in line and gave Islam an overarching authority similiar to that of the Catholic church.
Flash forward to 1924. The Caliphate is dissolved after a failed attempt at installing a Caliph with no govermental authority. Islam is now decapitated.
Now it’s the 1950’s. Nasser has nationalized al-Azhar University, the intellectual and moral authority of Islam after the fall of the Turkish Caliph. The scholars and professors of the university are made to speak an Arab Nationalist line on almost all issues of any import, and quickly lose their relevance to the muslim world. The scholarly immune system has now been decapitated and incapacitated, but it’s still kicking.
Enter the Saudi Monarchy.
Using money from sales of oil to the West, Saudi monarchs start recruiting scholars from across the Islamic world to recieve “prizes” for writing Wahabbist books (often in dollar amounts in the hundreds of thousands) and six-month seminars on Wahabbist thought (for which they are typically paid twenty times their university salary). Utilizing money and the sin of greed (which, from what I understand, is even more serious to muslims than christians), intellectuals across the Muslim world have been turned into pimps for Wahabbist radicalism, and scholars who refuse to convert to the new orthodoxy are being turned out in droves, many coming to the US, Britain, and France, where they can work without Wahabbist scholars breathing down their necks. Even the US is vulnerable- most of our imams subscribe to a very literalist, conservative brand of Islam- even Mohammed Sharif, the Imam of Sioux Falls (wrap your head around THAT one), echoed much sympathy for radicalism when he presented for a class I took on the subject. Wahabbism has destroyed the legitimacy of Islamic scholarship with a dangerous malignancy… intellectual AIDS. All funded by our oil dollars to boot!
Unfortunately, the damage is done, and cutting off Saudi Arabia today wouldn’t even help (especially given that the Saudis would be shaking hands with Hu Jintao tomorrow if we did such a thing, and the oil and money would continue to flow). Nor is this blaming it all on the west- there was no way we could have known that this would happen, it’s the fault of their corrupt monarchy. Thus, a religion that could have adapted to modernity quite readily (as we see in places like Dubai, the pinnacle of liberal Islamic economic success), we have a monster on our hands.
The Qu’ran and the Bible, when taken literally, are rather repugnant documents. The Qu’ran reads like a manifesto on holy war (I’ve read most of it), and the Bible reads like a bad L. Ron Hubbard novel (witness “Left Behind”). They exist in a certain context from which they can be understood, and outside this context, both books are dangerous- physically, mentally, and spiritually. The scholarly tradition of Islam long mitigated this, as did the western theological and philosophical tradition in Christianity. Both seem to be falling on hard times these days- with deadly consequences. I believe Andrew Sullivan put it best: “Torquemada with cruise missiles; Cromwell with the a-bomb.” A dangerous thought, indeed…
Spoons: “I think Sterk goes a bit to far in his piece. As I read him (see especially the end of the piece), he objects to criticism of Islamism, too.”
No, I don’t. I’ve been criticizing Islamism and warning against the threat of terrorism in my blog for three years, and I haven’t changed my mind. What I object to is the lazy generalization Islam=Islamism, and how flippant some Islam critics suddenly have become about democratic values. They seem to be more interested in what they’re fighting, Islam, than what they’re supposedly fighting for, Western values, with the consequence that they don’t think twice about abandoning one of the most important of those values, freedom of religion, if it can harm Islam.
“Spoons: The Old Testament is totally compatible with the New Testament. The actions that you mention can be explained. (I can give you links if you want them). On the other hand I have never once heard a good explanation of the passages in the Koran.”
Well, I didn’t mention any actions, so I’m not sure which ones you think you can explain. Also, it’s rather beside the point whether they can be made to mesh with the New Testiment. My point wasn’t that the Old Testament was inconsistent with the new (it is, in many respects, but that wasn’t my point), but rather that it is just plain evil. Read Genesis 19 for just one example. That’s where some angel travelers are on the road and come to stay at Lot’s house. The townsfolk notice that, “Hey, these Angels are wicked hot boys,” and decide to go over to Lot’s house and rape them. Lot says, “Hey, come on, these guys are guests in my house. I can’t have some rowdy crowd come over and rape them! Although, I do have these two virgin daughters who are kinda cute. Why don’t you rape them, instead?”
That’s fucked up. That’s as evil as anything you’ll find in the Koran. And Lot is held up as righteous for his actions.
I could cite a dozen or more examples of stories like that in the OT, if I were inclined to spend the time digging them up.
Ok lets assume you are right (I reserve the right to argue it later). For the sake of argument lets say that what is on the books for both Christianity and Islam is often misunderstood, should only be take from a “right†perspective, and outside of the correct perspective appear to be evil ideologies. With that said Christians at least explain the friendliness of their religion by saying something like “love God, love your neighbor, these verses tell us to do that.†I have never once heard the Islam equivalent. What do the people that adhere to Islam use to logically justify friendliness? Islam is so much then simply containing stories of rotten people that do rotten things (like Lot and his daughters before the city fell and again with his daughters after the city fell). Islamic heroes are the ones doing the atrocities. It teaches that the atrocities should be emulated.
