Exploding the myth of Muslim silence
By Sean Aqui | Related entries in News, Religion, The War On TerrorismThat’s the point of an interesting piece by Stephen Schwartz, author of “The Two Faces of Islam.”
In it he argues that the media ignores moderate Muslims while covering the radicals in lavish, horrific detail, painting a distorted picture of the faith. The centerpiece of the article is a deconstruction of coverage of the plot to attack Fort Dix. He notes that the plotters weren’t, as first assumed, Kosovo Albanian Muslims. They were, instead, ethnic Albanians from Macedonia who came here as children and were radicalized in Arab-dominated Wahhabi mosques. His point is that the media misses distinctions between different kinds of Muslims, lumping peaceful, moderate Albanians in with violent Wahhabis.
He then cites several examples of Muslim commentary on the case — all of it condemning the plot — that he says got scant coverage.
I didn’t follow the Fort Dix story closely enough to judge whether he’s right on that score, but the piece once again points up the intellectual bankruptcy of those who demand that Muslims “speak out” against terror. Continuing to make that argument ignores several relevant facts:
1. They do. All the time. I’ve cited multiple examples in the past year.
2. Demands that Muslims take the lead assume that moderate Muslims have some sort of connection to (or influence over) the extremists. What are (for example) American Muslims supposed to do: Call up Al-Qaeda and yell at them? They don’t have AQ’s number any more than you or I do, nor will their words be heeded any more than yours or mine.
3. Few groups spend a lot of time flagellating themselves for the extremists in their midst.
Let’s expand on that last point for a moment because it’s an important one, tied in with assumptions about group identity that simply are not true.
(continued at Midtopia)
This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007 and is filed under News, Religion, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Sure there are Muslims that speak out against terror, misogyny ect… But it doesn’t seem to be helping, because when Irshad Manji claims, “The Quran vigorously defends religious pluralism…The Quran contains plenty of pro-women passages… re-interpretation [of the Quran] is not just permitted; it’s encouraged” she is just playing lip service, because radical muslims, especially those who are professional men of the cloth throughout the muslim world, will point out verse after verse, tradition after tradition, completely refuting every thing she says.
She can mount no articulate, detailed theological argument other than simply stating, “No, Islam just does preach tolerance and equality…it just does, so there!”
Or she could say, “but other scriptures have violent verses taken out of context.” Thats like saying to the judge that you are not guilty of the crime you have been accused of because the last guy in the court was found not guilty of the crime he was accused of.
Or she could say, “but there are many more verses that preach tolerance than those that are violent and misogynistic.” If I mix 3 quarts of Vanilla ice cream with a quart of dog shit, would she eat it?
As long as one pretends that violence, tyranny and misogyny are not inherent to Islam, the Quran and Mohammad, or that those verses and traditions can be written off and ignored by moderates as irrelevant, then devout young men with a penchant for fascism will find those verses and traditions, use them to achieve their political goals (as Mohammad and the first Caliphs did), and will never be effectively challenged by moderates on religious grounds.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Jimmy, you’re working very hard to ignore moderate Islam.
she is just playing lip service, because radical muslims, especially those who are professional men of the cloth throughout the muslim world, will point out verse after verse, tradition after tradition, completely refuting every thing she says.
So hers is lip service, but their’s isn’t? Even if more people agree with her version?
Besides, pointing out “verse after verse” is difficult, because the Quran itself has few that glorify violence. The real bloody stuff is in the “traditions”, the hadiths and such. But those aren’t inherent to Islam as such. They are interpretations and commentaries, the validity of which are far more subject to change than the verses of the Quran itself.
She can mount no articulate, detailed theological argument other than simply stating, “No, Islam just does preach tolerance and equality…it just does, so there!�
Uh-huh.
Or she could say, “but other scriptures have violent verses taken out of context.� Thats like saying to the judge that you are not guilty of the crime you have been accused of because the last guy in the court was found not guilty of the crime he was accused of.
