Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
The taxi's coming to take me to the airport in about three hours. I just woke up with a start, thinking that I'd overslept, and now I'm afraid to go back to sleep for fear that I will. I'm all packed, and it's the middle of the night, so Ricochet buddies, would you please help keep me awake for the next few hours?
I'll give you something to start with. This reminded me of our earlier conversation about the critical things we just don't notice when we're focussing on something else.
I posted a link to our conversation about whether Islam itself is the enemy to my Facebook page. Some of my friends here in Istanbul (who are Moslems, and, as the word "friend" suggests, not my enemy) weighed in with responses that I think confirm my assertion that the Islamic world is not monolithic. In particular, my friend Babür left a long, thoughtful response, which I'll reproduce in full. (I've told my Facebook friends that anything they say on my page is on-the-record, and I've told Babür this in particular, so I'm sure he won't mind):
As a practicing muslim, and as somebody who's undertaken some Islamic studies, I might have a say for the closing remarks of this article:
-To decide whether Islam INSTITUTIONALLY embraces terrorism or not, the exact description and scope of “GENUINE” Islamic beliefs should be concretized first of all,
-I agree with the fact that, implementations of Islam are, unfortunately, as many as the number of muslims,
-Such differentiation upon "personal perceptions" is the misfortune of any mainstream & globalised religion,
-However, this differentiation occurs only in the practical level: the limits of Islamic beliefs - the theory, is all well defined,
-There is only one genuine, unique and clear-cut definition of Islamic beliefs, which is established back in 632 A.D., preserved with a sound application of METHODOLOGY (centuries before the European version of methodology was developed), and has survived so far,
-This set of beliefs is called "Sunnah", and its followers "Sunnis",
-In terms of daily religious activities, the Sunnah have several sub-categories, the practical sects / "MEZHEB"s; which provide Sunnis with a somehow wide range of options to choose from,
-The practical mezhebs are not at conflict with one another at all; one can pray according to "hanafi" mezheb, fast according to "shafi" mezheb, and yet, make his/her donations according to "maliki" mezheb, etc.: the Prophet (sav) has fulfilled his daily actions compatibly with all mezhebs,
-BUT THEN.. where do we locate the "Shia" concept?
-Clearly speaking, the modern Islamic world is divided into some 75 THEORETICAL mezhebs, most of which fall under the "Shia" category,
-The word "Shia" has its roots in the expression "Gulat-i Shia li Ali b. Ebi Talib", meaning "helpers of Ali b. Ebi Talib",
-Ali, the beloved cousin of Prophet and one of the capital masters of muslims - either Shia or Sunnis, has experienced a major political chaos near the end of his life, and naturally, a circle of helpers / political suppliers formed around him,
-The historical development, and thus, main BELIEF categories of these helpers, the Shia, has 4 main phases:
(1) those who favor Ali over Osman as a caliph (ONLY a political distinction),
(2) those who favor Ali over Abu Bakr and Omar as well (a FAR-FETCHED, but still political distinction),
(3) those who favor Ali over Prophet (sav) (the beginning point of BLASPHEMY),
(4) those who favor Ali over God (an EXTREME point of blasphemy).
-The last two phases emerged nearly a century after the death of the Prophet (sav); SO, DURING THE FIRST CENTURY OF ISLAM, THERE WAS NO DISTINCTION OF BELIEFS, BUT ONLY POLITICAL VIEWS,
-Apart from the Shia, some extremist sects also arose throughout the history, like Batinis, Ismailis, Durzis, etc., who are definitely non-muslims,
-So, in terms of beliefs, the modern Islamic world can be divided into three parts: (1) Sunnis, the unique believers, (2) non-Sunnis, but believers, (3) non-Sunnis and non-believers,
-Haven said all this..
How does genuine Islam, the Sunnah, approach terrorism?
Islam ABSOLUTELY forbids even the slightest offense against individuals (either women or men, the young or the old, etc.) who has not attacked Islam and/or muslims in a military fashion; even, military personnel figthing against Islam and/or muslims who ask for mercy during a full scale battle, should not be touched.
-This rule is very, very clear:
The first two warfare of Islamic history, The Battle of Badr and The Battle of Uhud, were of vital importance for the survival of the early Islamic society and thus, the entire religion.
EVEN DURING THOSE WARFARE, the Prophet (sav) applied the above principle with utmost certainty..
-A similar example is The Conquer of Mecca, where, the Prophet (sav) showed TOTAL mercy (involving the entire enemy army), after being oppressed, humiliated, and even subject to genocide for two decades..
-This is the REAL Islamic approach. Any sincere muslim IS OBLIGED TO oppose terrorism, suicide bombing, 9/11 attacks, El Qaeda, etc.
