Over the last month or so several friends of mine (Christopher of Ratzinger Fan Club, Chris of Veritas, William of Eagle and Elephant among other friends) have been holding a great conversation and dialog behind the scenes about the Middle-East, the War in Iraq, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Palestinian Problem and Islam. The fruit of this discussion led Christopher to make a great post on the latter part of this dialog. I highly encourage folks to check his post out and read the comments as well. Here is my humble addition to the public conversation on this topic. I welcome a judgment of this post, both positive and critical.
What is Islam?
Islam in Arabic is referred to as a "Deen." Deen means not a religion but the religion - the one, only, original, true and final religion given to us from God Himself, Allah. The deen of Islam also means a rule, code, path, system, world-view, and way of life. The best translation for deen is ideology. Islam is a complete and total system or ideology encompassing not only religion and spirituality but a complete system of education, economics (interest-free), politics (khalifah), jurisprudence (law), international relations/foreign affairs, warfare/fighting (Jihad), social life, health, etc. The deen of Islam covers every aspect of life for man. The deen of Islam covers (1) the relationship of God to man and (2) the relationship of man to man. The Koran is the revealed "Word of God" to Muslims. The prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) spent more than 20+ years (23 to be exact) revealing (through the example of his own life and oral teachings) to others how to live the deen of Islam. This personal example and oral tradition of the prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) was recorded and is known to Muslims as the Hadith, the sayings and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). Muslims are obligated to follow the teachings of Allah (contained within the Koran and Hadith) which was given to them through the final or seal of the Prophets, Muhammad (p.b.u.h). One that does not follow the Koran or Hadith is not Muslim, but is considered dhimmi, a Jew or Christian, or a kafur, an infidel.
For further reference to this specific topic refer to these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deen_(Arabic_term)
http://www.islam1.org/khutub/Defn__of_Deen_&_Islam.htm
What about the authority in Islam?
A Muslim friend states "there is no hierarchy in Islam. No one speaks for me." He is correct. There is no central authority figure in Islam. Every individual Muslim is their own Pope. The local community leader (Imam) may lead the public prayers, but he has no authority to impose his views on others. This lack of a central authority figure in Islam causes a serious problem - similar to the one in Protestantism. If there is no one to give an official interpretation of the Koran or the Hadith then all views are valid and equal. A radical/militant Muslim's view of the Koran and Hadith is as valid and correct as that of a moderate Muslim. Mr. Aycol (referenced in Christopher's post above) is a Muslim, but his views are no more valid than Osama Bin Laden's.
Considering this issue of authority for Islam, are Muslims capable of their own "Reformation"? Is this even possible?
No not unless the ummah, the entire world-wide Muslim community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah) agrees. With one billion plus Muslims world-wide you have a better chance of walking outside and being struck by lightning than a consensus being reached within the ummah. There is no central authority figure like the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) any longer who received revelation or the deen of Islam. Even if changes were proposed no one would be obligated to follow them. The deen of Islam is a total or complete system and ideology. No updating is necessary. Everything necessary for living (for every aspect of life) has already been given. Muslims only need to follow that which has already been given in the Koran and through the sayings and teachings of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). This is why learning Arabic is important for Muslims. Even though translations of the Koran and Hadith have been given in other languages they always refer back to the original language of Revelation for Muslims.
What about "The Long War with the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam"?
A Muslim friend states "To be a good Muslim, one needs to abide by the 5 pillars of Islam, which can be done by anyone in any country. None of these pillars entails overthrowing governments." The dean of Islam is much, much more than just following and practicing the five pillars of Islam as described in the answer above on what is Islam. My Muslim friend then states that "being Muslim does not mean becoming more radical," but then says a little later that "if a Muslim gives money to a terrorist organization, I'd say that Muslim is radical." Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and many other Muslims countries are well known to pay off terrorist organizations so they don't make attacks or cause problems within their own countries. By his own definition many of the most powerful and wealthy Muslim countries are therefore radical. Those are countries though and not individuals. Moderate estimates dealing with individual Muslims themselves suggest that 10% of them are actively involved the Radical/Militant (Irreconcilable) Wing of Islam and another 10-20% passively support their efforts through giving money to these groups. Therefore 20-30% of the 1+ billion Muslims world-wide are radical by my friend's own definition. That's 200-300 million radical/militant Muslims. How many radical/militant Muslims did it take on 9-11? Our country has been repeatedly attacked over the last 30 years by radical/militant Muslims. These are well known historical facts. This is a very serious problem and one that we cannot ignore. Radical/Militant Muslims have the specific desire and intent of conquering (through both violent and peaceful means) not only Europe, specifically the Vatican, but the entire West. Even if somehow the Arab - Israeli Conflict (and within that the Palestinian Problem) could be solved there will not be peace with this "Wing of Islam" because they have global domination as their end. This "Wing of Islam" is not all those who adhere to the religion of Islam nor all Muslims.
For more information about "The Long War with the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam" refer to the following links of Former Speaker of House, Newt Gingrich.