That’s a lousy analogy, unless you’re prepared to condemn Christianity and Judaism for the extreme violence that actually is written directly into their holy books. If not, you’re holding Islam to a double standard.
Or she could say, “but there are many more verses that preach tolerance than those that are violent and misogynistic.� If I mix 3 quarts of Vanilla ice cream with a quart of dog shit, would she eat it?
Another terrible analogy; religion isn’t ice cream. You can’t interpret ice cream, and ice cream doesn’t evolve over time. Major religions can and do transcend their often violent origins.
As long as one pretends that violence, tyranny and misogyny are not inherent to Islam, the Quran and Mohammad
Mohammad was a warlord, true. But the basic principles of the Quran were progressive for their time. The main problem is the same problem inherent in all forms of religious fundamentalism — some sects’ interpretation of the Quran has not modernized much beyond the 7th Century, coupled with a tribal culture that hasn’t modernized much, either. The religion is used to support and justify the culture. But in different cultures, the religion is used differently.
or that those verses and traditions can be written off and ignored by moderates as irrelevant, then devout young men with a penchant for fascism will find those verses and traditions, use them to achieve their political goals (as Mohammad and the first Caliphs did), and will never be effectively challenged by moderates on religious grounds.
This simply makes no sense. If moderate Muslims see no power in certain verses (the way modern Christians see no power in segments of the Bible that glorify polygamy, slavery, murder and brutal punishments for minor transgressions), that is in fact a religious argument. You seem determined to pretend that there are not differing sects in Islam, just as there are differing sects in Christianity, and that their interpretations of Islam are widely variable and changeable.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
First off, Christianity has and advantage, As does other religions like Buddhism and Bahaism, in that the founders of the religions are acceptable role models for people of today.
Judaism, Mormonism and Islam have more profound theological problem, in that the founders of those religions were warriors and/or misogynists who advocated archane behavior that is not acceptable in todays enlightenned society.
Every sect of Judaism today recognizes the violence, tyranny and misogyny of Mosaic law and rejects their implementation as morally reprobate. They look upon their prophets as we look upon our founding fathers: Noble vissionaries who founded a great nation, but also flawed men who were slave owners and inequitable towards women.
In the 1960s, Mormons has to organize the leaders of their church, recognize that polygamy was written into their scriptures and practiced by their founder, and then declare that it is immoral and here-to-fore forbidden.
I understand there are many sects of Islam, particularly Sunni Islam, and that reform may be difficult when there is no organizational structure; but sometimes I read what you say and it seems that reform is not needed! If there is nothing inherently wrong, why change anything? Manji, in fact, explicitly says this and you seem to endorse her so why do you then say Islam needs a “Council of Trent?” Besides, the Shiites are pretty organized around the Ayatolla, is Shiite Islam a religion of peace, now or ever?
There is this game people play regarding Islam that Asra Q. Nomani calls the 4:34 dance - the translation of this or that verse is wrong, or it really says “72 raisins,” or every single Hadith that reports Mohammad doing bad things is unreliable…The key to the reforms I mentioned is that the leadership of mainstream sects recognized and repudiated negative aspects of their prophets and scriptures.
You seem to be dancing too, when you say “Mohammad was a warlord, true. But the basic principles of the Quran were progressive for their time”. Mohammad ethnically cleansed Medina of Jews. The Quran advocates the raping of slave-girls. It may be 7th century Arabian culture, but it is written into the religion.
In chapter 5, there is a section where God reveals a story about how Moses recieved the true covenant which was later seditiously rejected by the Jews. In it we find the only mention of Pork or alcohol being forbidden. We also learn that thieves are to have their hands cut off.
Why is a rule like temperance inherent to the religion, but amputation is not? Why can’t Manji address this directly, and instead, defer to peaceful verses, most of which were abrogated by the later violent verses anyway?
In my opinion, moderate Muslims generally don’t want to do this because Mohammad is supposed to be the “al insan al kamel”- the perfect male; or “uswa hasana” a beautiful role-model. The Koran is supposed to be perfect like Christ (the analogy between Christ and the Koran is more appropriate than the Bible and Koran). To even recognize that there is a problem may be too difficult for the faithful.
