Here is a wonderful article by Jonah Goldberg that (in my opinion) correctly targets our real enemies in the Muslim world. July 12, 2002 4:15 p.m. Blame Islam -Just not all of it. Jonah Goldberg- National Review Online Prompted by the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, a cautious debate is taking place in Saudi Arabia's closed society over intolerance toward non-Muslims and attitudes toward the West that are now viewed by some as inspiring unacceptable violence. This is how a story in Friday's New York Times begins. "The debate appears to represent a significant shift in a society whose Wahhabi branch of Islam tends to make such questioning taboo," Times reporter Neil MacFarquhar continues. "Apparently a small group of intellectuals, academics, journalists and religious scholars are quietly suggesting that change is needed." "We have to confront a lot of things that we thought were normal," Khaled M. Batarfi told the Times. Batarfi is the managing editor of Al Madina, a daily newspaper which, according to the Times, is a pioneering and progressive newspaper. "Before Sept. 11, it was just an opinion, 'I think we should hate the others,' " Batarfi says. "After Sept. 11, we found out ourselves that some of those thoughts brought actions that hurt us, that put all Muslims on trial." I see. It's not the hating, per se, which is the problem. It's that darned blowback the hating creates. If we could just hate "the others" (Read: Christians, Jews, Hindus, and everybody else who isn't a Muslim) without creating so many hassles for Muslims well, then, everything would be fine. Now, remember Mr. Batarfi is what amounts to a bleeding-heart liberal in Saudi Arabia. He just wants to hate without inconvenience. Saudi "conservatives" think such views are heretical because, hey, what's hating good for without the killing? Hating without killing, that's no good. You might as well kiss your sister if you're gonna hate Jews and Christians but not kill them. I mean, come on. What's the point? For example, the Times reports, views like Mr. Batarfi's "remain controversial." When a bunch of Saudi intellectuals issued a manifesto raising the idea that there might be "common ground with the West" they were, according to the Times, "subjected to withering rebuke by those who accept the Wahhabi notion that Islam thrives on hostility toward infidels." "You give the false impression that many people condemned the war against America," one critic exclaimed on a popular website. "But the truth is that many people are happy declaring this war, which gave Muslims a sense of relief." Sheik Hamad Rais al-Rais, an elderly blind scholar, complained that the manifesto's sympathy for the victims of September 11 "debased Islam," in the words of the Times, for forgetting to point out that jihad is a central tenet of Islam. "You cry for what happened to the Americans in their markets and offices and ministries and the disasters they experienced," wrote the sheik, "and you forget the oppression and injustice and aggression of those Americans against the whole Islamic world." (One quick parenthetical question: Why does it seem like so many Islamic scholars, particularly the nasty ones, are blind? Does the Koran say that you can't ingest vitamin A? I'm sure I'm missing something, but rabbis and Franciscan monks don't seem to go blind more than the general population.) Note the sheik's invocation of the "whole Islamic world." More on that in a moment. Another popular (and presumably sighted) sheik who died last year, issued a famous fatwah which explains that Muslims who live abroad should "harbor enmity and hatred for the infidels and refrain from taking them as friends." Now, some Saudis like to split the difference between the conservatives and the liberals, explaining that the distinction between the hating and the killing is a false choice, as Bill Clinton might say. You can hate all you like without any blowback whatsoever. As a professor of Islamic law explains to the Times. "Well, of course I hate you because you are Christian, but that doesn't mean I want to kill you." OKAY, DON'T BLAME ISLAM, BLAME WAHHAB I could go on all day about this Times story. It reads almost like an Onion parody. Read it yourself and then imagine an identical article being written about Nazi Germany. "'Until the Normandy invasion many here believed that hating non-Aryans was just an opinion, but now some of us feel that our genocide and conquests are hurting Germans, putting all Germans on trial,' said Piter Thorman….Others feel that sympathy for the massacred Jews directly contradicts the teachings of Adolph Hitler…." Etc. Etc. But I want to talk about John Derbyshire's wonderful essay, "Don't Blame Islam." I highly recommend it to everyone. Derb — as we who barely know him call him in print — makes a largely persuasive argument for, well, not blaming Islam. A central point to his argument is that it's fundamentally unfair to blame a religion — any religion — for the actions of the people who misinterpret it. The Jewish Bible has all sorts of smiting and wrath in it. But — outside of Israel's neighborhood — my people haven't done much smiting lately. And our wrath