Posted by Neal F.

Dear Haniya,
_______________________________________________________________________________
You state: "I’d much rather engage in a discourse that asks what it is about the modern West that has provoked such a sharp reaction to its policies."
_______________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps you ask the wrong question. Perhaps the issue is not a reaction by Muslims to the West but an attempt by radicals among Muslims to resume - and also to convince average Muslims to resume - the millennial Islamic struggle to bring Islamic rule under Islamic law to the entire world. Such is consistent with the writings of Sayyid Qutb and with those of other writers and activists thought highly of by more radical Muslims. Such is consistent with documentation found in safe houses for Islamic radicals. Such is consistent with the writings even of some alleged Muslim moderates.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Now, I agree with you that the issue is not so much for moderates to defend their faith. That is a losing argument for moderates as the radicals, not the moderates, employ arguments within the Islamic tradition. Hence, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali told The New York Times, "And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran. The come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win. Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith."
_______________________________________________________________________________
Rather than assert what are, in fact, losing, non-traditional arguments in a debate where the opponents and the audience consist of people raised in an orthodox Muslim tradition, the moderates need to work to bring a more modern way of thinking to the Islamic regions. Which is to say, the issue for Muslims is not really between factions of the faith but between more secular minded people and traditionalists.
_______________________________________________________________________________
In that Religion is largely an irrational force, nothing will come of debate and condemnations by moderates. Only time will bring change, most especially if the current religious revival begins to fade, perhaps due to religious, political and societal failures the revival likely causes. In such a climate, more secular forces might increase their influence in society and on religion and politics. So, the moderates should work to modernize and secularize their societies, not to raise losing religious arguments which will fall on deaf ears.

Posted by Carolyn Bradley

Dear Neal,

You don’t leave your last name, so I wonder how confident you are with your arguments.

Here are my thoughts:

Islam, like every other religion, comes in many forms – and I am willing to bet (without having read it) that the Koran, like the Bible, says many different things – many of which are contradictory, many of which will forever be open to interpretation.

You make a bid for an ahistorical “Islamic civilization,” which is inherently irrational and fundamentally-violent, and there is of course a large body of Orientalist scholarship to support your claims. But who do you count as representatives of this civilization? There are Muslims all over the world who believe in civil rights, secularism, democracy, and education. And there are also Muslims, like many in Saudi Arabia, who are desperately trying to fight tyrannical dictatorships which can only stand today because of the support of the United States (that bastion of rationalism and nonviolence). Meanwhile, there are also Muslim organizations (such as the Taliban) which make claims that Islam endorses certain forms of government repression. But these claims, of course, are rhetorical devices, with political meaning; and in fact, the Taliban - despite its own rhetoric - is very much a modern conception of Islam.

As you say, there certainly are Muslims who believe Islam should be exported throughout the world. But why do you want to privilege that particular expression of the faith to the point of drowning out the millions of others? And from an intellectual standpoint, aren’t you at all curious as to what incentives might be driving people to religious extremism - i.e. what is going on (at least from their own perspective) to make them feel so passionately connected to that particular view of the world?

You present your argument with “facts,” but in truth, it is simply a base appeal to people’s emotions and fears. In that regard, I see you desperately trying to appeal to an “irrationalism” in your audience to which you clearly believe are so vulnerable: perhaps you should consider modernizing and secularizing yourself?

Sincerely,
Carolyn Bradley

Posted by Neal F.