The way to deal with a Bull in the China shop is not to dance around it, because all the while some fascist will slap it in the ass so it will wreck your store. You got to throw a leash over it - but you must recognize its there in the first place.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
First off, Christianity has and advantage, As does other religions like Buddhism and Bahaism, in that the founders of the religions are acceptable role models for people of today.
Agreed; Jesus was a swell guy.
I also agree with your points about Judaism et al, and the distinction that the leaders of those religions have modified their view of their founders to be more acceptable to modern society.
I understand there are many sects of Islam, particularly Sunni Islam, and that reform may be difficult when there is no organizational structure; but sometimes I read what you say and it seems that reform is not needed!
No, I agree that reform is needed, which is why I talk about an Islamic Reformation. But I also think that such reform is underway, evidenced in the more moderate strains of Islam currently extant. It may be a piecemeal Reformation, consistent with Islam’s fractured nature; but it’s happening.
There is this game people play regarding Islam that Asra Q. Nomani calls the 4:34 dance - the translation of this or that verse is wrong, or it really says “72 raisins,� or every single Hadith that reports Mohammad doing bad things is unreliable…The key to the reforms I mentioned is that the leadership of mainstream sects recognized and repudiated negative aspects of their prophets and scriptures.
Some translation issues are legitimate. And there will always be interpretation (what does the passage mean?) issues. But I think the actual fact of reform is more important than the particular form. You want Islam to recognize and repudiate negative aspects of the religion. But if Islam wants to reform by simply discarding every unhelpful passage attributed to Mohammad, who cares? In the end the effect is the same: the negative passages are repudiated. The only difference is how Mohammad’s personal reputation is affected.
The Quran advocates the raping of slave-girls. It may be 7th century Arabian culture, but it is written into the religion.
And in the Bible, God sends bears to tear apart little kids because they make fun of one of his prophets. Whole cities are destroyed — the women raped, the men often massacred, all survivors sold into slavery — because God wanted to give their land to the Israelites. The important thing is not the presence of such passages, but how such passages are treated by modern believers.
Why is a rule like temperance inherent to the religion, but amputation is not?
Because modern Muslims, like modern Christians, have chosen to ignore and downplay the sections of their book that do not comport well with modern mores.
In my opinion, moderate Muslims generally don’t want to do this because Mohammad is supposed to be the “al insan al kamel�- the perfect male; or “uswa hasana� a beautiful role-model.
Just like Jesus — except with more difficult contradictions to reconcile. Yet reconcile it they do. That’s how religions work. It’s angels-on-a-head-of-a-pin theology, torturing the meaning to get the result you want.
In the end, I have just three points to make about Islam:
1. Islam is too fractured a religion to paint with a broad brush;
2. The problem is not Islam itself, but the interpretations and actions of some of its followers. Modernizing those interpretations is why a Reformation is needed.
3. There’s a reason most of the violent Muslims come from culturally conservative (medievally so) tribal cultures, in areas where government is repressive and economic and social opportunity limited. In such instances, I’m inclined to see the culture as the problem. Islam is merely the excuse.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Irshad Manji is a straw-woman in this discussion. She has no training in theological argument and is not the appropriate person to formulate effective counter-arguments to extremism. The most obvious example is her insistence on “ijtihad,” which she treats as a kind of freedom of inquiry. Ijtihad is a narrowly-defined practice in which Muslim jurists make legal decision based on their own personal wisdom. Indeed, ijithad is the basis of the Khomeinist system in Iran — it is founded on the ijtihad of Khomeini himself. I think the term “Islamic Reformation” is problematical because it suggests the religious history of one community can be grafted on another — that is why we use the term “Islamic pluralism” which can be unarguably defended and advanced to any Muslim educated in religion, though it will be opposed by radicals. Radicals must simply be defeated and know they are defeated; they have a right to their interpretation but not to commit violent acts on the basis of their interpretation or to establish it, as in Saudi Arabia, as a monopoly on religious thought.