Securing America and its Allies by Defeating America's Enemies
Challenge Number One
http://www.winningthefuture.com/backpage.asp?art=2645
Focus on the Family audio broadcast featuring Newt: March 9, 2007: The Growing Threat of Radical Islam
What about discrimination of non-Muslims by Muslims?
The Islamic tradition, then and now, is clear on how to discriminate against non-Muslims, i.e. heavier taxes, etc. The Islamic tradition, then and now, is clear on how to deal with Muslims who convert to Christianity. For example, apostates are treated as sub-humans - they can be robbed and killed with no legal repercussions. The Koran, Hadith and Sharia authorize and mandate discrimination of non-Muslims (both against dhimmis, Jews and Christians, and followers of other religions). This is not solely a political problem (yes it is that) but one rooted from within the religious teachings and traditions of Islam itself. The Prophet Mohammad (p.b.u.h.) mandates this type of behavior as acceptable. This has serious repercussions on how Muslims relate and interact with non-Muslims.
Is the approach to politics the same in Muslim and Western countries?
No, there is no separation of politics from religion in the deen of Islam. They are forever fused and interconnected. In Catholicism (the roots of Europe and the West) there is a clear autonomy of the temporal order, which includes politics, economics, etc. The Church does not claim to be expert on lay matters. There is no autonomy of the temporal order in the deen of Islam. This is not possible.
Is a Muslim living in the West, either in Europe or America, obligated to assist in forming a Muslim government in the nation-state in which they reside?
Yes, either through passive or active means. It does not mean by violent means though, but neither does Islam restrict a practicing Muslim from using violence in the formation of an Islamic government. Common sense dictates violence will more than likely have to be used because no government will allow a take-over like this to occur. In the world-view of Muslims the world is divided in two parts. The first part is dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and the second part is dar al-harb (House of War). If one claims to be Muslim then you are obligated to turn dar al-harb into dar al-Islam. The means can be by the sword or peaceably or both. Any and all strategies (even lying, dishonesty, etc.) are allowed to accomplish the end-state. The end justifies the means.
What about religious freedom in Muslim countries and the recognition of the centrality of the person?
These topics are of central importance for the West in regards to our relationship with Muslim countries world-wide. The dignity of the human person must be recognized. I stand with Pope B16 and Christopher on this matter. Refer to his post on this topic.
Is anti-semitism accepted within the Muslim world?
Yes, in fact it is openly advocated for in many quarters of the Muslim world today largely as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Various anti-Semitic comments can be found though within the official texts of Islam, both in the Koran and the Hadith, therefore anti-semitism is rooted in the very origin of the religion. This does not mean all Muslims are anti-semitic though.
Considering the above points one must consider (ontologically) if the religious and therefore political positions of the radical/militant wing of Islam are reasonable, meaning are they rooted from within the sacred texts and Islamic tradition themselves?
I myself am convinced they are. This has very serious implications once you come to the same conclusion. Allow me to give just one of many examples for your consideration. The Koran explicitly (not implicitly) teaches that any Christian who believes and professes the Trinity is true will burn in Hell. Therefore Muslims can respond in one of many ways. I will list only five - this is not an extensive list. (1) They can be apathetic and do nothing. (2) They can conduct little Jihad (warfare) on non-Muslims and send them to Hell even quicker. (3) They can give money to radical/militant organizations. (4) They can have 5-10 kids per family and therefore overwhelm Europe and the West demographically and win eventually by majority rule in a democracy. (5) They can compete peacefully in the world of ideas and prove the truth of Islam to others thereby converting people to the One True Faith. For Muslims recognizing the above fact that practicing Christians are burning in Hell requires a practicing and reasonable Muslim to act. Practicing Muslims are required by the demands of their faith to make the entire world Muslim - dar al-Islam. Muslims can act either violently or peacefully using any or all of the above ways and many others.
Is Islam similar to Judaism and Christianity?
Yes it is in the sense that it is monotheistic as the Church Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI's encyclical Ecclesiam Suam and the CCC teaches us. There are significant and irreconcilable theological differences though. As mentioned above, the Koran and therefore believing Muslims, condemn to hell anyone who associate partners to God, i.e. those believing in the Trinity. They also explicitly deny the Incarnation and do not believe the Resurrection actually occurred. I wonder how easy it is to dialog with anyone who believes you are actually burning in hell? What motivation drives Muslims to dialog with the dhimmi or the infidels? A desire to convert you through personal persuasion, either peaceably or forcibly, could be one reason. Or you could have something of value they need or want to get from you could be another reason. Is dialog impossible? No, but it's difficult to do it with those with forked tongues. The Islamic Tradition explicitly allows lying and dishonestly when dealing with non-Muslims. How can we ever know their true intentions? One way is through a long and sustained friendship tested over time.
What is my personal experience with Islam?
