Shari'a And Human Rights

 

So, what do the Muslims have to say about that?

Emran Qureshi is a journalist and an expert on Islam and human rights. He is currently a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University. Emran ought to know, and it seems he does:

The Sharia law, as is practiced in many Muslim countries today, is clearly incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today Sharia is a source of injustice that profanes Islam and shames Muslims who adhere to a compassionate and merciful interpretation of their faith. [...]

Khaled Abou El Fadl, a prominent Islamic intellectual reformer in the United States, has observed of contemporary Islamist intellectuals "Instead of Islam being a moral vision given to humanity, it becomes constructed into the antithesis of the West. In the world constructed by these groups, there is no Islam; there is only opposition to the West." This is sadly true.

These corrosive ideas do not spring from a vacuum. They arise instead from impoverished Salafi and Wahhabi discourses, which are corroding Islam from within. There is a straight line between the Salafi/Wahhabi interpretations - a puritanical, anti-rationalist, misogynistic Islam with a punitive, intolerant Sharia - and the violence, which now bloodstains our faith.

Those who challenge this moral and ethical perversion of our faith are instead attacked as heretics as we can witness in Saudi-Arabia.

These are excerpts from Emran's opening letter, starting a discourse in June and August 2004 (note, this is pre-Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad, who since Summer 2005 kindly revealed to the West, what a carefully orchestrated 'moderate' Mullahcracy had been thinking and planning all along) between Emran and a lady in Cairo by the name of Heba Raouf Ezzat. Heba teaches political theory at the Department of Political Science, Cairo University and is co-ordinator of the Civil Society Program at the Center for Political Research and Studies at Cairo University as well as editor of the Global Civil Society Yearbook. She also works as womens' rights activist.

And what do we get? Nothing but empty rhetoric and platitudes from our 'womens' rights activist' in Cairo. Am I glad, that dear Heba hasn't been speaking out for my rights of late.

I find this exchange interesting, because only two and a half years later, we have learned, that Emran is unfortunately incorrect to limit all of Islam's ills to Salafi and Wahhabi Muslims; that Iran's Shia Mullahs are just as passionately murdering in the name of Allah and Shari'a laws.

He is however correct in his assessment, when he says: "I sadly think that a gentler Sharia is unlikely to emerge since today we are presented with the anti-intellectualism, authoritarianism, and moral depravity of these self-appointed Salafi guardians of Sharia."

Read the correspondence in its entirety.

Comments

[gringoman]

I suppose you've all seen this. I had no idea this practice existed, but dear God in Heaven. Even after some leading clerics have denounced it, they still go in droves to get it done.
I love the Muslim woman at the end who says "When the rest of the world is going to the moon, look where these people are -- still drawing blood from their heads."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/30/ashoura.children.ap/index.html

Posted by: LilMissIndie | Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 09:36 PM
LilMissIndie,
Just read that....wow!
Posted by: Alexandra | Wednesday, January 31, 2007 at 12:58 AM

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BLOOD IN THE WEST(from gringoVision).....How barbaric are these Shia? (I mean those who only "scalp" their own little boys, not the hit men who blow up somebody else's children for jihad.)

.Westerners, even the dwindling "religious," are not apt to identify with Shia rituals for a muslim saint, the Imam Hussein, . Even if they knew about this Hussein, what could they feel about him? This Imam Hussein was the son of Ali and Ali, of course, was cousin to the prophet Muhammad (upon whom they wish peace), and therefore Hussein, as Shia can tell you, was, or should have been, direct in line to succeed Muhammad (UWTWP) as Commander of the Faithful. He was. He was indeed. But vile, power-hungry dogs intervened (let them roast in Hell with Satan.)

And so it happened. The Sunnis---or what became the Sunnis--- decapitated the Imam Hussein (rightful heir to the prophet himself) in a 7th century power struggle and hung his saintly head on a pike, like an animal or kuffar.

But what does this matter to apostates, atheists and infidels, who are alienated even from their own blood? What passion is left in their souls that crumble like pork rinds? Souls? Their souls wither away like Marxian socialists say the state will under their degenerate communism, fit for devils. .

Which brings us back to the blood. A Westerner---normally---abhors drawing blood from a child's scalp, at least for religious, non-medical reasons, even if the knife is first dipped in alcohol. The educated believe thay have transcended blood sacrifice. As for outright blood-lust, that is something which only the lower orders, or "fascists," indulge---"fascist"usually meaning, in correct political parlance, "non-socialist"or "pro-American" or anything else morally reprehensible.