Otherwise, thanks for the support.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I agree with you on most of what you have said. I think we share the same goal for Islam, but we approach the source of the problem differently, and this relates to how a reformation will or will not come about.
I dont want to put words in your mouth, but it appears that you feel Islam itself is not inherently problematic, but it has been hijacked by violent fanatics. I believe that Islam is inherently violent and fanatical and needs to get hijacked by moderates, the way the Church of the Latter Day Saints got hijacked during the civil rights movement.
Why is this an important distinction? you said:
Moderate Muslims who discard unhelpful passages can only do so for themselves, and they are not the problem. It would be great if all Muslims did this. But you can’t edit the Koran, and those passages will remain for prosperity. Therein lies the problem. You can’t simply discard fanatics who will read the passages and let them be inspired to kill people.
You must find a way to combat the verses and traditions in an institutionalized, ecclesiastical sort of way, because while moderates will suggest that Muslims only read the good stuff, fascists will claim they are carriers of the complete word of God, which is very appealing to the devout.
Moderates who do address these verses typically do so with the 4:34 dance so as to avoid destroying their belief that the Koran is the literal, Arabic words of God spoken to Mohammad vocally by the Angel Gabriel. This method will never be effective because (1) too many verses are violent and misogynist and cannot be refuted this way, and (2) it is so obviously disingenouos that pious devotees who accept the literalism premise can see right through it.
Radicals are not a fringe group either; Salafism is probably the largest and most powerful sect (if you want to call it that) of Sunni Islam in the Arab world. Mainstream Sharia law is defined by 4 books (Mudhabs), all of which promote medeival social order. The Ayatollas control a state, have millions of dedicated followers and advocate the destruction of Israel.
Of what exists today that resemble eccumenical institutions in the Muslim world, they are more likely than not to preach about the inferiority of the infidel, a commitment to establishing a one world Islamic state under traditional Sharia law, and at least sympathy to the goals of Al-Quaeda, if not the methods.
I’ll leave you with this: 2500 years ago in ancient Israel when high priests would convict fornicators, and sentence them to death by stoning according to commandments found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, was Judaism being hijacked by extremists?
May 24th, 2007 at 5:46 am
Look for hate in the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran and you will find it.
Look for love in the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran, and you will find it.
It is not about the book, or the founders. It is about the person doing the looking.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Exactly, mw. The books themselves aren’t doing anything, the living breathing people are. Fanatics pretend they do it for religion, but its a lie. They do it for power, here and now. If we’re foolish enough to enter the debate about which religion is good, or bad, or more violent, or whatever, then we perpetuate the insanity.
The culprit is “infalability.” The religious don’t really believe it for a second, except that it gives them an excuse to exert power over others. The emporer has no clothes. None of the violent actions are for God. The nutjobs are out for themselves, and think we’ll cower in the face of the infalable bible, koran, whatever. Poppycock.
I’m sorry, I do think the Muslims have a responsibility to speak out against the violence more often than they do now. Also, the Imams and other leaders have a responsibility to admit that they don’t believe in the infalability of the Koran at all. (Christians, too) If they did really believe it, they’d be personnaly lopping off hands and leading intifadas, and stoning adulterers, but they don’t. They pick and choose, which means they KNOW their holy book is NOT infalible. We should demand from all religions that they admit it once and for all.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Lets reform Judaism as well!
If a non-Jew steals even a needle, he is to be executed according to the Noachide law. Did u know that? Traditional Muslim law would only chop-off one hand, not the head for that! See! How lenient is Islamic law when compared with the Jewish law!
A Jewish male who parys their traditional daily prayers prays everyday, “God! Thanks for NOT making me into a woman” Clearly, Judaism is far more misogynist than Islam!
The typical Jewish settler believe, “A Jewish life is worth far more than a thousand gentile lives!” God! We really need to reform Judaism if we want world peace!
God! Judaism really needs reform!