usually takes the form of lawsuits or boycotts of Chinese restaurants. The Christian Bible preaches love and turning the other cheek and yet Christians have strayed away from the text more than a couple times in their history. The Koran was once the defining text of a great and relatively tolerant civilization. The fact that it is now used to justify all sorts of horrors speaks to the problems of various Arab societies. To unfairly sum-up Derb's argument, religions don't kill people, peoples kill people. My response is, well, yes and no. As Derb is no doubt far more aware than me, there are very real differences between Islam and Christianity. Islam was a religion of the sword. Perhaps the leading definition of jihad, historically speaking, is a holy war to retake or defend Muslim lands. If you die while defending the soil, you will get your virgins and the rest of the goodies behind curtain #2. This, it seems to me, is a religious doctrine especially suited to empire-building. Call me crazy. Meanwhile, Christianity was born in suffering. A Christian martyr, at least during Christianity's formative centuries, died because he refused to relinquish his faith not because he refused to relinquish some territory. Any non-Muslim can still recognize that Muhammed was an indisputably great man according to any definition of what makes someone a great historical figure. He was wise and brave and intelligent and many other wonderful things. He changed the world faster and more significantly than anyone in human history, Jesus and all the prophets included. But, unlike Jesus, Muhammed was also a general. He ordered the beheadings of his enemies. He took the wives and children of the vanquished and gave them to his men as booty. Jesus didn't do that sort of thing. I'm no expert, but I think the most violent thing he did was knock over some tables and kick some money changers in the butt. These differences are hardly insignificant. Regardless, I take Derb's point and largely agree. Islam need not be a hateful religion and for untold millions of decent people around the globe it most certainly isn't that. I think every Muslim I've actually met has struck me as kind and generous. And, since Islam will not go away whether we want it to or not, we'd better get busy working with the good guys in the Islamic world to make sure the bad guys don't win. Which brings me back to Saudi Arabia and where I might disagree with Derb. He doesn't discuss Wahhabism or the Saudis in his essay so I'm not sure where he stands. I can accept the argument that no truly successful and enduring religion can be fundamentally evil. Religion doesn't work that way. But "enduring" can be a long time. And history is full of examples of short-lived evil or dangerous religions. The Thuggees — from whence the word "thug" is derived — were an evil cult which glorified murder and robbery, for example. There have been any number of cults which have claimed to be the "true faith" of a larger, dominant religion. Many of these cults produced thriving, healthy denominations: Shia Muslims, Lutherans, Lubavitch Jews etc. And sometimes these cults were just plain dangerous and terrible. And sometimes, I suppose, these cults started batty and dangerous and mellowed over the years. I covered a lot of this territory in my "Islam Needs a Pope" column, but I think serious people need to address the fact that while Islam may be innocent of many of the charges leveled against it, Wahhabism is guilty of all charges. It is a cult which is breeding terrorists every day. Saudi Arabia is the Muslim equivalent to the Soviet Union in the 1930s. They are brutally repressive at home and fanatical proselytizers abroad. All around the globe, the people who put the lie to "Islam means peace" are attending Wahhabi mosques. Afghanistan under the Taliban was a satellite of Saudi Arabia, politically and ideologically. In Pakistan, Indonesia, and the U.S. it is Saudi money and Saudi (Wahhabi) ideology which is the threat. That New York Times article is just a drop in an ocean of evidence, but it says everything you need to know. Islam doesn't necessarily preach hate any more than Christianity does. But under Wahhabism hate is just as much of an obligation as praying (and yet Saudi apologists continue to call them "moderates" because they sell us oil). Apparently Wahhabis resent being called Wahhabis because they claim that they are simply the most faithful Muslims. To call them Wahhabis suggests they are merely a branch — or cult — of what is supposed to be a unified, monolithic, faith. Wahhabi clerics claim to speak for all Muslims. And they are not Islamic Derbyshires. They say all Muslims are at war with all Christians and Jews because Christians and Jews are most certainly to blame. Meanwhile, the Saudis are working very hard to ensure that they do in fact speak for all Muslims. They are spending millions trying to convert the whole Muslim world to the "true faith." And if they are successful, if the world's Muslims all embrace the Wahhabi way then Derb will have a much harder time saying Islam is not to blame. So we better get to work helping the Muslims Derb is talking about before it's too late.