What atrocities? In many ways, Muslim civilization was more civil than pre-Enlightenment Christendom. Issues of honor and right conduct in war were taken much more seriously by Muslim warriors than Christian knights- a case in point is the difference in how the Turkish conquerers behaved on their invasion of Constantinople to how the Christian conquerers who had invaded the city in the fourth crusade behaved. When Mohammed expelled the Christians and Jews from the Arabian peninsula, he at least had the graciousness to grant them land and cities- the Spanish weren’t nearly so “kind”. As one reads the history of Muslim civilization (I’d recommend Abdul S. Akbar’s “Islam: A Brief Introduction”), one quickly discovers that up until a few centuries ago, western Europeans were the “barbarians”. How things have changed!
Also, keep in mind as you read muslim scripture, war is used as a metaphor. The literal understanding of the Qu’ran is as nonsensical a perversion as mythic science-fiction Christianity- unfortunately, it’s the one being embraced by the majority of religious muslims today, or at least a very large, vocal minority…
I don’t think I am explaining myself very well. I do not disagree that in the past, present and future there are and will be noble and nice people who follow Islam.
Perhaps I’m barking up the wrong tree. Is Islam based on the teachings of the Koran and nothing else? If that is true, how do these moderate followers of Islam condemn atrocities like sex with little girls or treating “people of the book†like second-rate citizens? How do they condemn forcing women to live like slaves? How do they condemn killing polytheists and atheists? Now I agree that most of the people that say they follow Islam would disapprove with these actions. I’m just saying that I have never seen one of these moderate Muslims explain why these actions are wrong based on the foundation of their religion, the Koran.
Maybe my question has already been answered. War in the Koran is a metaphor. A metaphor for what I ask? What about the other passages?
I actually agree with Joecrazy more than I disagree. War is not “a metaphor” in Islam. It’s actual, violent, war. That’s not a matter of interpretation, it’s a matter of historical fact.
I’d also say it’s no defense of Islam to say, “But Christianity used to be just as bad!” Well, maybe so, but you know what? If I was hanging out in during the Crusades (or pick whatever period you think was Christianity’s low point) and someone wanted to make the case that Christianity was a dangerous religion, I probably wouldn’t argue with them. At that point, it was. But so what? Is it a defense of Islam today that it might not be quite so murderous 500 years from now? That may come as a comfort to my great^20-grandchidren, but it’s little comfort to me.
That being said, my initial point of disagreement with Joecrazy is simply that the Koran won’t tell you much one way or the other about what Islam is today.
The issue at stake is not solely the Koran. Islam is a very diverse religion underneath the healdess uniform monolith that its right wing trys to portray. Witness the very pacifsitic sufi islam found in Senegal. Senegal is 85% muslim (one of the highest rates in africa) yet has better standards on human rights and government accountability than many christian majority states in the region. Mali, while very poor, also has an Islamic culture that is fairly open. Malaysian Islam has co-existed with the Chinese cultures. There are ethnic tensions, but it has not stopped a country that is over half muslim from becoming one of the next countries to join the first world. The Jakarta muslim elite have done a good job of creating a state that is fairly democratic. And let’s not forget that in Indonesia, there are christian ethnic groups that chop off muslim heads. Not all the religious violence in that country stems from islamists. Turkey might not count as a muslim country since Kemalist ideology pushes Islam as being subserviant to the state. Indeed, mosques are under the control of the Turkish state and have their sermons handed to them from the directorate of religious affairs.
In case one is not catching my drift, I feel that the Koran centered arguments are narrow and don’t apply to the whole of the Islamic world. If you want to talk about radical Islam in the muslim heartlands of the Middle East, go right ahead, but please don’t paint a picture as if there is no such thing as moderate Islam. That’s pure bullshit.
I am not an apologist for Islamic terror, and think thatin many areas there is far too much muted opposition from moderates against extremists. Also, the fact that violent Islam can claim such a high place in many Middle Eastern political systems shows we have a problem. However if one doesn’t appreciate the ethnic and political diversity of the islamic world, then their commenting solely on koranic grounds will be intellectually inaccurate.
I still feel the best change comes from within. That is why I believe a democratic Iran will emerge far more quickly than one in Iraq. We should work with Iranian reformists, and not take a hawkishly confrontational policy towards the entire nation. The US overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran in 1952 and replaced him with a marionette stringed Shah. We don’t have any right to screw over Iran again. Encouraging reform is contigent upon a largely non-inteventionist policy. The Iranian Reformists are light years closer towards pluralist ideals than anyone in the Allawi camp in Baghdad. This fact should not be taken lightly.
What should arguments about Islam be based on? Not that I’m necessarily making an argument for or against Islam. I seriously trying to be open minded here. If the ideals and beliefs of Muslims isn’t based on the Koran then what is it based on?
Maybe Islam is similar to communism to the fact that it is roughly based on the books of a few people but is mostly developed by each individual country differently. Same flavor different taste.