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 (8)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
No, no, no, Duane ... there is no such thing as Muslim anti-Semitism.
The moderate Muslim assures us that his ancestors welcomed Sefardic Jews. And only the first few Muslim leaders count. And the West built the A-bomb.
Aug '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
The Qur'an has not been subject to extensive scholarship and criticism to trace its origins
I wonder why? Maybe it's because people don't like having their marriages legally dissolved over their scholarship (in one, relatively happily-ending, case).
I have never seen a situation where "more rubble, less trouble" provided lasting benefit.
Never? Really? How about Germany and Japan after WW2? Or the Confederacy?
I know it sounds nice and high-minded to say things like "violence never solved anything" or "producing rubble never provides lasting benefit." But they and their ilk are as demonstrably untrue as human statements get.
Edited on August 24, 2010 at 12:31amAug '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Dear all,
I'd hate to hurt anybody's feelings with my remarks about Western civilization; I would be extremely sorry if that was the case.
Let me say, civilizations are human-made and, absolutely not free of errors (?)
Both Islam and Western civilizations have produced unacceptable faults over the centuries..
As a matter of fact, both personally and religiously, I don't like the concepts of neither clash nor separation of civilizations.
All beings, including humans, make up the "civilization of creatures"; so, all beings are siblings, and equal before the will of God, one way or another..
al-hamdu lillahi rabbi'l alemin: "The" Praise be to Allah, Lord of all worlds..
In that sense, I was taught to "love the created due to the Creator"
I cannot help loving all people and all beings, sympathizing with their dreams, weaknesses, hopes, expectations, and personalities..
I cannot stand witnessing disappointment of people..
And I truly long for a world where justice systems, shariah, halakha, etc. are not required.
I wish that for all beings.
That's the sufi's way, the "tasavvuf.."
May '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
courageman: .I have never seen a situation where "more rubble, less trouble" provided lasting benefit.
Never? Really? How about Germany and Japan after WW2? Or the Confederacy?
I know it sounds nice and high-minded to say things like "violence never solved anything" or "producing rubble never provides lasting benefit." But they and their ilk are as demonstrably untrue as human statements get. · Aug 23 at 3:29pm
Edited on Aug 23 at 03:31 pm
Implied by the "more rubble, less trouble" line of thinking--by Derbyshire at NR, for example--is to advocate "rubble alone" for certain "unreformables." For this, your examples of Germany, Japan, etc. don't quite work, since we acted (after the rubble) on the conviction that they were indeed reformable, and we did so bigtime. If anything, history's examples of "hopelessly" militaristic societies embracing liberal democracy provide hope for those who suspect that "hopelessly" unenlightened Islamic countries can be likewise turned around.
Put another way, those who oppose "more rubble, less trouble" don't necessarily embrace "violence never solved anything."
Aug '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Put another way, those who oppose "more rubble, less trouble" don't necessarily embrace "violence never solved anything."
The person to whom I was responding did ... "I have never seen."
The rest of your note rebuts nothing I wrote or could be reasonable inferred from what I wrote. Indeed my very citing of Germany and Japan (with the Confederacy being a trickier case) would likely imply that I am aware that it doesn't imply "rubble alone."
Edited on August 24, 2010 at 2:36amJul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
courageman: No, no, no, Duane ... there is no such thing as Muslim anti-Semitism.
The moderate Muslim assures us that his ancestors welcomed Sefardic Jews. And only the first few Muslim leaders count. And the West built the A-bomb. · Aug 23 at 3:22pm
Thanks for straightening that out.
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Duane Oyen: We have a group of radical Islamists who are loud and violent; we do not know how numerous they are. We have another billion followers who don't want to be killed so, they remain silent. The ones I've met are regular people.
The Qur'an has not been subject to extensive scholarship and criticism to trace its origins (see the Atlantic Monthly piece), but this process is beginning. We know that most of the issues of concern arise more from the Hadith than from the Qur'an.
It seems to me that it doesn't advance the quest for the reform of Islam or empowerment of moderate Muslims when we go running around calling everyone in that faith a murderous jihadist. Tone of debate is often more important than the content, and I have never seen a situation where "more rubble, less trouble" provided lasting benefit. · Aug 23 at 3:21pm
You're way overboard. No one is "running around calling every (Muslim) a murderous jihadist." Not even close.
And I'm complimented to be compared to Robert Spencer.
Edited on August 24, 2010 at 5:11amJul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
courageman: No, no, no, Duane ... there is no such thing as Muslim anti-Semitism.