That's a terrible article, and if it were about Christianity, you'd receive a much worse flaming. Of the more than one billion Muslims around the world, only 18% are Arab. The most populous Muslim country in the world is Indonesia. The second most populous Muslim country is Bangladesh. Neither of these countries is Arab. Meanwhile, Christianity was born in suffering. A Christian martyr, at least during Christianity's formative centuries, died because he refused to relinquish his faith not because he refused to relinquish some territory. Mohammed died when he was old, not in War, and by this articles analogies, Moses was a bad man because he defended the Israelites and freed them from the Pharaoh. Misconception Islam tolerates the killing of innocents because: * Muslims can be terrorists * Muslims engage in `holy wars' (jihad) * Islam spread by the sword * it has a harsh and cruel judicial system This misconception is one of the most widely held misconceptions about Islam today. And yet in the Qur'an, the Creator unambiguously states (translation), [17:33] Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life, for he is helped (by the Law) Based on this verse, it is Islamically unlawful to murder anyone who is innocent of certain crimes. It is well to remember at this point the distinction made above between Qur'an and Sunnah, and the Muslims: only the Qur'an and Sunnah are guaranteed to be in accordance with what the Creator desires, whereas the Muslims may possibly deviate. Hence, if any Muslim kills an innocent person, that Muslim has committed a grave sin, and certainly the action cannot be claimed to have been done "in the name of Islam." It should be clear, then, that "Muslim terrorist" is almost an oxymoron : by killing innocent people, a Muslim is commiting an awesome sin, and Allah is Justice personified. This phrase is offensive and demeaning of Islam, and it should be avoided. It is hoped that as the general level of public awareness and understanding of Islam increases, people will keep "terrorism" and "Islam" separate from each other, not to be used in the same phrase. Another reason advanced in support of the misconception is that the Creator has imposed `jihad ' on us. The term "holy war" is from the time of the Crusades and originated in Europe as a rallying cry against the Muslims in Jerusalem. Jihad is an Arabic word meaning struggle, but in the context of many verses in the Qur'an, it carries the meaning of military struggle, or war. Allah gradually introduced the obligation of military struggle to the Muslim community at the time of the Messenger (saas). The first verse ever revealed in that connection is as follows (translation), [22:39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; This verse lays down the precondition for all war in Islam: there must exist certain oppressive conditions on the people. The Creator unequivocally orders us to fight oppression and persecution, even at the expense of bloodshed as the following verse shows (translation), [2:190-192] And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors. As one might imagine, the method of military struggle has been clearly and extensively defined in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Since this subject is a huge one, we simply summarize part of it by noting that it is unlawful to kill women, children, the infirm, the old, and the innocent. From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find: [4:52:257] Narrated 'Abdullah: During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children. A related misconception to jihad is often propagated by Muslims who say that "Jihad is only for self-defense of physical borders." The Qur'an and Sunnah refute this notion categorically. As the verses cited above show, jihad is obligatory wherever there is injustice, and Muslims need not acknowledge imaginary lines around the earth when it comes to upholding this obligation. The Messenger of Allah (saas) has also commented on this extensively in the Sunnah. From the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find that, [4:52:65] Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." Hence, the Creator obligates us to fight wherever people are being grossly deprived of freely hearing or practicing the Message of Allah as contained in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Sayyed Qutb, a famous Muslim scholar eloquently discusses the notion of jihad and self-defense in his book Milestones, "If we insist on calling Islamic jihad a defensive movement, then we must change the meaning of the word `defense' and mean by it `defense of man' against all those elements which limit his freedom. These elements take the form of beliefs and concepts, as well as of political systems, based on economic, racial, or class distinction." A third reason often cited for the misconception about Islam which says that this way of life tolerates the killing of innocents is that the judicial system of Islam is unnecessarily harsh. This reason is weak in two respects. First, it presupposes that human beings are more just and more merciful than the Creator, and therefore we can change the law. Second, it is often based on gross oversimplifications of Islamic law, such as saying "all thieves get their hands cut off." The Qur'an and Sunnah make it clear that the law of retaliation (or equality) governs us for murder and physical injury, but forgiveness is better as the following verses from the Qur'an show (translation), [2:178] O you who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement. [42:40-43] The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loves not those who do wrong. But indeed if any do help and defend themselves after a wrong (done) to them, against such there is no cause of blame. The blame is only against those who oppress men and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a grievous penalty. And whoever is patient and forgiving, these most surely are actions due to courage. The Creator ordained the law of retaliation on us knowing full well that we might question it. In many non-Muslim societies today, there are ongoing debates about the death penalty. In Islam, this discussion is moot: the Creator has decided the matter for us. He has however given us an interesting verse in the Qur'an which advises to consider the matter carefully if we want to understand it (translation follows), [2:179] And there is life for you in (the law of) retaliation, O people of understanding, that you may guard yourselves. Most people are also unaware of the stringent conditions which must be met for the law of retaliation to be applicable. The Sunnah is full of examples of the Messenger of Allah showing us when the law's preconditions were fulfilled. For example, a thief is only liable to lose his or her hand if the item stolen exceeds a certain value, and if it is proven that the item was taken from its normal resting place. Stealing food is not punishable by the loss of one's hand, and other items are exempt as well. This is just an example of how gingerly the law is applied in Islam. Finally, another reason advanced for this prevalent misconception is that Islam `spread by the sword'. It should be clear by now that we must always distinguish between the Qur'an and Sunnah and the Muslims when it comes to determining what the Creator has asked of us. Allah has stated clearly in the Qur'an (translation), [2:256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever rejects Satan (and what he calls to) and believes in Allah, he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handhold, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. Hence, it is impossible to accept Islam under duress. Even if misguided Muslims were to try to `force' Islam somehow on others, it would not be accepted by the Creator based on this verse. Historical arguments that try to demonstrate that Muslims did not `convert others by force' are actually secondary to the argument given above. However, it is worth noting that historically, Islam did spread by peaceful means. The Message of the Creator was conveyed to Africa and to southeast Asia by trading Muslims, and today the largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia. The military expeditions that led to the conquest of large swathes of territory in Europe and central Asia were all marked by tolerance of other creeds and faith. Again, it is important to remember that Allah declares it IMPOSSIBLE that Islam can be forced on a person, hence Muslims find it useless to try!