-The knowledge requirement standards enough to make a decree, or “ICTIHAD” were stated by the Prophet (sav) himself. Those fulfilling the standards, the “MUCTEHID”s can alone authorize the Islamic approach to any situation.
-Real muslims do not care about Imam Whatsoever, etc. has said, unless those so-called, often self-declared Imams measure up to be a muctehid..
I later left this comment:
I've just walked down a street filled literally with thousands of Moslems of exactly the kind many people are seriously arguing do not exist. I saw them with my own eyes, as I have every day for the past five years. With so many other questions in the world, why waste time debating this? Book a ticket to Istanbul, spend an afternoon here, have a lovely time, drink some tea, meet friendly, tolerant, warm, welcoming Moslems (mostly), and see for yourself. They exist! They're my neighbors and my friends! Babür, is there anyone at our gym, for example, who would not describe himself as a Moslem? Would any member of our gym endorse terrorism, honor killing, forcing me to wear the hijab, or subjecting me to a dhimmi tax? The idea is so absurd it's beyond discussion -- and yet we're discussing it.
Theo Spark found the conversation sufficiently interesting to link to it in his blog. He described the discussion as a "raging debate." I notice that his post has been picked up at Right Wing News. So now this chat among my friends is a raging and somewhat public debate, I guess.
The odd thing is that the "raging debate" is about whether moderate Moslems exist. That they do is a proposition so easily verifiable that I don't even have to leave my apartment to do it. I can just look out the window.
But no one even noticed the snake pit of controversy embedded in Babür's claim that Shi'a Islam is a heresy.
Now, as people who know the Islamic world well will tell you, that is--what is it Andrew Sullivan calls it?--the money quote. You just watch and see how much more blood is yet to be spilled over that claim.
And no one even noticed it--their attention was elsewhere.
More from Claire Berlinski
Don't Be Depressed By the GZM Debate
Arguments Good and Bad: the GZM, Zoning Law, and the Bush Doctrine
Let's Not Convince the World's Muslims We're Out to Destroy Islam
- Comment (96)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Charlie Dameron Kenneth, I'm wary of brazenly trying to define a religion that's not my own.
Well, then, let's just take the Prophet's own words:
These - and many more like them - are passages from the "Holy Koran". Just see what happens when you criticize the Koran to your Muslim "friends".
My guess is their response will be far from "moderate".
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Kenneth
Claire Berlinski
Kenneth: Claire, I admire your dogged efforts at bridge-building, Honestly.
But you live in a totally atypical Muslim country, secularized by Ataturk.
This is exactly my point, though. Every time someone says, "Islam cannot be secularized," I smack my head. · Aug 22 at 5:39pm
But Ataturk arose at a unique time.
Where is today's Ataturk? Islam is moving away from his nationalism and toward a dream of a restored Caliphate. · Aug 22 at 5:46pm
Secularism isn't the end-all, be-all, you know. Today's Attaturk? I'm not sure, but there were Attaturk 2.0 wannabes: Hussein, Assad, and Nasser, for instance.
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Secularism isn't the end-all, be-all, you know. Today's Attaturk? I'm not sure, but there were Attaturk 2.0 wannabes: Hussein, Assad, and Nasser, for instance.
They weren't secularists. They were Arabists, who wanted to form a trans-Arab Republic. They used Islam as a tool towards that end.
All of them called for Jihad against Israel, when any rational reckoning would have led them to make peace.
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Kenneth, let's take your reasoning to its logical conclusion. Because the Koran says these things, then Muslims must believe them. Thus, when Muslims act to kill non-Muslims, they are doing so in accordance with the fundamental tenets of their religion. (I'm sure you see that this definition conveniently makes moderate Muslims irrelevant.)
Let's take a nice passage from Exodus, shall we? Something familiar...perhaps the story of the Golden Calf. King James Version:
Exodus 32:26-28
"Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, "Who is on the LORD's side? Let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about 3000 men."
As a Christian, I don't endorse that. Do you?
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Kenneth:
They weren't secularists. They were Arabists, who wanted to form a trans-Arab Republic. They used Islam as a tool towards that end.
All of them called for Jihad against Israel, when any rational reckoning would have led them to make peace. · Aug 22 at 7:12pm
You're right, they were arab nationalists. Anything that interfered with their power(including religion) needed to be suppressed. Of course they were willing to use religion as a handy tool to bolster their ambitions. They were equally willing to marginalize it when useful. If your president-for-life looks like a populist nationalist and sounds like a populist nationalist, he just may be...
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Charlie Dameron:
Let's take a nice passage from Exodus, shall we? Something familiar...perhaps the story of the Golden Calf. King James Version:
Exodus 32:26-28
"Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, "Who is on the LORD's side? Let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about 3000 men."