The Western moralizer---especially the flexible variant known as 'moral relativist'--- is finicky about blood. No question. And yet the red substance still has a special place in the seculatopia which he or she makes a show of defending against the alleged threat from Bible-thumping wannabe theocracy. It often functions, for example, as a media commodity. It is useful in arbitron ratings, bleed-leads, box office and DVD downloads. This is despite the alleged revulsion against seeing blood, feeling it, tasting it or smelling it, let alone wiping away what has congealed to corpses.

Westerners, including the professional peace lovers, assure us they are free of blood-lust. They are not being unmitigated hypocrites, even to their psychoanalysts who may know them a little better. They are very unlikely to go Shia and draw blood from Sonny's scalp with a sharp blade. They don't need a Dr. Spock to tell them that's a no-no for child-rearing. Still, many do not require consultants or search engines to instruct them on how useful blood can be. Just as merchants, or elite hucksters, understand media commodity---such as the notorious T & A---they understand blood as an extremely valuable political commodity.

Normally the good Westerners, the educated, don't shed blood themselves, or ask anyone else to. Au contraire. They wait for others to do the deed. They sense that there will always be these others, and they are ready to lament it to you, in solemn protest. The good need only be patient, and sometimes not even that. Bloodshed is always in season, often just around the media corner. The righteous will easily find objects for disapproval, even opportunities for moral aggrandizement.

The important thing for them is focus. Although hardly deviants, they do have something in common with the most accomplished criminals: a really sharp focus. Selectivity. With so much bloodshed available, why waste time on the less significant, the less compelling, the less politically viable? Got to stay focused. For example, anything involving the U.S. military (after the Hitler-Stalin epic) is quite viable. Civilian blood is very useful too, especially if it can be linked to American actions, preferably directly, or indirectly if necessary, and then target the most viable and useful examples for their expressed dismay and disapproval. And if they are forced, occasionally, to acknowledge non-U.S. perps, as in the Darfur genocide. they are extremely careful to downplay the fact that so much of it is done by Arab muslims against blacks and Christians. It is more politically rewarding--- not to mention safer--- to indict Americans rather than muslims. Even Hollywood understands that.

They know vicarious, just as Shakespeare knew the one "who doth protest too much." Since any military action inevitably entails mistakes, and blood wrongfully shed, today's legalniki have a perpetual smorgasbord on which to dine, excreting their waste products on the American image, as enemies and privileged dissidents will note and use. The USA today, now smothered in lawyers, is truly the land of their opportunity.

Selectivity is of incalculable importance. And so the motorized slaughter on U.S. highways and streets, the rivers of blood, even the death toll from U.S. homicides, is relatively un-interesting to them. All men may be created equal, but one American killed in Baghdad is worth a hundred gunned down in Detroit. The peace lovers are not being callous. They simply must choose where to aim the baby boomer spotlight. There are, however, exceptions, even for the less privileged. An example would be not the thousand instances of ghetto homicide, but the half dozen or so cases in which police might or might not be implicated. These make the cornucopia of U.S. crime and violence worth looking into sometimes.

This kind of sharp focus, done in-depth, allows the non-bloodthirsty to slake their thirst for non-blood. With a sense of pride they can work the courts and direct the news vans. At times they may even experience a touch of moral grandeur, something they don't always find in their suburban enclaves, walled fiefdoms or compounds, or energy-sucking condominiums. After all, did not they and their kind help get the U.S. out of Indochina once, finally ending that stupid venture of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson and finally Nixon himself? Yes, maybe the aftermath of that defeat was kind of problematic. But they had nothing to do with the anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, anti-American bloodbath, the Killing Fields that ensued, did they? Millions died, but their hands are clean. Not even a sliver of congealed blood in the fingernails.
Take a look...........

This may or may not paint a blood-rosy picture of the seculatopians. In any case, it doesn't mean that they have a monopoly on the ambivalence, if not the hypocrisy, about blood. Are they the only ones upset by what muslims do to boy children for Ashura? Hardly. You can include most, maybe all, Christians and Jews. Even the religious and un-Spocked, conflicted about raising a boy into a fashionable girly-man, will hesitate to slice his head open. There must be other ways for a kid to learn strength, fortitude, devotion, the profound lesson of suffering, and without a homosexual ACLU-endorsed scout master. . Religion has evolved. Blood sacrifice is over. The devout do not need it. Animals did it for them. Jesus did it for them.

