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
Without doubt that is a disturbing trend and a scary thing to consider happening in one’s own backyard. I’m trying to imagine the ACLU’s figurative head exploding if faced with the actual onset of Sharia law in a given community in the U.S.
Charlie —
I think I understand where you’re coming from when you cite bloodthirsty Bible verses, but I believe there are important exegetical differences in the traditional way the Bible and Quran are read — or there definitely seem to be to us Westerners.
For example, when Psalm 137 (136) v9 says, “Blessed is he who shall get the upper hand And dash your infants against the rocks!” it is Christian tradition to understand this not as an instruction to dash infants’ heads against rocks, but merely as an emotional expression of the psalmist’s anguish in exile.
Likewise, Proverbs 13:26, “He who spares the rod hates his son…” has this gloss in the Orthodox Study Bible: “The rod is the gentle rod of rebuke…” That is, the rod is a primarily a metaphorical rod.
In other words, there is a long Christian tradition (stretching back to the earliest church) of reading bloodthirsty passages metaphorically or allegorically rather than literally.
In Islam, on the other hand, the allegorical tradition seems less well-developed, at least to us, since we hear of so many Islamic religious/political leaders repeatedly calling on their flock to carry out bloodthirsty Quranic passages quite literally.
PS: I used the Orthodox Study Bible as a source because it is essentially the New King James Bible glossed with patristic (that is, early Christian) exegesis. The exegesis therefore isn’t just modern interpretation or re-interpretation, but instead has a long history in the Church.
Slightly off-topic, but it’s tragic to see Ron Paul, a man I used respect and to whom I contributed for 20 years, go off the deep end.
Today, he said that opposition to the GZM is “…all about hatred and Islamophobia…”, whipped up by neocons who will go to any length to rally support for our illegal wars in the Middle East,
While I am no supporter of the two current wars, I find his conspiratorial rant to be unhinged and his depiction of opponents of GZM to be as distasteful as anything I’ve heard from Bloomberg or Frank Rich.
Sorry, but I don’t see Paul’s comments as any frootier or loopier than anything else he’s ever said about foreign policy. His suggested response to 9-11? Letters of marque and reprisal.
Trace, you’re quite right. Sorry to have engaged in a bit of ad hominem, courageman and Kenneth.
In other words, there is a long Christian tradition (stretching back to the earliest church) of reading bloodthirsty passages metaphorically or allegorically rather than literally.
In Islam, on the other hand, the allegorical tradition seems less well-developed, at least to us, since we hear of so many Islamic religious/political leaders repeatedly calling on their flock to carry out bloodthirsty Quranic passages quite literally. ·Aug 23 at 10:09am
Edited on Aug 23 at 10:10 am
This is an interesting point to note. Indeed, there is such a tradition in Islam of reading allegorically rather than literally, but it doesn’t get that much press. Muhammad Asad’s English translation and commentary on the Qur’an is a wonderful example of this tradition, which stretches back to the Mu’tazilite school of Islamic theology.
I think you’re right that this allegorical tradition is less mainstream in Islam than in Christianity — a real cause for concern. I just think that this has more to do with a variety of social factors than the religion itself.
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.
Exactly. The only outcome one gets from dubbing an entire religion as inherently evil is to alienate the moderates of that religion, thus losing an ally against the extremists.
Its only been in the last 100 years or so that the Western world has even started paying attention to the Middle East and the Islamic World. Why? Oil and the establishment of Israel. Coincidentally, those are the two reasons the Islamic community (or at least the fundamentalists) in the Middle East hates the West. As to why muslim extremists hate Jews, I have no idea, but that phenomena is certainly not unique to Muslims (see: Inquisition, Russian Pogroms, Holocaust)
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.
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)
Claire, I have been following your friend Babur on your Facebook page. I hate to say this, but he is nothing but an apologist for Islam’s violent history.
He’s a perfect example of a Muslim pretending to moderation, but engaging in ridiculous denial of the true history of Islam’s aggressiveness.