As a Christian, I don't endorse that. Do you? · Aug 22 at 7:14pm
We had an Enlightenment and a Reformation.
Islam didn't.
You don't see Christians rioting and murdering when the Pope is insulted. You do see it when the Holy Koran is allegedly flushed down a toilet or someone draws a picture of the Prophet.
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Kenneth
We had an Enlightenment and a Reformation.
Islam didn't.
You don't see Christians rioting and murdering when the Pope is insulted. You do see it when the Holy Koran is allegedly flushed down a toilet or someone draws a picture of the Prophet. · Aug 22 at 7:28pm
You're treating Islam as if it is static. "Islam didn't [have an Enlightenment]." But this is not the final word. For one thing, it's not like the Muslim world or Islamic theology is impervious to Enlightenment thinking. (And, by the way, try asking the Vatican about the Enlightenment and Reformation! You'd still have lots to argue about!) Plenty of great Muslim intellectuals to discuss here...I won't get into all of them. Have you ever read the works of Fazlur Rahman Malik?
In any case, even if you accept the idea that Islam hasn't gone through the necessary reforms, wouldn't you be interested in harboring and strengthening the voices for reform? Like, for instance, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf?
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Like, for instance, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf?
You're kidding, right? A guy who tells us he is about building bridges while he supports Hamas, calls for the destruction of Israel and says that the United States deserved 9/11?
May '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Turkey was made secular by brutal force, correct? If so, it is not paradigm of hope.
If one ignores Turkey's history and considers only how Turkey is today, is it a nation where Jews and Christians can live comfortably and openly?
Human nature is the same everywhere. I don't doubt that there is great kindness and hospitality to be found in Turkey. But personal tolerance doesn't necessarily translate into legal tolerance or considerate political philosophies. Many people who well love their families and neighbors also support horrible injustices.
As etoiledunord points out, the proof is in the pudding. I can be friends with Muslim individuals. But Muslim nations seem universally hostile to foreign cultures, including Judaism and Christianity. Why? How could Wahhabism take hold of so many nations without successful resistance (through justifiable means) somewhere?
It's not only societal leaders who are to blame. We don't pretend regular citizens had no part in our segregation.
Courageman makes good points. Since Islam was never institutionalized as Christianity was, interpretations of the sacred text can only be centered by tradition, as with the Talmud in Judaism. Would Jews call the Talmud the final authority?
May '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
One last thought. Religious freedom and secularism are not the same. Religion is never private and should never be banned from the public square. It must only be institutionally separate from government. Secularism is not an admirable goal.
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Since Islam was never institutionalized as Christianity was, interpretations of the sacred text can only be centered by tradition, as with the Talmud in Judaism.
True that Islam did not develop a centralized hierarchy.
Not true that the Koran can only be "centered" by tradition. 3/4 of the university degrees in the Muslim world are awarded to students of Islamic scholarship. Over the centuries, these Imams have exhaustively interpreted the Koran. There is no doubt about what the Koran means.
Aug '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
(random bloodthirsty verse Googled from ReligiousTolerance.Org or somesuch)
As a Christian, I don't endorse that. Do you?
Here's the difference (in addition to the structural-intellectual ones that already have been pointed out to you) ... you can cite verses all you want, but the proof of the pudding in in the eating.
There are, for all practical purposes, no terrorists in the world today who act in the name of Christianity, and this has been the case for quite some time. And all of the few who do/did earn(ed) universal condemnation from Christian authorities and none of the governments in Christendom support(ed) them.
None of those things is true in Islam. Virtually every terrorist group in the world acts in the name of Islam, and reaction to them from Muslims and Muslim governments is mixed at best
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Kenneth: Claire, I would be intensely interested to hear your friend's take on the Armenian Genocide.
My bet is he is a denier. Hmm? · Aug 22 at 6:24pm
Hey Kenneth, I think your use of the Armenian Genocide is out of place in this debate. You are trying to link it to Turkey's Islamic radicalism in the 20th century, but in reality, those massacres and death marches were carried out for political reasons, not religious. The Ottoman authorities at the time suspected the Armenians would side with their Russian enemies, and so they ordered those unspeakable acts. Not that political reasons make genocide any more excusable, but your use of it in this debate is a little misleading.
Aug '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
The fact that one can interpret the Koran in a "moderate" fashion, does not make it necessarily moderate, and vice versa. In other words, necessary and sufficient are two different concepts.
Further, much like Reform or Secular Jews, although there may be "moderate" Muslims, that doesn't necessarily make any meaningful statement about the fundamental Islamic tradition and its compatibility with latter tacked on fashionable ideas.