........And yet, racial or archetypal memories linger. Judaism and Christianity made Islam possible, and all three lay claim to Abraham, who was ready to sacrifice his son Isaac.Yea, as a burnt offering. Yea, on a far mountain. It was not just about blood from Isaac's scalp.....

If Abraham is too remote or Judaic, the Christian Middle Ages are replete with hair shirts, nail beds, dank cells, long fasts, self-flagellation---anything to mortify the flesh and teach the value of suffering and devotion.

Or if this is all too much the Medeivalism which Islam remains stuck in, while the West escaped via Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment (i.e. a return to ancient Greco-Roman freedom of the mind which Islam still fears and forbids) there remains an old ritual very much alive today. And it's back to the blood. In fact it goes back to Jaweh's covenant with Abraham, who submitted to it at age 99---unless you wish to trace this peculiar procedure even further back in time. If so, you can note the archaeologists who have documented the procedure on pagan Egyptian wall paintings more than 5000 years old, indisputably pre-dating both Abraham and Moses.

.......So we have two old examples of blood-letting. A comparison might be interesting to religionists. On the one knife-wielding hand, a boy's scalp is cut for Ashura. On the other, while a baby shrieks, its prepuce with the hundreds of nerve endings is cut away, bleeding, and, in keeping with the faith, whether Judaic or Islamic, will never grow back again.

[Alexandra]

LilMissIndie,

Just read that....wow!

[LilMissIndie]

I suppose you've all seen this. I had no idea this practice existed, but dear God in Heaven. Even after some leading clerics have denounced it, they still go in droves to get it done.

I love the Muslim woman at the end who says "When the rest of the world is going to the moon, look where these people are -- still drawing blood from their heads."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/30/ashoura.children.ap/index.html

[Liquid]

Ghost---Oh Liquid, I love it when your so serious... it's so cute :)

I like my serious side too and seriously, I will never trust any sect of Islam that teaches jihad from the Koran because as Milla sings, it sends a chill within my soul!

[igout]

Enough. Let's simpliify: Hey, lissen up Muslims. Either show in word and action 110% loyalty to our country, our laws, our liberties, or this way to the airport. Fasten your seatbelt and stow your Koran by the barf bag.

[Ghost Dansing]

Oh Liquid, I love it when your so serious... it's so cute :)

Let's make a circuit, k? ╖╖╖±±±╖

[Liquid]

Ghost,
I understand that you don't respect Robert Spencer's insight, since you find him to be a "conservative right- winged Catholic" view, so it's easy to understand which way you will respond to it, since you see the world through a "liberal lens" then you are obviously going to not agree or even 'want to agree' with Spencer's research; although Spencer's sources are definately reliable, especially since anyone can pick up his works themselves and see that they are full of actual quotes by jihadist themselves. Spencer doesn't hide his sources--they are traditional Islamic sources--and thats why his book is banned in Pakistan today; because Spencer's digging around 'which exposes the history of jihad and shines a light on Muhammed himself' is making many nervous. Maybe when you realise that Spencer is anti-jihad and pro human rights, then you might be able to go back and review his work for what it is!

This concept that criticizing Islam 'is some sort of taboo' is part of the jihad itself because Islam knows that Muhammed and the koran cannot stand up to the scrutiny. When muslims themselves or others try to compare what is going on in hopes of "reform" and do so by comparing it to Christianity, many know that they are setting 'the whole sha-bang' up for the good, bad and ugly analysis that brings with it and that Christianity has and continues to be under, and the comical thing is that we all know that Islam won't be able to deal with the microscopic lens upon it. The world got first hand examples of this over the 'cartoon issue' and by the 'Pope's ordeal.' Hopeful reform of islam will continue to be interesting, in anyway you try to hold it up, in anyway you try to compare it, because if You wanna see a frenzy in the muslim world...just shine a light on it! If the light gets too bright, then watch how muslims start pointing and criticizing anything and anyone but the actual words in the koran, in other words, if the heat gets too hot, by all means revert to comparison to others in hope that the light bulb starts swinging in another direction!

[Ghost Dansing]

Liquid, I disagree... I think the problem is with the inadequacies of Spencer's interpretation of what is going on... also, my point was that the Islamic Extremism IS the fundamentalist "reformation".