I’m not interested in any muslim actions except those of the Prophet (sav), Abu Bakr, Omar, Osman, and Ali.
NO OTHER MUSLIM LEADER have had the authority to represent Islam personally.
Those looking for demagogy don’t need to take shelter in later examples- those five leaders may supply plenty.
2) You cannot present one single example (except the very doubtful case of Beni Qurayza) where the sole representa…tive leaders of Islam, namely the Prophet (sav) – Abu Bakr – Omar – Osman – Ali have conducted violence against civilians.
3) Verses and chapters? You cannot cherry pick among them, Islam is a whole. If you like, I can also cherry pick among extremely peaceful verses.
4) Until the 11th century, and despite very SINFUL muslim administrations, Islamic civilization has brought along peace, prosperity and justice to whatever land it conquered.
5) My favorite (and perhaps only) example of a LATE perfect Islamic state is Andalucian Umayyad State.
6) Andalucian State exhibits how a beautiful culture Islam can establish IN THE RIGHT HANDS.
7) Yes, Andalucian State started with the sword (against armies) and ended at a very civilized point, in a fairly short time.
8) I can repeat all the same for the satate lead by Omar..
I’m sorry, but Western civilization only FAKES to have the vision to “bring peace and civilization through sword”, and yet it harms very many civilians..
ABOUT BENI QURAYZA:
3) The answer can be found in the dialogue between Beni Qurayza and Kab b. Esed, one of the leaders of the tribe. Before the surrender, they had a long discussion, and agreed to give themselves up only if the Torah law was to be applied.
4) Yes, the Prophet could choose not to apply the Torah law, AS A MATTER OF FACT, HE DID SO IN OTHER SITUATIONS WHEN HE HAD THE FULL INITIATIVE.
5) Some historians argue that, the unique case of Beni Qurayza is a multi-party situation, where the options of the Prophet (sav), not enough powerful at that time, were somewhat limited: Beni Qurayza men had broken the truce by attacking families, women and children; causing terror throughout the Arabian Peninsula and the young muslim society..
.. TO BE CONTINUED
ABOUT BENI QURAYZA (2):
Lastly.. Please provide me with a single example from the Prophet-Abu Bakr-Omar-Osman-Ali era, where innocent civilians were harmed..
No, please do not cherry pick among verses or chapters, tell me about incidents and decisions
My “sinful” ancestors welcomed Sefardim Jews, expelled by Spanish Inquisition. Simply, members of Western civilization escaped one another and made their way into my country..
Western civilization may have gone through Enlightenment, but that didn’t help much with WW1, WW2, Hiroshima, Nagazaki, etc., did it?
I believe we’re too old to befool each other, yes?
And I’m sorry to add, your behaviour is one fine example of narrow-minded rhetoric..
I’m not interested in any muslim actions except those of the Prophet (sav), Abu Bakr, Omar, Osman, and Ali.
Well … when they show up and start running Muslim affairs in the here-and-now and in the current time, I’ll be interested in a discussion with them and/or with you about them.
Dar al-Islam **now** is the only place in the world where civilians are deliberately attacked, with any-official and mainstream-mass approval. And the only places in the world where I might reasonable expect to be executed for (what I admit are) my sins in the bedroom.
As to why muslim extremists hate Jews, I have no idea, but that phenomena is certainly not unique to Muslims (see: Inquisition, Russian Pogroms, Holocaust) ·Aug 23 at 11:37am
Actually, Mao, that is a pretty easy point to trace- originally, according to what purports to be his history/bio, Muhammad tried to convert the Jews in Medina, and told his followers to pray turned toward Jerusalem. He was mocked, and in one case, there was an attempted assassination, so he decided to exterminate them instead and shifted the prayer direction to Mecca.
I am, however, very much with Charlie here rather than Kenneth. In fact, I suspect that “Kenneth” is Robert Spencer’s Ricochet alias. (to be continued)
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.
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.
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.
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..”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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….
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.