I think many folks have a distorted view of Islam because of what they have read in a book or seen on t.v. It's impossible to fully understand a religion or faith without living it from the inside out and even then you'll never fully grasp everything within it in a life-time. For me that's why it's helpful to listen to Christian converts from Islam. They all bring their experiences (baggage) with them, as all converts do, but I find their testimonies most helpful. I am one such convert. For several years I studied Islam and finally in my senior year of college I converted to Islam. I attended community prayers at the local mosque regularly, went to various Islamic classes, and even attended a national Islamic convention. In the end I left Islam for primarily three fundamental reasons. (1) I was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that I would have to become radical/militant Muslim if I took the Islamic faith seriously and to its logical conclusions. (2) I was convinced that a practicing Muslim could not in good conscience support living in a democracy when the Islamic tradition explicitly calls for the formation of an Islamic nation-state. (3) I did not practice ritual prayers as mandated by the faith. To this day though I still have Muslim friends.
Where do we go from here?
We most follow the Holy Father, Pope B16. Mnsgr. Giussani told me "stay faithful to the Holy Father and by doing so we will save the world." The Holy Spirit moves in our days through the human face of the Holy Father. Therefore it is essential that we read and discuss at length his lecture University of Regensburg. This is where I propose we go. Let us set at the feet of the Holy Father and allow him to guide us.
---
Additional on-line resources are provided for your reference below.
---
Notable contemporary critics of Islam include Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Ibn Warraq,and Bat Ye'or. Their works are worthy of reading because they provide the history and references from within Muslim sources that one needs to make a judgment of this overall topic. For further research on this here are on some recent links (text & audio) that are worthy of checking out.
---
OPEN WINDOW ARCHIVES
2/6/07: Religion and Peoples by H. E. Cardinal Angelo Scola, Patriarch of Venice
1/22/07: IRAQ: Wojtyla Was Right by Giorgio Vittadini
12/16/06: Turkey and Regensburg: The Same Pope by Samir Khalil Samir, SJ
Fr. Samir's discussion of the Pope's trip to Turkey highlights the center of Benedict XVI’s message: the only thing that can save us from religiously-justified violence is true religiosity, based on reason. Paradoxically, western secularism and political Islamism agree on one thing: the separation of faith and reason. As a result they feed on each other: the suppression of religion in the public sphere incites religious fundamentalism, and vice versa. The Pope breaks this vicious circle by reminding us that true rationality is open to the transcendent, and true religiosity cannot go against reason.
12/6/06: Faith and Reason in Christianity and Islam: A Roadmap to Peace? by Wael Farouq
In light of Benedict XVI’s call for a broadening of reason, we offer the text of the speech delivered by Wa’il Farouq in Washington, DC this fall at the invitation of the Crossroads Cultural Center. Farouq is a professor of Islamic Science in Cairo, Egypt. His insightful and profound speech is first and foremost the witness of a Muslim profoundly struck by The Religious Sense, a book by Fr. Giussani. Interpreting the book on a personal level, Farouq highlighted that if inter-religious dialogue is not progressing, it is because the central element of that dialogue, the “I,” is often missing.
---
Sandro Magister
19.4.2007 - Why the Real War Is Inside Islam
Shiites against Sunnis, and Sunnis in conflict with each other: totalitarians against mystics. The enemies are not only the Christians. The analysis of a great Muslim expert: Khaled Fouad Allam
Focus on ISLAM
---
Asianews.it
Terrorism, disease of Islam (link to 4 important articles - not all linked below)
04/23/2007 IRAQ
Bishops appeal: Save Iraq’s Christians!
As churches close their doors, car bombs explode, forced conversions and kidnappings take place in Baghdad but also in Niniveh, the Bishop of Kirkuk Louis Sako appeals to the world to do something for Iraq’s Christians, who have been a part of the country’s mosaic since time immemorial.
04/23/2007 TURKEY - OIC
The Islamic Conference condemns the “gratuitous” assassination of three Christians in Malatya
The German Chancellor Merkel maintains that the murders will not influence Turkey’s EU membership talks, but they highlight the problem of religious freedom in the Land of the Crescent Moon.
Articles by Samir Khalil Samir S.J.
04/19/2007 ISLAM
West weak, Muslims mute when it comes to Islamism and terrorism
03/27/2007 ISLAM
Multiculturalism and Islam: Muslims in Europe, no to ghettos, yes to integration
03/12/2007 ISLAM
Multiculturalism and Islam; civil unions and homosexuality
03/07/2007 ISLAM – EUROPE
Multiculturalism and Islam: suicide of the West and women’s rights
04/26/2006 Vatican - Islam
Benedict XVI and Islam
09/08/2006 ISLAM
Islam needs renewal from within, not withdrawal into itself, to overcome its crisis
---
Michael Novak on Islam
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.14437/pub_detail.asp
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25192/pub_detail.asp
---
Dr. John H. Armstrong on Islam
---
The Riddleblog - The Achillies Heel of Islam?
Kim brings up some essential points and asks some important questions in this post.