Spencer's problem:

Undeniably, Christians have in the past committed many despicable acts in the name of God, but they did so in violation of scriptural teaching, not in fulfillment of it, as in Islam. Though the Bible testifies to violence committed at the command of God, and they the few if any Christians or Jews today believe that this is how God expects man to live today. "Islam, by contrast, generally rejects the idea of a historical progression in revelation, and allows little latitude for allegorical interpretation of the martial verses in the Qu'ran," Spencer writes. "A book [that claims] literal perfection tends to resist any interpretation that diminishes the literal truthfulness of any of its statements."

Article 

An example that allegorical interpretation of the Koran is at least possible...

Sufi Syncretism - Folklorist Sufis

Sufism follows the basic tenets of Islam but does not follow all of the orthodox practices of Sunni or Shi'ah Islam. In many Muslim areas, a mystical version of Hanafi Sunnism provided the means by which pagan and Christian practices were accommodated within Islam. Sufism centers on orders or brotherhoods that follow charismatic religious leaders.

There is a distinction between official and folk religion. Official religion stresses religious texts, the sharia (Islamic law), the literal interpretation of religious teachings, and worship at mosques. Folk religion, reflecting Arabic and Kurdish nomadic heritages, emphasizes sacred forces, the symbolic interpretation of texts, and worship at shrines. Folk religion continues to flourish in rural areas. Sufi orders, like folk religion, focus on the allegorical interpretation of texts and have historically been organized around a pious founder or saint.

The Folklorist Sufis, have been under attack, and discriminated against, for centuries. The Folklorists Sufis, have incorporated "un-Islamic" beliefs into their practices, such as celebrating the Birthday of Mohammed, visiting the shrines of "Islamic saints", dancing during prayer (the whirling dervishes), etc.

The followers of Salafist Islam, such as Wahhabis, oppose all practices not sanctioned by the Koran. Wahabbism is named after Abdul Wahab, a religious thinker who two centuries earlier had fought the influence of Sufism in Sunni Islam. Wahhabis look at Sufi Islam as a deviation from the original Islamic rules. This view of Islam rejects "magical rituals," pilgrimages to saint shrines, or recitations of the Koran in cemeteries -- all activities that had become commonplace among the Sufi orders. Wahhabis deny the role of the teacher, which for the Sufi is very important. They also deny the cult of the saints and pilgrimages to the saint shrines that are widespread among the followers of Sufi Islam. The inner link with God, typical for the Sufi followers, is denied by the Wahhabis. Wahhabis follow the old concept of jihad, meaning the holy war to convert the infidels. The Sufis have another interpretation of jihad. They see it not as a war against the infidels, but as a war that a Muslim has to fight against his own defects to try to reach perfection.

Article 

The "reform" of Islamic Extremism is all about very strict literalists (fundamentalists) not being "literalists" enough, like the wahabists in Saudi Arabia... specifically, they are not sufficiently strict. 

This is a complex issue, and the parallels to the Christian reformation are not exact.... just that differences have occured exactly along the fundamentalist (literalist) versus liberal (allegorical) faultline regarding the interpretation of scriptures. 

 

[Liquid]

Ghost, your argument only touches on men's interpretation. Islam doesn't have a pope or a unified church. Go a little deeper on the actual creed and teachings because Islam itself will not allow reform and why is that? Because the Koran itself will NOT allow any reform, since Islam stifles any one to question it, because it refuses any scrutiny at all, where in opposition the bible itself wants you to seek and find... “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
—2 Timothy 3:16-17

It's nice to compare and hope that what is going on inside Islam could be like the reformation of the past in Christianity, but Ghost, there has never been any need to reform God's inspired word...it was the interpretation and actions of people that got changed where as within Islam, it's the 'actual teachings' of 'the words INSIDE the KORAN' that everyone is up against. The actual commands of their Allah!

So many think its just about changing the hearts and minds of the people, but to reform Islam and make it peaceful, means you have to tackle the book and the words of Allah via Muhammed.

See the difference?

[Ghost Dansing]

Interestingly, also within the context of the Protestant Reformation, we see the nascent issue that is resolved by Liberal governance in the idea of "Church-State" separation.... obviously a Protestant idea that ultimately penetrated Catholicism, and found its most concise articulation in the United States... of course the Founding Fathers probably had in mind the problem of England's King being the "Pope" of the Anglican Church, but the question predates that considerably in the issue of Papal involvement in Civil affairs.

