The Hinderaker-Ward Experience #5: Minnestanbul
Blue Yeti ·
Apr 17, 2011 at 8:17pm
Our own Claire Berlinski sits in for the vacationing Brian Ward. She and John cover why Claire lives where she does (hint: 7 cats), the state of things in the middle east, what Saturday nights in Istanbul are like, and a decidedly domestic (and familiar) "Loon of The Week."
Oh, the many ways you can experience the Hinderaker-Ward Experience: subscribe via iTunes, through our favorite mobile app Stitcher, or through Feedburner (if you use a non-iTunes podcatcher, go there). There's even a direct link for you folks on the move.
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: The Hinderaker-Ward Experience #5: Minnestanbul
The more flexible "the truth" is in a society, the more conspiracy theories you'll find. In Turkey, explanations for everything (even simple things, like, "why is there no electricity in my apartment?") seem very flexible. "It's my fault" is not a common answer from building owners. That's what I gather from Claire's reporting on Turkey. When you know that people are lying to you, and know that they know they're lying to you, you tend to overestimate the reasons for it. Usually, they're lying to you because it's just more convenient to lie. They want to spare you the nuances, especially the ones that make them look bad. Or, they don't want to admit that they don't know the answer. I'd also blame the increase in domestic American conspiracy theories on the general increase in American government officials lying to the public. Often, they just don't want to take the blame for things in this polarized political environment that we're in, but the public wonders if there's some darker reason for their lying. That's the trouble with lying. Nobody thinks it's for a benign purpose.
Nov '10
Re: The Hinderaker-Ward Experience #5: Minnestanbul
Claire- without being accused of thinking Islam has uniform manifestation the world over, I think people who incline to the thought that Islam has some "inherent" political element (Hinderaker's suggestion) are perhaps on firmer ground than you're willing to admit.
Islam confronted revelation in the form of law (as opposed to faith) which is not subject to examination by question and answer in order to be understood, but must simply be obeyed. Religious observance, in contradistinction to, say, inwardness and "the form of the will" in Christianity,* has primacy in Islam. Islamic theology is less a private matter. Islam therefore has greater inclination to answer the question of rule, etc.
The point I'm making is essentially the same one Paul Rahe made to you some months ago. But I don't think he or others who make it are thinking those who want to interpret Islam metaphorically are "bad Muslims" such as you allege. It just seems, however, that Islamists' arguments might have considerable foundations.
* This is also why political Christianity has probably much more toxic and virulent than political Islam. As Machiavelli noted, political Christianity is simultaneously weak and cruel. Hence his notion of "pious cruelty."
Edited on Apr 18, 2011 at 4:36amSep '10
Re: The Hinderaker-Ward Experience #5: Minnestanbul
Does anyone agree with the central thesis of this book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind?
Re: The Hinderaker-Ward Experience #5: Minnestanbul
Robert, thanks for reminding me of that thread--let me suggest everyone go back and have a look at it; I confess it fell down the Ricochet old-thread vortex for me.
There are four questions we could ask. 1) How has Islam traditionally been understood. 2) How is it now understood by people who call themselves Muslims--and are therefore part of that "one-fifth of the world" statistic we always hear about? 3) Of those people, how many interpret it in a way compatible with liberal democracy? 4) Does it make any sense to interpret the Koran metaphorically, or is that simply impossible; i.e., are those who interpret it in a way compatible with democracy just incapable of reading and thinking?
These are not the same questions. Let's start with 4), though. And the place to start, I think, is with the Koran. I've got a copy here on my desk, as it happens. I would submit that plainly, some of it must be interpreted non-literally, or you'll immediately run into complete absurdity.
Re: The Hinderaker-Ward Experience #5: Minnestanbul
Just a random example--of course, subject to questions of translation, but the thing is really full of these in any translation. 21-22: "Serve your Lord ... who has made the earth a couch for you." That, clearly, is a metaphor. I could list thousands of examples--do unbelievers literally have veils over their hearts? Of course not, right? It's a metaphor. Then you have 2-7 from The Family of Imraan, which seems to me only understandable as an appeal to appreciate that at least some part of the Koran is metaphorical. Indeed it is impossible to interpret the Koran entirely literally, not least because of the contradictory verses. You need to impose some kind of interpretive structure on it. So for question 4--are those who wish to interpret parts of the Koran metaphorically just out of their heads? I'd say "manifestly not."
Edited on Apr 18, 2011 at 5:48am