---
Modern Reformation
Islamization of Europe by Shane Rosenthal
The Qur'an's Challenge to the Bible by Adam S. Francisco
The Convert by Cal Thomas
---
A great audio resource is the below two-part program linked on this post - http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/2006/10/christianity-confronts-islam-part-1-2.html
Christianity Confronts Islam (Part 1) 10/1/2006 - Sunday
On this edition of the White Horse Inn, Dr. Michael Horton talks with former Muslim and professor of Sharia Law, Sam Solomon, about the true nature of Islam and the significant threat it presents, not only to the western world in general, but specifically to all weak and sentimental forms of the Christian faith.
Christianity Confronts Islam (Part 2) 10/8/2006 - Sunday
On this edition of the White Horse Inn, Dr. Michael Horton continues his conversation with former Muslim and professor of Sharia Law, Sam Solomon about the confrontation between Islamic and Western cultures, and the theological convictions at the root of this conflict.
---
Ken Samples Course "Islam and Christianity"
Islam, Growth, Influence and Divsersity (9/15/06) MP3
Islam: Growth, Influence and Diversity (9/15/06) Real Audio
Islam, Five Core Beliefs (real audio)
From Ken Samples Academy Class (9/22/06)
Islam: Five Core Beliefs (MP3)
Ken Samples Academy Lecture (9/22/06)
Islam: The Five Pillars and Jihad -- 9/29/06 (Real Audio)
Islam: The Five Pillars and Jihad -- 9/29/06 (MP3)
Islam's Revelatory Achilles Heel (MP3) 10/20/06
Islam's Revelatory Achilles Heel (Real Audio), 10/20/06
Islam: Unknowable and Unfathomable (November 3, 2006)
Why Can't Islam and Christianity Both Be True (MP3) November 17
---
Islam: What the West Needs to Know
Obsession - Radical Islam's War Against The West 10/27/06
David Horowitz, "Islamic Fascists," on Your World with Neil Cavuto 8/15/06
FrontPageMag.com - Symposium: One Islam?
---
Islam and Christianity Video Series by Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Daniel Ali
Islam: Friend or Foe? by Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio
---
Unholy War by Scott Hahn
Islam Exposed - The Truth About Islam Revealed! by Tim Staples
Fire and Sword: Crusade, Inquisition, Reformation by Matthew Arnold
---
Here is my second post on this topic, Islam - Part Two.
For further reading material (links) click on the below search of my blog:
http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/search?q=Islam
28 comments:
I'm curious why you at once assert that reform is impossible within Islam and yet link to articles which infer the opposite of what you claim?
Ex. the 4 articles you quote from AsiaNews.it describe terrorism as a "disease" within Islam", but wouldn't this imply that Islam itself is not a disease?
The truth is that Islamic terrorism is caused by Islamism that is by a certain reading of the Koran and Sunnah, which has spread throughout the most famous Islamic schools and universities such as Cairo’s Al-Azhar. Islamic terrorism is caused by Salafism Salafism, that is a blind adherence to the tradition of the ancients, of those who went before us (salaf), a literal and immoveable reading, without life, without soul. This with regards to the Sunni world.
In the Shiite world, the Khomeini theory of the “wilâyat al-faqîh” – according to which the ideal state is that which is governed by the most gifted faqîh, a shariah specialist – opened the door to the all forms of extremism, in the name of shariah, by deciding the daily life of the people and of society.
It is important not to confuse Islam with Islamism, but it is just as important to urge Muslims to reject Islamism a san alteration of authentic Islam and to counter this violent and invasive tendency.
Christopher,
There is a big difference between "reform" and "dialog." I stand with the Holy Father and you that we all must strive for dialog. This dialog will occur with the so-called moderate Muslims, many of whom lead Muslim governments, i.e. Turkey, Jordan, etc. This dialog also has practical benefits for Catholics and other Christians living in Muslim countries. An open dialog will hopefully secure more religious freedom for them. This is our hope at least.
Can there ever be a true dialog with the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam? No, I afraid we live in a "fallen world" and only a bullet to the heads of the radical/militant Muslims will work. There will never be peace with them. Our two world-views are not compatible.
Is any type of authentic reform possible in Islam? No, there is a "Dark Side of Islam" that will always be with us because this "Dark Side" is rooted or anchored from within their own holy book, the Koran, and the sayings and teachings of their prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.).
Additionally the links I have provided in this post was to cover down on some that you missed. The positions they take vary greatly from author to author. Taken collectively with the links you have provided gives folks a nice introduction to this topic.
He is truly risen!
Many thanks for your kind message... You'll be in my prayers.
Yrs
RS (ROBERT SPENCER is the director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of several bestselling books on Islamic jihad.)
Can there ever be a true dialog with the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam? No, I afraid we live in a "fallen world" and only a bullet to the heads of the radical/militant Muslims will work. There will never be peace with them. Our two world-views are not compatible.
Is any type of authentic reform possible in Islam? No, there is a "Dark Side of Islam" that will always be with us because this "Dark Side" is rooted or anchored from within their own holy book, the Koran, and the sayings and teachings of their prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.).
Again, David -- we run into the same disconnect I pointed out in our private correspondence.
You take issue with what you call the "irreconcilable wing" of Islam. No dispute there, although the people I take issue with are those who take this "wing" or "dark side" to be authentic ISLAM itself (rather than a perversion), and so voice their criticisms in such a manner.