The term Reformation is the historical name given to a period of time beginning in the sixteenth century where a cry went forth in the western European church for reform. The dominant Catholic church was corrupt; its courts were corrupt; the church’s magisterium had confused its role with the role of the civil magistrate.

[Ghost Dansing]

Crusader's and Liquid's comments are interesting. I think his Muslim analogy to the Protestant reformation is backwards, however... bin laden, qutb, zawahiri, the muslim brotherhood, and the more flaming sects of Shia are "the protestants"... are the "fundamentalists" decrying the secularization of Islam and the corruption of Islam by the hands of the political leadership.... not, as suggested, the quiet Liberals of that religion. For example, the argument that a return to physical inter and intra religious violence as it existed in the "old days" is true "Jihad" and necessary to re-establish the caliphate (Sunni) or with less ambition Islamic rule in a single State is literalist, fundamentalist and evangelical in nature. It just happens to be Muslim as opposed to some other religions. I'm open to the opinion that this issue is delivering violence globally at a comparatively late time in human history... but it is not unprecedented, nor unique to Islam.

Note the following article as informative... but also note that direct analogy to what is happening in Islam in modern times is complex as well... because, if for no other reason, the purpose and fruits of the Protestant Reformation are revealed from many perspectives, and opinions are not of one voice.

....Sadly, modern Christians are absolutely clueless about a significant period of time called the Reformation. If you ask most Evangelical Christians today whether they were Catholic or Protestant, the would know just how to answer the question and say without much thought, Protestant. Although they would know that they weren’t Catholic, they would not be able to give a good answer as to what it means to be Protestant. "So, what is it that you are protesting?’ you might ask them. The brave might respond, "the Catholic church." It would become painfully obvious that these protesting "soldiers" were unaware of why they were in battle and unsure of who the enemy really was.

The term Reformation is the historical name given to a period of time beginning in the sixteenth century where a cry went forth in the western European church for reform. The dominant Catholic church was corrupt; its courts were corrupt; the church’s magisterium had confused its role with the role of the civil magistrate. When it comes to reform like this however, it is always messy, but necessary. This was especially true of this Reformation because it encompasses parallel movements in various countries, primarily Switzerland, Germany, England, Scotland and France.

There were faithful works for reform in the region and there was plenty of unfaithful. The cry for reform for some was at times not uniform; some felt the most important thing to reform was the incumbents holding office in the church; others felt that the officer’s agenda should shift from secular matters to spiritual; others felt that it was the vitality that needed polishing to attract those who had left; and still other felt the heart of reform began with theology.

Given our high altitude consideration of the Reformation, we will say that there were four primary movements during the Reformation. Most historians would say that the starting gun of the Reformation was Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the church door at Wittenburg, Germany. The second large body of commotion started in Switzerland by John Calvin in Geneva. The later large movement in Reformation centered not on an individual, but rather a group called the Anabaptists. Lastly, a fourth major movement in the Reformation was the counter attack (called the counter Reformation) mounted by the Catholic church in response to the success of the Reformers. These events encompass a period of roughly two and a half centuries during the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries.

The term Protestant frequently is used to refer to anyone who favored the Reformation. Technically though, this term began in Germany in 1529 by the leadership in response to the Catholic vote at the Second Diet of Speyer which declared their intolerance of the movements toward reformation in Germany. Prior to this the proponents of the Reformation were referred to as Evangelicals....

The difficulties of applying tradition have been ever present. We as humans tend to enjoy the predictability of our traditions and given the short duration of our lives and the manner in which truth is handed down generationally, traditions have a habit of becoming law. We see this very thing happening in Jesus’ day as He rebukes the Pharisees for elevating the traditions of men above or even parallel to the commandments of God. (Mark 7:5-13)

Since the time of the Apostolic church, there have been those who faithfully attempted to institute a tradition for the faithful handling of the Scriptures. Most likely beginning with Irenaeus in the second century, who developed a formal method for the interpretation of Scripture (now called biblical hermeneutics) to today where we have defined rules called higher and lower textual criticism, these traditions are very useful for ensuring that we come as servants of the Scriptures rather than princes over it.

The Catholic argument was that God had given not only the Scriptures to the church for authoritative instruction, but had also given the authoritative traditions as well as the authoritative magisterium. This position is argued from the Scriptures by drawing from the fact that before the canon had been closed, oral, Apostolic instruction was authoritative and that this pattern of both oral and written authority was something to continue until Christ’s return.