Dear Carolyn,
_______________________________________________________________________________
I do not use my name because some of my acquaintances who have written, like I have, about Islam and Islamic history, have been threatened. I have a family and do not wish to add unnecessary worries to my family.
_______________________________________________________________________________
You do not follow what I claim at all. Mine is strictly a comment about what the vast majority of Muslims would be taught, if thoroughly educated in traditional Muslim views. In this regard, the radicals speak more authoritatively, in the classical Islamic tradition, than do moderates. I think that is a fact. That is what Ms. Hirsi Ali was attempting to explain.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Muslims might, of course, decide to interpret their holy texts in a contemporary, basically secular manner. However, what I have described is clearly the majority/classical view - meaning the view that would be taught at places, even now, such as Al-Azhar University. And, it has been the dominant view since at least the 9th Century.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ibn Khaldun, the greatest of all sociologist/ historians of Muslim confession, wrote these two passages in his famed Muqaddimah:
_______________________________________________________________________________
[QUOTE BEGINS]------ In the Muslim community, holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united (in Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them (religion and politics) at the same time.
_______________________________________________________________________________
The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense. It has thus come about that the person in charge of religious affairs (in other religious groups) is not concerned with power politics at all. (Among them) royal authority comes to those who have it, by accident and in some way that has nothing to do with religion. It comes to them as the necessary result of group feeling, which by its very nature seeks to obtain royal authority, as we have mentioned before, and not because they are under obligation to gain power over other nations, as is the case with Islam. They are merely required to establish their religion among their own (people). ---------[QUOTE ENDS]
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ignaz Goldhizer was the greatest Islamicist of his time - late 19th and early 20th Century. He was the first non-Muslim to be permitted to study at al-Azhar University. He was known to pray with Muslims. He thought Islam substantially superior to Christianity. Yet, he wrote (with Kaufmann Kohler):
_______________________________________________________________________________
[QUOTE BEGINS]----------In addition to the religious duties imposed upon each individual professing Islam, the collective duty of the "jihad" (= "fighting against infidels") is imposed on the community, as represented by the commander of the faithful. Mohammed claimed for his religion that it was to be the common property of all mankind, just as he himself, who at first appeared as a prophet of the Arabs, ended by proclaiming himself the prophet of a universal religion, the messenger of God to all humanity, or, as tradition has it, "ila al-aḥmar wal-aswad" (to the red and the black). For this reason unbelief must be fought with the force of weapons, in order that "God's word may be raised to the highest place." Through the refusal to accept Islam, idolaters have forfeited their lives. Those "who possess Scriptures" ("ahl al-kitab"), in which category are included Jews, Christians, Magians, and Sabians, may be tolerated on their paying tribute ("jizyah") and recognizing the political supremacy of Islam (sura ix. 29). The state law of Islam has accordingly divided the world into two categories: the territory of Islam ("dar al-Islam") and the territory of war. ("dar al-ḥarb"), i.e., territory against which it is the duty of the commander of the faithful ("amir al-mu'minin") to lead the community in the jihad. ---------[QUOTE ENDS]
_______________________________________________________________________________
Famed historian Bernard Lewis writes in likely his best book, The Muslim Discovery of Europe:
_______________________________________________________________________________
[QUOTE BEGINS]--------- In the Muslim world view the basic division of mankind is into the House of Islam (Dār al-Islām) and the House of War (Dar al-Harb). The one consists of all those countries where the law of Islam prevails, that is to say, broadly, the Muslim Empire; the latter is the rest of the world. Just as there is only one God in heaven, so there can be only one sovereign and one law on earth. Ideally, the House of Islam is conceived as a single community, governed by a single state, headed by a single sovereign. This state must tolerate and protect those unbelievers who are brought by conquest under its rule, provided, of course, that they are not polytheists but followers of one of the permitted religions. The logic of Islamic law, however, does not recognized the permanent existence of any other polity outside Islam. In time, in the Muslim view, all mankind will accept Islam or submit to Islamic rule. In the meantime, it is a religious duty of Muslims to struggle until this end is accomplished.
_______________________________________________________________________________
The name given by the Muslim jurists to this struggle is jihād, an Arabic word meaning effort or striving. One who performs this duty is called mujāhid. The word occurs several times in the Qur'ān in the sense of making war against the unbelievers. In the early centuries of Islamic expansion, this was its normal meaning. Between the House of Islam and the House of War there was, according to the sharī‘a, the Holy Law as formulated by the classical jurists, a state of war religiously and legally obligatory, which could end only with the conversion or subjugation of all mankind. A treaty of peace between the Muslim state and a non-Muslim state was thus in theory juridically impossible. The war, which would end only with the universal triumph of Islam, could not be terminated; it could only be interrupted for reasons of necessity or of expediency by a truce. Such a truce, according to the jurists, could only be provisional. It should not exceed ten years and could, at any time, be repudiated unilaterally by the Muslims who, however, were obliged by Muslim law to give the other side due notice before resuming hostilities. -------[QUOTE ENDS]
_______________________________________________________________________________
Vahakn N. Dadrian's renowned book, The History of the Armenian Genocide (from Chapter one), and this is a lengthy quote but it is important if you are to understand that Islam in history is conceptually and historically very different than contemporary Christianity and Western society:
_______________________________________________________________________________
[QUOTE BEGINS] ----------- As a first step toward a full analysis of the nationality conflicts, it is necessary to examine Islam as a major determinant in the genesis and escalation of these conflicts. The precepts and infallible dogmas of Islam, as interpreted and applied within the framework of a theocratic Ottoman state organization, encompassing a congeries of non-Islamic nationalities, proved to be enduring sources of division in the relationship between the dominant Muslims and the latter. In many ways that conflict was a replica and an extension of conflicts plaguing the relationship of the various nationalities in the Balkans with the Turks who, as conquerors, played the role of overlords towards these subjects over a long period of time. In this sense, it may be observed that Islam not only functioned as a source of unending nationality conflicts both in the Balkans and Turkish Armenia, but it also functioned as a nexus of the correlative Eastern and Armenian questions, through the explosion of which the issues of creed and religious affiliation for decades were catapulted into the forefront of international conflicts.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Although Islam is a religious creed, it is also a way of life for its followers, transcending the boundaries of faith to permeate the social and political fabric of a nation. Islam's bent for divisiveness, exclusivity, and superiority, which overwhelms its nominal tolerance of other religions, is therefore vital to an understanding of a Muslim-dominated, multi-ethnic system such as Ottoman Turkey.
_______________________________________________________________________________
The Islamic character of Ottoman theocracy was a fundamental factor in the Ottoman state's legal organization. The Sultan, who exercised supreme political power, also carried the title of Khalif (meaning Successor to Mohammed, and a vicar of supreme authority) and thereby served as the supreme protector of Islam. Thus, the Sultan-Khalif was entrusted with the duty of protecting the canon law of Islam, called the Şeriat, meaning revelation (of the laws of God as articulated by the prophet Mohammed). The Şeriat comprised not only religious precepts, but a fixed and infallible doctrine of a juridical and political nature whose prescriptions and proscriptions were restricted to the territorial jurisdiction of the State.
_______________________________________________________________________________
The Islamic doctrines embraced by the Ottoman state circumscribed the status of non-Muslims within its jurisdiction. The Ottoman system was not merely a theocracy but a subjugative political organization based on the principle of fixed superordination and subordination governing the legal relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, and entailing social and political disabilities for the latter. [footnote omitted]. The Koran, the centerpiece of the Şeriat, embodies some 260 verses, most of them uttered by Mohammed in Mecca, enjoining the faithful to wage cihad, holy war, against the "disbelievers," e.g., those who do not profess the "true faith" (hakk din), and to "massacre" (kital) them. [footnote omitted]. Moreover, the verse "Let there be no coercion in religion" [footnote omitted] is superseded and thus cancelled (mensuh) by Mohammed's command to "wage war against the unbelievers and be severe unto them." [footnote omitted]. The verse that has specific relevance for the religious determination of the legal and political status of non-Muslims whose lands have been conquered by the invading Islamic warriors has this command: "Fight against them who do not follow the religion of truth until they pay tribute [ciziye] by right of subjection, and they be reduced low." [footnote omitted]. This stipulation is the fundamental prerequisite to ending warfare and introducing terms of clemency.
_______________________________________________________________________________
The Ottoman Empire's Islamic doctrines and traditions, reinforced by the martial institutions of the State, resulted in the emergence of principles of common law which held sway throughout the history of the Ottoman socio-political system. The Sultan-Khalif's newly incorporated non-Muslim subjects were required to enter into a quasi-legal contract, the Akdi Zimmet, whereby the ruler guaranteed the "safeguard" (ismet) of their persons, their civil and religious liberties, and, conditionally, their properties, in exchange for the payment of poll and land taxes, and acquiescence to a set of social and legal disabilities. These contracts marked the initiation of a customary law in the Ottoman system that regulated the unequal relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. Ottoman common law thus created the status of "tolerated infidels [relegated to] a caste inferior to that of their fellow Moslem subjects." [footnote omitted]. The Turkish scholar N. Berkes further pointed out that the intractability of this status was a condition of the Şeriat, which "could not admit of [non-Muslim] equality in matters over which it ruled. [Even the subsequent secular laws based on] the concept of the Kanun (law) did not imply legal equality among Muslims and non-Muslims." [footnote omitted].
_______________________________________________________________________________
This principle of Ottoman common law created a political dichotomy of superordinate and subordinate status. The Muslims, belonging to the umma, the politically organized community of believers, were entitled to remain the nation of overlords. Non-Muslims were relegated to the status of tolerated infidels. These twin categories helped perpetuate the divisions between the two religious communities, thereby embedding conflict into the societal structure. Moreover, the split transcended the political power struggle occurring in Ottoman Turkey during this time period. Even when the Young Turk Ittihadists succeeded Sultan Abdul Hamit into power in 1908, they reaffirmed the principle of the ruling nation (milleti hâkime). While promising liberty, justice, and equality for all Ottoman subjects, they vowed to preserve the superordinate-subordinate dichotomy. That vow was publicly proclaimed through Tanin, the quasi-official publication of the Ittihad party. Hüseyn Cahid, its editor, declared in an editorial that irrespective of the final outcome of the nationality conflict in Turkey, "the Turkish nation is and will remain the ruling nation." [footnote omitted] -----------[END OF DADRIAN QUOTE]
_______________________________________________________________________________
I quoted extensively so that you might appreciate that, without actually studying Islam and Islamic history, you fail to appreciate a culture and society very different from that of contemporary Westerners. Note also that I previously indicated that Islam has made great contributions and a great society formed around Islam. But, that is a different thing from making believe that Islamic society is a carbon copy of our society or that Islam and contemporary, really quasi-secular, Christianity or Judaism are the same. They are not. Islam just has different virtues than ours and, moreover, provides its adherents with a different justification for living. The struggle to bring Islamic rule to the entire world is a source, most especially for the radicals, of great meaning, making life worthwhile. That is a point that needs to be understood.
_______________________________________________________________________________