The moderate Muslim assures us that his ancestors welcomed Sefardic Jews. And only the first few Muslim leaders count. And the West built the A-bomb. · Aug 23 at 3:22pm
Apparently, those Jewish refugees even got turn-down service. With a chocolate on the pillow.
May '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Scott, I think you may be correct. But this is disturbing on the face of it. It suggests that America's policy should be: "If you strike us, we will utterly reduce your country (or any country that hosts you) to rubble with no concern whatever for collateral damage. Then we will come in afterward and rebuild you a country suitable for the 21st century." (Ala Germany or Japan.)
The question is, does America have people, or leaders, who have the backbone and the stomach for that? I'm not optimistic.
I think contemporary Americans hope for a negotiated cease-fire, rather than a full-blown victory with an unconditional surrender. How thoroughly would we have to bomb a country until the leaders of that country would voluntarily cough up a bin Laden in order to stop the rain of destruction?
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Tom Lindholtz: Scott, I think you may be correct. But this is disturbing on the face of it. It suggests that America's policy should be: "If you strike us, we will utterly reduce your country (or any country that hosts you) to rubble with no concern whatever for collateral damage. Then we will come in afterward and rebuild you a country suitable for the 21st century." (Ala Germany or Japan.)
The question is, does America have people, or leaders, who have the backbone and the stomach for that? I'm not optimistic.
I think contemporary Americans hope for a negotiated cease-fire, rather than a full-blown victory with an unconditional surrender. How thoroughly would we have to bomb a country until the leaders of that country would voluntarily cough up a bin Laden in order to stop the rain of destruction? · Aug 23 at 8:40pm
To be honest, I'm a bit uncomfortable with this type of speculation, from the standpoint of Ricochet's reputation. I'm not chastising you, just sayin....
Edited on August 24, 2010 at 5:53amMay '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
courageman: Put another way, those who oppose "more rubble, less trouble" don't necessarily embrace "violence never solved anything."
The person to whom I was responding did ... "I have never seen."
You're missing his point, but I'll leave it to him to clarify, if he wishes.
May '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Tom Lindholtz: Scott, I think you may be correct. But this is disturbing on the face of it. It suggests that America's policy should be: "If you strike us, we will utterly reduce your country (or any country that hosts you) to rubble [...]
Tom: I wasn't actually advocating a policy, but merely as a technical matter pointing out that the doctrine of "more rubble, less trouble"--as commonly understood--does not apply to what we did in WWII, since we engaged in major nation building in its aftermath. Nation building is the polar opposite of the policies advocated by the "more rubble, less trouble" crowd.
Jul '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Scott Reusser
Nation building is the polar opposite of the policies advocated by the "more rubble, less trouble" crowd. · Aug 23 at 9:11pm
I devoutly hope we are done with "nation building". Nations are the culmination of centuries of shared cultural understanding and the gradual accretion of laws and institutions. Those are not things that can be imposed, by fiat or by blandishment.
The whole idea of nation-building arose from the observation that no democracy has ever launched a war against any other nation. Nice thinking, Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleeza Rice. But while you were brainstorming, you might have asked yourselves another question:
Has any country ruled by Sharia ever embraced democracy?
Edited on August 24, 2010 at 6:45amAug '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Has any country ruled by Sharia ever embraced democracy?
No, but at least one implemented Shariah as the result of a democratic revolution (Iran).
May '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
Not all terrorism has been done by muslims:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CIA_Red_Cell_Memorandum_on_United_States_"exporting_terrorism",_2_Feb_2010
'Contrary to common belief, the American export of terrorism or terrorists is not a recent phenomenon, nor has it been associated only with Islamic radicals or people of Middle Eastern, African or South Asian ethnic origin. This dynamic belies the American belief that our free, open and integrated multicultural society lessens the allure of radicalism and terrorism for US citizens.' The report looks at a number cases of US exported terrorism, including attacks by US based or financed Jewish, Muslim and Irish-nationalism terrorists. It concludes that foreign perceptions of the US as an "Exporter of Terrorism" together with US double standards in international law, may lead to noncooperation in renditions (including the arrest of CIA officers) and the decision to not share terrorism related intelligence with the United States.
Sep '10
Re: Moderate Islam and the Things People Miss
The circumstance that some muslims are moderate seems obvious and does not seem to have much practical value. Moreover, the point has been made so many times that the purpose of making it again can scarcely be to inform, yet writers go on making it again and again. Maybe they do so partly because it is a fairly easy point to make and is therefore within the capacities of a large number of them.