Again, the conclusions of Samir Kahil about reform:
It is important not to confuse Islam with Islamism, but it is just as important to urge Muslims to reject Islamism a san alteration of authentic Islam and to counter this violent and invasive tendency.
and what Tawfik Hamid asserts (the possibility of establishing "a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace" -- presumably without jettisoning the Koran or disavowing Mohammad, since Tawfik remains a Muslim)
is something different than a general condemnation of Islam as such.
Both Samir Khalil and Tawfik Hamid -- and I think Pope Benedict as well -- would reject your assertion (made in past conversation) that: "To be Muslim means becoming more radical/militant if you take your faith seriously." Which is to say the only way of stemming the Muslim tide is to persuade Muslims to NOT "take their faith seriously" -- to be lukewarm.
Fr. Neuhaus responds to that notion:
Yet more troubling is the message that Islam, in order to become less of a threat to the world, must relativize its claim to possess the truth. That plays directly into the hands of Muslim rigorists who pose as the defenders of the uncompromised and uncompromisible truth and who call for death to the infidels. If Islam is to become tolerant and respectful of other religions, it must be as the result of a development that comes from within the truth of Islam, not as a result of relativizing or abandoning that truth. Is Islam capable of such a religious development? Nobody knows. But, if the choice is between compromising Islamic truth or a war of civilizations, it is almost certain that the winner among Muslims will be the hard-core Islamism that Lewis rightly views as such a great threat.
Christianity is more, not less, vibrantly Christian as a result of coming to understand more fully the mysterious and loving ways of God in His dealings also with non-Christians. Although the story of this development is complex, the important truth is that tolerance and mutual respect are religious, not secular, achievements. I will say it again: the reason we do not kill one another over our disagreements about the will of God is that we believe it is against the will of God to kill one another over our disagreements about the will of God. Christians have come to believe that. We must hope that more and more Muslims will come to believe that. That will not happen, however, if they are told that coming to believe that will make them less faithful Muslims. Or, as Bernard Lewis puts it, that they become relativists.
Fr. Neuhaus to Bernard Lewis. "Why Aren’t Muslims Like Us?"
First Things June/July 2003
Christopher,
This "wing" or "dark side" is authentic ISLAM itself. That's doesn't mean all Muslims fall into the various radical/militant camps though. There are moderate Muslims who reject and/or ignore this portion of their authentic teachings.
You went on to ask me the following questions and here is my response.
Q: Is there such a thing as a "moderate" Nazi? YES OF COURSE.
Q: Is there such a thing as a "moderate" Muslim? YES OF COURSE.
Q: Should we hold suspect Muslims who reside in this country as being sympathetic to terrorism? YES BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO HERD THEM INTO CONCENTRATION CAMPS THOUGH.
Q: Does Islam = National Socialism? YES B/C WITHIN ISLAM THERE IS A RADICAL POLITICAL IDEOLOGY WHICH IS ROOTED FROM WITHIN THE KORAN AND TEACHINGS OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD (p.b.u.h.). THIS IS NOT SOMETHING ADDED TO THE RELIGION BUT IS INTEGRAL TO IT. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DISPOSE OR DISCOUNT THIS WING OR SIDE (DARK) OF ISLAM AND NOT DISCREDIT THE REVELATION OF GOD AND TEACHINGS OF THE FINAL PROPHET. FOR MUSLIMS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE REVELATION AND THE TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD (p.b.u.h.). YOU EITHER FOLLOW OR YOU DON'T.
I haven't yet read Fr. Neuhaus to Bernard Lewis - "Why Aren’t Muslims Like Us?" First Things June/July 2003. Hopefully it's on-line and if so I will give you feed-back on it.
Articles of interest from TCRnews.com
http://tcrnews2.com/Birds_Trojan.html
http://tcrnews2.com/Christian_moslem08.html
http://tcrnews2.com/dialogue_tolerance.html
Also let us consider the thought of Belloc and Chesterton on this topic.
http://www.tcrnews2.com/IslamBelloc06.html
There's something disturbing about this entire discussion.
I do not discount the dangerous aspects of Islam identified here.
But modern Islam--the particular union of post 18th-century fundamentalism, very much like Protestant evengelicalism, with a nationalist ideology--this modern version of Islam must be understood in historical context.
(Just like developments in Christianity have to be understood in historical context; Protestant fundamentalism is in part a reaction to the dissolution of traditional communities and the attendant atomisation of individuality under capitalism; ultramontane Catholicism is a reaction against similar political-economic conditions of the late 19th century, and against late Protestantism, too.)
Now, for modern Islam, the relevant political economic context is the colonial conquest of the Middle East during the first World War, the rise of and then the defeat of anti-colonial pan-Arab nationalism in the 1950's through the 1970's, and the subsequent rule of the U.S. by proxy regimes throughout the region (today, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia).
These are grotesquely corrupt regimes which brutally steal money and life from their citizenry. And these regimes are propped up by billions of dollars of U.S. aid and/or petro-dollars.