A second problematic tradition was the Catholic belief that the Church Magisterium was the body where truth was not only defended but also preserved. Their belief in Papal descent (lineage of Popes coming through Peter) was the means by which this preservation would be accomplished. This meant that the Scriptures could not be faithfully understood by the laity and the casual reading and study of the Scriptures was discouraged (and at times forbidden through law). Obviously when the Magisterium becomes corrupt, so too their pronouncements and thus the exact scenario that lead to the cry for reform. At the heart of this cry was a demand for reforming the theology of the Church which the Reformers believed had departed from the Biblical, Apostolic teaching as well as the historic teaching of the faithful church. The theologies in question are the five topics of this series....

(The discussion goes on to a discourse on the emergence of the "Five Solas" emanating from the Protestant Reformation, that remain topics of Christian theological discussion today}:

• Sola Scriptura
• Solus Christus
• Sola Gratia
• Sola Fide
• Soli Deo Gloria

The Five Solas of the Reformation

The second proposition... mainly Liquid's line of thought, suggests that Islam is somehow uniquely qualified to generate violence out of discord on theological thought and religious authorities. I would offer this list of wars that were fired by internecine conflicts within Christianity:

• Catholicism vs. Eastern Orthodoxy, Fourth Crusade, Balkans-Greece and Anatolia, 1201-1204 CE
• Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Wars of Religion, France, 1560-1598 CE
• Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Thirty Years War, Western Europe, 1618-1648 CE
• Protestantism vs. Catholicism, The Troubles, Ireland, 1609-1998 CE

While certainly wars between different religions abound:

List

The internecine profile for the modern conflict within Islam, whereas the violent extremists are seen as the "reformers", parallels the global intra-cultural conflict in that in both cases the extremists (Islamofascists) represent fundamentalist, evangelical, retrograde ideologies that are set in opposition to modern liberating and moderating tendencies of thought  characterizing both Liberal Theology and Politics.

Intolerance of diversity is the lingua franca of the modern Islamic "reformers"... the ideology of tolerance and diversity is its counterpoint.

May Liberalism prevail.

 

 

[Liquid]

Great post Alexandra! This also brings up the question I hear alot: "What type of muslim can you trust today?" because we in the west are the ones that are being asked to "tolerate" and to not throw out the proverbial baby as in 'moderates' with the bathwater and yet over and over we see NO toleration from the muslim countries that are predominately muslim! I can't help but roll my eyes now whenever I hear that 'Islam is a religion of peace' or comments like "Muslims cannot be enslaved by fellow Muslims" because although slavery has finally been officially outlawed in many of the muslim countries, it is surely not enforced. Just ask those that have witnessed it in Saudi!

The source of the jihad comes from the teachings of one man and that is Muhammad.
What do all the muslims around the world share?
Their koran/quran via Muhammad.
Robert Spencer's book The Truth About Muhammad is a must read to understand the portrait of the Prophet of Islam!
Also if you got the time, check out this article...

Spencer has noted, D'Souza assumes that peaceful Muslims will have a greater sense of solidarity with jihadists than with non-Muslims, which is indeed the case, but it makes hash of his entire thesis—that social conservatives should ally themselves with these "traditional" Muslims:

"For if these peaceful Muslims really abhor jihadism, they should have no reason to object to critical presentations of the elements of Islam that foster jihadism. But if such presentations will just drive them into the arms of the jihadists, then how committed could they really have been to peace and moderation in the first place? If they think "Islamophobic tracts" are more threatening to their religion than acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam, how ˜traditional' and moderate could they possibly be?"

Dinesh the Dhimmi

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

I find it strange that people seem to have a fair bit of hope in an Islamic Reformation movement.

Trouble is the Protestant Reformation that is the source of so much analogy, was really a fundamentalist one. Indeed we can pose the question "are religious reformations defacto fundamentalist"? In other words, are the Reformations really about "getting back to the roots" and rediscovering "orthodoxy". The Protestant and modern Islamist Reformations seem to have this in common.

So no, I dont hope for an Islamic Reformation. I rather hope the current one ends, and it gets back to "normal", with which it was able to coexist peacefully with the world for centuries.

[Ghost Dansing]

Seventy Two Virgins? Remember.... paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.

Virus 

[Ghost Dansing]

"These corrosive ideas do not spring from a vacuum. They arise instead from impoverished Salafi and Wahhabi discourses, which are corroding Islam from within. There is a straight line between the Salafi/Wahhabi interpretations - a puritanical, anti-rationalist, misogynistic Islam with a punitive, intolerant Sharia - and the violence, which now bloodstains our faith."