In other words, it is quite possible and arguably probable that "moderate" Muslims are merely the equivalent of Reform or secular Jews, i.e. people who like the "tradition" but don't buy into the core theology - which allows them to accept concepts otherwise anathema to Shariah / Halacha (l'havdil elef havdalos)
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Courageman, what do you actually know of the Muslim world? Because it seems to me that once you get out into a predominantly Muslim place -- Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Oman, etc. -- then you realize that the implication that you're making, that there's something especially and inherently violent about Islam as a religion, is really just empirically wrong.
I would challenge anyone who wants to hold forth as some sort of blog comment board pseudo-expert on Islam and the Islamic world to actually go there and see how people live Islam on a day to day basis.
And by the way, the story of the Golden Calf is not some "random" bloodthirsty story in the Bible. It's quite an important one about the consequences of worshipping false idols. That story is in both the Bible and the Koran. All of our religious traditions have a violent streak in them. And there's plenty of terrorism in the name of religion on all sides, from Hindu extremist groups to Muslim fanatics to abortion clinic bombers to the Irgun.
Jun '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Good Muslim, bad Muslim,good religion, bad religion, Christian, Jew, Hindu, bottom line, courageman at #52,"Virtually every terrorist group in the world acts in the name of Islam"
And that has been the case for at least 30 years with no end in sight. I am all for embracing moderate Islam. Guys like Zuhdi Jasser should be held up on a pinnacle. But we cannot help moderate Muslims be pussyfooting around the tulips. Pandering and mollifying Islamists won't help to support moderates. Just the opposite will continue to take place. Islamists will reign supreme and moderates will be forced to cower in their corners.
Support the moderate Muslims. OUTLAW SHARIA in the USA.
Edited on August 23, 2010 at 3:05pmJul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Mao Zehedgehog
Kenneth: Claire, I would be intensely interested to hear your friend's take on the Armenian Genocide.
My bet is he is a denier. Hmm? · Aug 22 at 6:24pm
Hey Kenneth, I think your use of the Armenian Genocide is out of place in this debate. You are trying to link it to Turkey's Islamic radicalism in the 20th century, but in reality, those massacres and death marches were carried out for political reasons, not religious. The Ottoman authorities at the time suspected the Armenians would side with their Russian enemies, and so they ordered those unspeakable acts. Not that political reasons make genocide any more excusable, but your use of it in this debate is a little misleading. · Aug 23 at 12:11am
It might be irrelevant if the people and government of Turkey admitted that it happened. Instead, they adamantly claim that the Armenians started it.
I haven't claimed that there is radicalism in Turkey in the 20th Century.
Read The Burning Tigris, and then we'll talk.
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Charlie Dameron
And there's plenty of terrorism in the name of religion on all sides, from Hindu extremist groups to Muslim fanatics to abortion clinic bombers to the Irgun.
Boy, that is a desperate reach. 15,897 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11. 80 Attacks during the current "holy month" of Ramadan, with 327 people dead.
And you want to compare that to abortion clinic bombings? How many of those since 9/11? All by lone nutcases.
And the Irgun? 60 years ago?
Maybe you should travel less and read more.
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Charlie, I'm not an expert on Islam, pseudo or otherwise, but I have had some experience in the Islamic world. Three tours , to be specific. I've seen women beaten by the religious police. I've seen women cover themselves, in suffocating heat, or risk severe punishment. I saw a man driving his pickup truck down a highway with his goats in the passenger seat and a lady sitting in the back of the truck. I tried to go to the local area we called "chop chop square," where they cut off body parts with legal sanction, but infidels aren't allowed there. I've been in aircraft when moderate surface to air missiles were sent to greet us. The equivalence between faiths that you suggest should at least be informed by current events, don't you think? Lastly I respectfully suggest that there is an inverse relationship between moderate Islam in most countries, and the percentage of Muslims in that country.
Aug '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Maybe you should travel less and read more.
Took the words right out of my mouth, particularly since this ...
And there's plenty of terrorism in the name of religion on all sides, from Hindu extremist groups to Muslim fanatics to abortion clinic bombers to the Irgun.
came in response to this
There are, for all practical purposes, no terrorists in the world today who act in the name of Christianity, and this has been the case for quite some time. And all of the few who do/did earn(ed) universal condemnation from Christian authorities and none of the governments in Christendom support(ed) them.
which already answered every point made. What do you actually know about the words in front of your face.
Maybe, instead of lording over your supposedly superior passport stamps -- for the record, I won't answer your question on principle; it has nothing to do with anything -- you would do well to actually read what's in front of your face instead of knee-jerking to Anti-Christianist Talking Point 27(a)