Now, I do not at all mean to deny the manifestly violent aspects of Islam. But I wonder why this discussion seems to contemplate Islam in the abstract, as if it were a universal transhistorical phenomenon, and not a living historical religion--one that has been massively distorted by the Wahhabist fundamentalism that is the state religion of an obscenely rich United States proxy (Saudi Arabia).
It is simply unrealistic to look at Islam as if it were a set of abstract rules and not a historical religion.
Worse, there is something disturbing about U.S. Christians contemplating Islam in the abstract, as if Islam can be separated from US and looked at "objectively."
As Catholics in the United States, what is OUR relation to Islam?
I would submit that we are too CLOSE to it, politically and historically, to simply assess its various doctrinal implications and their possible reformability and/or compatibility with our way of thinking.
We are part of Islam right now, because our country has been for 100 years deeply implicated in the colonial project, and just 4 years ago launched an unprovoked war of aggression against millions of people (who, not coincidentally, happened to be practitioners of Islam).
So what, as Christians, are we to do about Islam?
The first thing to do is to recognize that the government that speaks in our name has made the lives of millions of Muslims much worse, not just by attacking Iraq, but by supporting corrupt client states. We need to recognize that the U.S. government is immensely more powerful than any Islamic organization, and that the regimes we support in the Middle East have systematically shut off all avenues for political activism, except the mosque.
This last is the key point. The dangerous variant of fundamentalist Islam has arisen among people who, partly as a consequence of OUR government's policies, have been mired in a state of deep political despair. Under authoritarian regimes, with no economic opportunities, Muslims look to their religion as the last hope for political and social transformation. Rudimentary background study of Hamas and Hezbollah will show you that the terrorist acts and the religious convictions of these groups are NOT what has won them support; it is their effectiveness in standing up for, and setting up basic infrastructure for, marginalized communities; both groups have only appeared in the last 20 years.
Again, none of you seems to be aware that before "Islam" was the object of American fears, it was SECULAR Arab nationalism, led by Gamal Nasser and later by Arafat; the failure of pan-Arab nationalism has set the stage for more recent Islamic politics.
The distortions of fundamentalist theo-politics that we are so afraid of must be understood in the context of a situation that WE have helped to create.
----------
Christian reflection must begin with repentance, especially when Christians would judge the religious convictions of those who have not been reached by the Gospel.
speakingcorpse,
Welcome to my blog. Thank you for well thought out comments. I agree with most everything you write here, but I should clarify some things for you.
I am American convert to Islam who latter left the Islamic faith and by the grace of God became Christian and finally Catholic. To be sure I am not a "U.S. Christian contemplating Islam in the abstract." This is something I lived, it is something I lived. These are things I know which come from my own experiences.
I met radical/militant Muslims face-to-face in this country, right here in the U.S. These experiences of having to deal with the real life consequences of becoming a radical/militant Muslim myself is one of the big reasons why I left the Islamic faith.
Additionally as I stated in the first paragraph this entire discussion began behind the scenes about the historical and living context of what is happening in the world today. This was an interfaith dialog with Catholics and an American Muslim friend. I sent an ad out about a movie - Islam: What the West Needs to Know and from there a discussion began. This conversation really took off when an American Muslim friend through me stated the following.
If we truly want to stabilize the Middle East, we are need to stop focusing on the periphery (Iraq and Iran) and focus on the real problem: the Arab/Israeli conflict - or more specifically, the Palestinian Problem. As long as Israel insists on violating international agreements (UN Resolutions 242 and 348) which it is a party to and continues to illegally occupy Palestinian land and oppress the Palestinians, all with our complete support, there will be no stability in the Middle East. We're wasting our time and many lives with Iraq and Iran.
Lastly I think its important to ask, as you did, what can we as Catholics (or non-Catholic Christians) do about Islam? I suggest (a serious proposal) that we discuss the Holy Father's Lecture at Regensburg. This is where we should begin with ourselves and our Muslim friends.
I would also suggest that you and others check out the new journal Oasis which is linked under my publications section of my blog. I have dear friend deeply involved with this project. If you haven't read the pdf file (one of the first links) of H. E. Cardinal Angelo Scola I would highly suggest that you do so.
David,
Thanks a lot for your comments, and for your correction my presumptions.
It sounds like you have had some remarkable experiences. Surely you know about all of this in a way that I do not.
I would still wonder, though, whether even radical Islam in the U.S. (practiced by Americans, or even by immigrants to America from the Middle East) is really not something quite different from any form of Islam in the Muslim world.
I would submit that it is almost impossible for any religion in the United States to not be a form of Protestantism--that is, passionately held internal convictions that are brandished externally as a badge of identity, in opposition to other similarly constituted groups.
I would suggest that Catholicism (including perhaps my own) and Islam in the U.S. (even and perhaps especially when they are ANTI-U.S.) are nearly always variants on this mode of impotent Protestant identity-formation and dissent. Certainly I think this is a big part of what goes on at First Things.
