Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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
and he continues some more …
And more coming!
And he concludes:
And I may have to drop out here, because I just remembered a few things I forgot to pack. But I’ll be back after my flight. Babür, I hereby invite you, as I’m sure we do all, to join Ricochet and continue in my absence.
Claire, thanks for your very reasoned commentary, which is grounded in actual hands-on experience in the Muslim world.
Anyone who has traveled one whit in the Middle East knows that most grand statements about what Islam “is” are complete nonsense. As your friend Babur said, there are as many versions of Islam as there are practitioners. I’ve met Muslims of good will and peace in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, and the United States. I’ve found that the proportion of open-minded, friendly folks in these countries is usually similar.
I notice that many discussants are interested in discussing the Prophet Muhammad’s personal record. Well, Moses had a fairly violent record at times, as did many of the other Old Testament prophets. No doubt that Muhammad permitted violence, even encouraged it. But a deeper engagement with Muhammad’s circumstances provides a good bit of evidence that he was a civilizing and liberalizing force in the Arabian Peninsula in his time. I’m not excusing him, but I think that there’s plenty of fertile ground for progressive and pacifist variations of Islam. I think that’s the Muhammad most Muslims look toward, not the jihadist.
All around the World, Islam, as practiced, is incompatible with real religious freedom. Even in a place like Turkey. Any place where missionaries are routinely arrested or physically attacked is not a good place.
From: http://www.persecution.com/public/restrictednations.aspx?country_ID=NTA%3d
“Despite government claims and a constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, Christians do not enjoy freedom of religion in many areas. Politicians, police and the growing Islamist movement are hostile to anything Christian. Foreign missionaries are not given visas. The media portrays Christians as foreign government agents and spreads rumors that Christians bribe young people with money and sex. The public tends to believe these false accusations. A VOM contact has reported people throwing things at him, spitting at him and verbally abusing him for talking about Christ. He was also interrogated by the police after handing out New Testaments. On Feb. 12, 2009, a Turkish Bible Society bookstore in the city of Adana was vandalized by Muslim extremists for the second time in a week. A court trial continues for two men accused of killing two Turkish Christians and one German Christian in Malatya in 2007.”
2) Throughout all the debates concerning “Islamic mercy against enemies”, my opposites HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE to present a single sample other than Qurayza Tribe. WHAT OTHER EXAMPLES DO YOU HAVE, OTHER THAN BENI QURAYZA?
Grenada, Armenia, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Greece, the Balkans, Bangladesh.
Just a few of many examples.
Anyone who has traveled one whit in the Middle East knows that most grand statements about what Islam “is” are complete nonsense.
So that’s your argument? That other people’s views are “nonsense”?
And that you’ve met a few nice guys in the Middle East?
And that Moses was a tough guy?
Pretty weak.
But your assertion that Mohammed was a civilizing and liberalizing force is just laughable. Read “The Real Mohammed” sometime.
Or, assuming you’re unwilling to put in that much effort, just watch the Daniel Pearl beheading video.
Claire, I would be intensely interested to hear your friend’s take on the Armenian Genocide.
My bet is he is a denier. Hmm?
<i>Anyone who has traveled one whit in the Middle East knows that most grand statements about what Islam “is” are complete nonsense. As your friend Babur said, there are as many versions of Islam as there are practitioners.</i>
And yet the indubitable fact of these sentences — Islam has no magisterium — didn’t prevent babur from being able to say in excruciating detail exactly what (he says) Islam teaches.
Look … either there is an essence or there isn’t. And if there isn’t, any statement of the form “Islam teaches X” is automatically nonsense.
To decide whether Islam INSTITUTIONALLY embraces terrorism or not, the exact description and scope of “GENUINE” Islamic beliefs should be concretized first of all
Actually … no. The exact opposite is true.
To decide whether Islam INSTITUTIONALLY embraces terrorism, what must be concertized first is “what Muslims actually believe” and what must be concretized second is “how do Muslims react, comparatively, to those who do commit terrorism.”
Essentialist doctrinal debates about The True Meaning of Religion X are meaningless to followers of Religions Y and Z (and they’re something on which Y’ers and Z’ers have, in principle, nothing to contribute). Their only importance comes when followers of Religion X believe and follows these True Meaning debates.
In matters of secular governance, I’m a confirmed Nominalist and Empiricist. “Islam” is “Whatever Muslims say, do and think.” Nothing else.
Claire — I love this description of Istanbul. I traveled to Istanbul last November to do some research and recall meeting, as you describe, many warm and friendly Muslims. They’re only agenda, far from political, was to keep my glass of tea and plate of baklava filled up. And when we talked politics, only at my prompting, they had some dark words about Erdogan–specifically because they opposed what they saw as his Islamist agenda.
Kenneth, I’m wary of brazenly trying to define a religion that’s not my own. I’m not talking about reading books and watching documentaries. I’m talking about getting out into the real world and meeting real people. I’ve read plenty of stuff about Islam, including lots of material that’s quite hostile to most Muslim histories. Read Hagarism by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook for an interesting mind-bender — the very real possibility that Muhammad wasn’t even an actual person, or at least that the Qur’an was written long after any “Muhammad” died. It’s quite an interesting historical analysis of Islam’s origins.
What is the essence of Islam? That’s there’s one God, Muhammad was his prophet, and the Qur’an is God’s message. That’s all you need to believe to be Muslim, and once you get beyond that, it’s subject to layers and layers of interpretation. But when people define Islam as inherently violent, then they’re defining Muslims as inherently violent. And, as Claire points out, that definition is just empirically wrong.
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:
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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…
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
Dave — Claire seems to feel that majority-Muslim Turkey is a reasonable place. I would say the same for Malaysia. Certainly India has clashes between Muslim and Hindu populations but the Muslims seem to mostly be on the receiving end there and otherwise society is mostly secular. Those are just places I’ve seen. So there must be some places where the secular tradition is strong enough to box out the most extreme dicta of the religion. It seems that religion is used as an excuse for what are really cultural issues. Historically there has been evidence of that phenomenon in other religions, including Christianity. I’m not advocating not being vigilant, but I can’t see how there is a productive outcome from trying to tag the religion itself as the problem.
And Charlie — Be careful about the ad hominems. Some posters do have deep expertise — otherwise we’re all just here trying to make sense of things in polite conversation (in 200 words or less.)
(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
Trace, very good points, and well taken. I was referencing some research by a Dr. Peter Hammond, whose data suggest that, in general, the higher the muslim population in a country, the less moderate the Islamic influence in that country becomes. He contrasts the US (less than 2%) for example, with France (8%), and notes the unrest and growing pockets of Sharia law, etc. He follows this all the way to countries near 100 percent, and shows a disturbing trend. It may be a case of post hoc fallacy, but it is worth a deeper look, which I intend to do if the truck ever sits in one place long enough.