Language is a virus... rightest, fascist ideas can creep into our theology, in which case rigid, fundamentalist ideas that claim there is one and only one literal interpretation of ancient text, often lifted out of the context of the age in which it was written, and applied rigidly to the social environment... or perhaps by using utopian allusions to some "golden age" of power to encourage retrograde thinking and "conservative" values".

Some say that it is inappropriate to use the term "fascist" within a religious context... it is a "political" idea. I think rather it is a habit-of-being by certain types of individuals who value power and dominance over others, at any cost. Fascist ideas always consolidate power in the hands of the few, be they clerics or political leaders, or in the case of theocracies both... the two overlapping or essentially resident in the same group of individuals. Fascism always imposes structure and values compliance, offering  ideological and social "order" in exchange for obedience.

Just as there are Islamofascists, there are Christofascists, and there is even a fascist tendency in this most Liberal of Democracies, the United States, that reveals itself subtlely as ideas about governance and power are gently shifted in the American psyche.

Take for example this article in the New York Times, where the idea of "Commander in Chief" is discussed:

WE hear constantly now about “our commander in chief.” The word has become a synonym for “president.” It is said that we “elect a commander in chief.” It is asked whether this or that candidate is “worthy to be our commander in chief.” 

But the president is not our commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army.

I first cringed at the misuse in 1973, during the “Saturday Night Massacre” (as it was called). President Richard Nixon, angered at the Watergate inquiry being conducted by the special prosecutor Archibald Cox, dispatched his chief of staff, Al Haig, to arrange for Mr. Cox’s firing. Mr. Haig told the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, to dismiss Mr. Cox. Mr. Richardson refused, and resigned. Then Mr. Haig told the second in line at the Justice Department, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox. Mr. Ruckelshaus refused, and accepted his dismissal. The third in line, Robert Bork, finally did the deed.

What struck me was what Mr. Haig told Mr. Ruckelshaus, “You know what it means when an order comes down from the commander in chief and a member of his team cannot execute it.” This was as great a constitutional faux pas as Mr. Haig’s later claim, when President Reagan was wounded, that “Constitutionally ... I’m in control.”

President Nixon was not Mr. Ruckelshaus’s commander in chief. The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

When Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper title, “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” That title is rarely — more like never — heard today. It is just “commander in chief,” or even “commander in chief of the United States.” This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics....

....But we have not seen normal life in 66 years. The wartime discipline imposed in 1941 has never been lifted, and “the duration” has become the norm. World War II melded into the cold war, with greater secrecy than ever — more classified information, tougher security clearances. And now the cold war has modulated into the war on terrorism.

There has never been an executive branch more fetishistic about secrecy than the Bush-Cheney one. The secrecy has been used to throw a veil over detentions, “renditions,” suspension of the Geneva Conventions and of habeas corpus, torture and warrantless wiretaps. We hear again the refrain so common in the other wars — If you knew what we know, you would see how justified all our actions are....

....The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements. We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines.

That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order. (George Bush came as close as he could to wearing a uniform while president when he landed on the telegenic aircraft carrier in an Air Force flight jacket)....

"At Ease, Mr. President", Garry Wills, NYT,  27 January 2007

Language is a virus indeed. 

 

[karen]

Jeff, you say:" Under Islam there are certain rights that, at least in theory, cannot be withdrawn. for example, Muslims cannot be enslaved by fellow Muslims."

I guess this excludes women?

[Joe Buzz]

Well.. since we learned today from scholars in England that Global Warning causes terrorism....the correlation that Global Warming leads to the practice of Sharia is not far behind. I feel sorry for the radicals so many are intolerant of their intolerance which we know is not their fault.

[nofate]

Our daily lesson in moral relativism:
"I've pointed out before, that during the Cold War the beast (i.e. radical islam) was "nurtured"(like a viral experiment gone bad?) to some degree by the West(the Great Satan, right GD?) to encourage trouble for the Soviet Union and Communism. The beast is and was nurtured or at least appeased by regional powers for the purpose of internal politics in cases such as Saudi Arabia (Wahabist) and Pakistan.... and non-Arabic/Persian areas we discuss little here on ATB... in Southeast Asia."(Oh yes, let's not forget what we did to Veet Nam.)

Our day is now complete.