The political situation is so extremely screwed up in the Middle East that I'm not sure the American experience of Islam can have much connection to the decision of a Palestinian to support Hamas, or the decision of a Shi'a Lebanese to support Hezbollah.
This is not at all dismiss your experience. But it is to suggest that a big part of your experience would have to be its American-ness, its taking place in the American "market-place" of religions and identities (from which, again, I do not at all exempt myself--I should say that I am in fact Jewish, although I am passionately in love with Jesus and the Catholic tradition).
The American context may distinguish American radical Islam from the Islam of groups with similar creeds in the Middle East. (And this separation is part of the American connection to Islam--a connection mediated first of all by political violence.)
One thing I'm glad we agree on is the primacy of the Israeli/Palestinian situation. I cannot strongly enough express my disgust with the state of Israel and the way it has exploited the Jewish tradition and the memory of the victims of the Holocaust.
Anyway, I'm very glad for this exchange and grateful for your friendliness to me.
--Gabe Alkon ("speakingcorpse" being my screen name on a disreputable blog at which I sometimes post.)
speakingcorpse says Islam "has been massively distorted by the Wahhabist fundamentalism." This the point Christopher and I get going back and forth on. I don't think Wahhabism or other radical/militant branches or schools Islam is a distortion of Islam. They are legitimate and orthodox Muslims. Their teachings are rooted from within the Koran and the Hadith most importantly, but also rooted within the Islamic Tradition and history of their religion. The origin of their thought is rooted from within the beginning of their religion.
I see now that you mentioned your personal experience in your post, and obviously I didn't get all the way down to that point in the post. Sorry about that--I read through the doctrinal summaries (which I found informative) and then I stopped to register my objections. Again, I do stick to those objections--not really in disagreement with anything you're saying here, but in order to insist that our assessment of Islam has to be made with relation to recent political history.
Are you aware of traditions of mystical Islam, or traditions of Islamic philosophy? The great Catholic scholar David Burrell writes so well about Ibn-Sina...
There's also the work of the epochal French Catholic scholar Louis Massignon, who wrote about Islamic mysticism (and also wrote searchingly about how to evangelize Muslims in the Middle East--not first by teaching doctrines, but by being with them and in their presence incarnating the Body of Christ, showing Christ in action rather than talking about Him...
Thanks also for the mention of Scola--I have in fact visited the Oasis site, and it seems very promising.
Gabe,
I just read and posted your comments above. We are in agreement. Thank you brother for your insightful thoughts.
Gabe,
Fr. David Burrell is a brilliant Catholic priest and a good friend of another friend of mine, Dr. John Wright. Do a search on my blog for Burrell and you shall see a couple posts on him.
Gabe asks "Are you aware of traditions of mystical Islam, or traditions of Islamic philosophy?" Yes of course. In fact Christopher and another friend talked about this in our private correspondence. I have never made the claim that the radical/militant wing of Islam is the only school or form of Islam. There are one billion + Muslims with many, many different schools of thought.
Gabe - thanks for referring me to the thought of French Catholic scholar Louis Massignon. I shall do some research on him.
David,
I do take your point about the orthodoxy of Wahhabism. I shouldn't have said it was a distortion so much as an interpretation, which, unfortunately, has a lot of support. Still, Salafism and Wahhabism didn't become popular till the 18th century, and have only exploded in our post-colonial period. So even if these movements can properly be called Islamic, we still need to ask why they emerged when they did, and to what extent they are "modern/fundamentalist" as opposed to "traditionalist."
The idea of fundamentalism as a modern movement, the kind of diabolic twin of secularism, is very important, it seems to me.
You might like an article at Jesusradicals.com by John Milbank, called "Sovereignty, Empire, Capital, Terror," which connects Islamic fundamentalism, Protestant fundamentalism, and secularisation. Rowan Williams also had a fine piece about fundamentalism and secularisation, delivered in a lecture when he was still archbishop of Wales. He spoke about how both of these modern movements reduce religion to propositions to which one is asked to give simple assent. I think if you did a google search for Rowan Williams and secularism, you could find it. In fact, I now remember that this was a "Raymond Williams Lecture" delivered about 5 years ago.
Massignon seems fascinating. I don't know too much about him, but I do know that he wrote a book about a Muslim mystic called "Hallaj," who was crucified in the 10th century for saying something like, "I am the truth," as Jesus did.
Massignon, I think, founded a sort of missionary society for Catholics in Muslim Africa--really a kind of society of Catholic/Muslim fraternity--founded in the spirit of Charles De Foucault and also of St. Francis, who had spent a lot of time talking fraternally with Muslim princes during one of the later (and less justified) crusades.
Gabe,
Great recommendations above. I follow you...
I have read only one book by Rowan Williams, but was very impressed by it. I have a immense respect for the man and shall attempt to find the lecture you recommend. As you know I follow the thought of the Radical Orthodox camp... I shall surely check out Milbank's thought on this topic. In fact I hope I can make an independent post of his & Milbank's thought on the topic.
It's funny I have been thinking about Charles De Foucault in these days. Great minds think alike.
Gabe - I have sent you an invitation to join the blog. I hope you accept.