Please reread the article Azadre. It makes a case that radical Arab Islam, like the Wahabbis, doesn't represent true Islam.
I think it's intresting, in the case of Islam as in the case with Christianity, to think about how cultural biases in the formative years of a religion's growth can influence said religion's development. For instance, early Christian icons and symbolism are heavily influenced by pre-christian Zorastrian themes. I've seen fairly solid evidence that Christ's birthday was actually in the summer, based on the shepherds being in the fields, and was only moved to December to coincide with an unrelated Roman harvest festival. Finally, the bible is a series of books which were joined together several hundred years later. Individual books were added or rejected based on the decisions of individuals. I think, for me, that I can see a large contrast in the Arab Islam of today and that which was around in the 10th and 11th century with that which is around today in the same Arab countries. I look at the wonderful, inquisitive, thoughtful Arab Muslems that kept learning alive through the middle ages with astronomy, mathmatics, and engineering while Europe foundered in a pile of pig ****, and I see very little resemblance to the strict Saudi Islam of today that punishes the first sign of questioning. Anyway, IMHO (biased, of course) God, Allah, or whoever gave us a wonderful tool when we were granted rational thought, in order that we can see through the failings of the mortal word. IMHO, a faith that doesn't question itself with rational thought is a hollow faith. (BTW Adzare, do you still want that computer? I'll have $$$ to ship it out on monday when I get payed, but it seems that you may have already aquired a laptop and a Mac? Let me know if you still need it.)
If interested, here was the thread on the orginal NYT article: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37617
Azadre -- i think you really may have misunderstood the article...it seems to me to say that Islam is not the problem...rather the perception of what Allah requires of believers that seems off-kilter with the Koran as you mention in your post. And the concern is that those people who would interpret it in such a way as to justify things like suicide bombings or 9/11 are too entrenched in positions of influence in the Middle Eastern world. that this interpretation is too pervasive in those nations....much like those who used the Bible to justify slavery or racism were entrenched in power here in the United States for some time.
I think the problem with the article is that, while it attempts to say it is about not blaming all of Islam for the extreme fudamentalists, it takes a kind of stance of superiority. There are parts that do not seem important to his point that just kind of put Islam in a negative light (foundation of violence at the onset, making fun of blind guys, etc). That attitude is probably what offended Azadre, making the rest a little pointless.
I agree. Our culture is vastly superior to the culture of Saudi Arabia. Our culture is also vastly superior to Nazi Germany. Cultures do not have equal value. Now, if you want to make an argument about the superiority of cultures which value a simple life of peace and love (like Tibet before the Communist Chinese destroyed it), then we can have an interesting discussion- but don't complain about somebody trashing modern day Saudi Arabia. They subjugate their women, they preach hate and violence around the world, they don't allow people to exress themselves freely in any way, and they don't value TRUTH. That attitude is probably what offended Azadre, making the rest a little pointless. Azadre posted an article that basically agreed with Goldberg's article. I also have read the websites that Azadre used to have in his signature, which were very interesting, and presented the same view- radical Wahabbis don't represent true Islam. If Azadre got offended, it is because he did not read the entire article.
tb, Maybe you should read it again. There are points where he speaks *generally* of Islam. While on one hand he says don't blame them all, he also brings up some general negatives, contrasting it with Christianity. That is my only point and my interpretation of why Azadre may have responded the way he did. I could be wrong... Why does it seem like so many Islamic scholars, particularly the nasty ones, are blind? Does the Koran say that you can't ingest vitamin A? I'm sure I'm missing something, but rabbis and Franciscan monks don't seem to go blind more than the general population. That is pretty general (and what he quoted for his post was general about Mohammed). We are talking religion here, not culture. Anyway, I really don't care about this, just trying to suggest a reason, as opposed to Azadre either not reading the article or misunderstanding English.