The more apropos analogy is that Alexandra and others are modern day Churchills being consciously ignored by the PC indocrinated media and political class. We did not "create" the "beast" any more than England or America or whoever, created communism in the 19th century. As John Werntz pointed out in a previous post's comment, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc. "are quite simply the world's foremost practitioners of traditional Islam". And then the most succinct, yet all encompassing analysis of the goal of the Islamofascists, by gringoman:

ISLAM UBER ALLES

[Jeff Durkin]

Francis, I take issue with part of what you wrote. Specifically, that an Islamic right is no different from "a permission that might be withdrawn at any time". Under Islam there are certain rights that, at least in theory, cannot be withdrawn. for example, Muslims cannot be enslaved by fellow Muslims. So, right, in the sense of a inviolable relationship with a legal system or a system of governance.

What does not exist, of course, is the idea that rights are ultimately applicable to all men, not just members of a given religion or nation. The American (and, indeed, liberal (small 'l'), democratic, Western ideal) is that all people, regardless of there religious beliefs, race, or specific mode of governance, have inherent rights. Islam does not have embrace this concept, instead differentiate rights along confessional lines.

As to the larger question of whether Islam in any known form is compatible with the West, the answer certainly appears to be 'no'. Granted, there are Muslims who have no problem reconciling their faith with the Western standards; but I would argue that they are part of new branch of Westernized, secularized Islam, in which they are much more like "cafeteria Catholics"; their religion is more a cultural referent than a comprehensive guide to life.

The problem, of course, is that in the West, our dominant faith - the various forms of Christianity - from its inception had a broadly cooperative and differentiated role vis-a-vis the State. While the temporal influence of the Church (and of the Protestant denominations) has risen and fallen, out and out theocracies have never been extent in the west. Rather, it was acknowledged that the State was authoritative in certain aspects of life and the Church others.

In classical Islam, this kind of differentiation does not exist. To be clear, classical Islam did not set up a theocracy (a government by priests) per se; rather, it established that all authority was derived from god and that all laws and the relations of citizens to the State originate from the Quran and the Sunnah, as well as fatwas derived from these sources.

Any observant Muslim would look at the Western concept of human rights and, even if on some level they agreed with them, would have to disregard them because they were not derived from these sources.

In the abstract, it is not so much a case of Muslims looking at something like women's rights and saying these are right or wrong; rather, these rights have to be disregarded as the creation of infidels, because they did not come from the only proper sources of Islamic law.

Which is why, in Huntington's phraseology, we are engaged in a 'clash of civilizations'; two incompatible world views, a conflict that,. at best, only one can emerge from intact.

[Francis W. Porretto]

I recall reading a statement from some Muslim spokesman that "Islam grants his rights to everyone who has rights." The context, sad to say, is missing here, but its implication was that a "right" is a special concession made by Muslims to an "unbeliever;" it does not, as it does in the West, signify a natural property of all men. That would make the Islamic concept of rights wholly antithetical to the Western one. Indeed, there's no difference between an Islamic "right" and a permission that might be withdrawn at any time.

[Ghost Dansing]

Alexandra, I think this one is beginning to penetrate and unfold some of the internal dynamics of Islam that has produced and  is producing modern Islamofascism from both main branches of Islam... Sunni and Shia.

I've read some material that discusses how the Shia/Persian "Islamic Revolution" in Iran in the 70's actually embolden and kindled Sunni radicals... as you've pointed out before, not necessarily in a linear way, because there was certainly Qutb and other harbingers of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood long before that... but as a modern milestone marking the emergence of a two-headed, politically rooted extremist beast with hegemonic goals.

I've pointed out before, that during the Cold War the beast was "nurtured" to some degree by the West to encourage trouble for the Soviet Union and Communism. The beast is and was nurtured or at least appeased by regional powers for the purpose of internal politics in cases such as Saudi Arabia (Wahabist) and Pakistan.... and non-Arabic/Persian areas we discuss little here on ATB... in Southeast Asia.

However, your selection also points out that alternative non-fundamentalist, non-extremist, non-fascist interpretations of Islam can and do exist and we must be careful in our oppositions not to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Liberalization and secularization of the human viewpoint softens the rough edges of religious zeolotry too frequently carried into the public forum of politics. Religion as an individual spiritual endeavor as opposed to a political mallot should be preserved because it addresses a fundamental human need to engage that which transcends our mortal human existence.

Feed Me Seymour