Gabe asks "Are you aware of traditions of mystical Islam, or traditions of Islamic philosophy?" Yes of course. In fact Christopher and another friend talked about this in our private correspondence. I have never made the claim that the radical/militant wing of Islam is the only school or form of Islam. There are one billion + Muslims with many, many different schools of thought.
I guess this is where David and I part ways -- in that, on one hand, David asserts here that (militant) Wahabbism IS "orthodox" Islam; on the other hand, "there are one billion Muslims with many different schools of thought."
Sorry Dave, but I think that this is like "having your cake and eating it to." If as you say "to be Muslim means becoming more radical/militant if you take your faith seriously" -- then it must follow, logically, that those Muslims who repudidate violence cannot be considered "true Muslims."
If the militant/radical branches of Islam "are legitimate and orthodox Muslims" -- what do you consider those Muslims who vehemently disagree and repudiate the radical and militant branch as un-Islamic?
It comes down to this: there is a crisis of identity, a battle within Islam over what is 'true' Islam -- my concern is in your agreeing with the Taliban and Osama Bin Ladin and their assertion as to what is authentic, and in so doing, give credence to their argument.
"I am American convert to Islam who latter left the Islamic faith and by the grace of God became Christian and finally Catholic."
I don't believe you have ever confided this and it's certainly news to me, but it does bring an added dimension to this discussion.
Perhaps it is because as you said, you have seen Islam through different eyes -- by way of the militant and the radical -- that you approach it differently.
it was through Louis Massignon and Thomas Merton's correspondence with Abdul Azis, and my later friendshiop with Sufis, that is the 'lens' through which I interpret and encounter Islam. I've read Spencer, and many others like him; I understand the nature of the threat -- but it is because of my aquaintance with so many religious Muslims who are not like you describe (indeed, the furthest thing from Spencer's characterization) that I am personally resistant to your equasion of Islam with Nazism at the root.
It's because I learned about Islam through the interpretation of Louis Massignon, who returned to his Catholic faith by way of his study of Islam and Al-Hallaj. I think we'll continue to disagree on our approach and understanding of Islam, but I have a new sense of where you're coming from.
David,
I'd be happy to join the blog. let me now exactly what that means when you get a chance. Thanks a lot.
I'm sympathetic to what Christopher says above. But I also know that the Koran certainly seems to invite certain Wahhabist interpretations.
More important than the question of the authnenticity of Wahhabist Islam is the question of why it has proven attractive to so many.
Part of this certainly has to do with the nature of certain Islamic texts and traditions. But part of it also has to do with recent political history. It is through this history that Americans really already HAVE entered into the debate within Islam. The argument within Islam cannot be understood apart from the role of the United States in the history of Muslim communities, especially in the Middle East. The doctrinal cannot be separated from the realm of geo-politics.
Wow! Quite the thread.
My questions about Islam are similar (yet distinct from) those raised by David. As he and some others here know from private correspondence, my question regarding Islam boils down to the following:
1. From what I understand, every school of Islam which is viewed as orthodox by other Islamic schools of thought includes the "doctrine" that Sharia should be spread across the globe.
2. Also from what I understand, Sharia entails a number of things, among them the denial of religious freedom (which can vary from outright persecution of non-Muslims to legal benefits for Muslims).
Taking both of these into account, my question (again, familiar to some here) follows. Before I pose it, though, I want to note this: it is provocative, but it remains a question, not an assertion. Having said that... : How is it possible for an American Muslim (or one of any country in which religious freedom is constitutional) to be faithful both to his religion and to his country?
Christopher said...
Taking both of these into account, my question (again, familiar to some here) follows. Before I pose it, though, I want to note this: it is provocative, but it remains a question, not an assertion. Having said that... : How is it possible for an American Muslim (or one of any country in which religious freedom is constitutional) to be faithful both to his religion and to his country?
I think the best answer would be to pose the question to . . . Muslim American citizens.
Q: Is it just me, or does it strike anybody else here as kind of odd that we are having these conversations w/o the personal contribution of those we're talking about. David, what happened to your friend?
Although I think if a American Muslim stumbled onto this conversation and read of the comparison of his religion with National Socialism, it might influence his desire to join in on the conversation. IMHO.
Chris -- I've been doing some reading and research at the library. If I run into good books on addressing this issue I'll pass on what I can find.
I plan on making a long response or an entire new post on Islam, a Part Two. This is important to do to address some of the points Christopher has been making including others on his post and mine. I need to clarify some things on my end.
In short though before I have time to do that the answer to Chris' question, so as not to keep you in suspense, is the following.
A Muslim has to ignore a large portion of his religion, both contained within its holy text, the Koran, and their tradition, the sayings and teachings from the final or seal of the prophet. And a large number of Muslims do exactly that.
I challenge everyone to go and read both the Koran and Hadith for themselves.
Gabe,
Drop me an email so I have your correct email and I shall send you an invitation. I'm not sure if I sent it to the correct email. It's the one it gave me off your blog.
Here is my newest post on Islam. It's Part Two of this post.
Post a Comment