You are certainly correct that the Koran states a great many things, some of which are contradictory. The issue is what Muslims make of the contradictions.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Muslim scholars long ago adopted a system for reconciling such problems. The reconciliation is normally determined by the notion that Islam is a rolling revelation, with later revelations considered more pertinent than earlier revelations. Where the conflict is direct, then the later revelation is said is abrogate fully the earlier revelation. Such is the common position held through the ages. The radicals clearly follow this traditional view, since it supports their position. The same can be said for scholars of the traditionalist bent - meaning, the vast majority of Muslim scholars, now and through the ages.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I hope that I have been explained myself. I suggest, if you wish to better understand Islamic society and Islam, read Bernard Lewis' stellar book The Muslim Discovery of Europe. You ought pay particular attention to the chapter which explains how a typical Muslim, in the pre-modern age, would have viewed the world, if he (or, she) were religious.

Neal F.

Posted by Carolyn Bradley

Dear Neal,

I'm familiar with Bernard Lewis - and despise him. Have you heard of the critique of Orientalism? You just CANNOT talk about "civilizations" in the way you are doing, with an East and a West growing up side by side, kept apart for centuries by some magic band and perhaps meeting occasionally but then only to erupt into a violent clash. You're talking about billions of people here, over the course of centuries ... To try to lump them all together into one category (or to divide them into two separate but neat categories) is simply insane. It doesn't make any sense LOGICALLY - it's a fairy tale.

What's more: it's racist - and, honestly, probably does not belong on a school website. I note you have been commenting on the Misc website for awhile now with anti-Muslim remarks. I think you should look into your heart and ask yourself what you are getting out of holding such a strongly negative (and completely absurd) view of Muslims.

Again, though, I find myself asking, note, do you honestly think the history of the world could be simplified in the way you are suggesting? And if you really do think so, why on earth would you want to study history in the first place? It would seem an awfully boring subject. I have an image of you just reading text after text of Bernard Lewis, Samuel Huntington, and those guys, and always finding out the same thing: "oh, further proof that Muslims are irrational and violent!" What a life!

Sincerely,
Carolyn