Posts Tagged Islam

Islamic Reformation

I still hear people saying Islam needs a reformation (I suppose because they think that the reformation did wonders for the Christian world’s politics). Callimachus at Winds of Change wrote a wonderful post on the subject a while back, You Say You Want a Reformation. While I don’t disagree with his post, I think there is still more to be covered. First off, the title implies it but Callimachus doesn’t follow up that a reformation really is a revolution, and not all, probably not even a majority, turn out well. The French revolution deposed a King and created an Emperor in his place. The Iranian revolution replaced a repressive and unpopular regime with a far more repressive and unpopular regime, and no doubt has made many Iranians understandably nervous about a second one any time soon. Any revolution carries the risk that things will only get worse.

Secondly, the protestant reformation didn’t actually do what people who call for an Islamic revolution to do for Islam, namely get religion out of politics or change the nature of the religion. The reformed Catholic church was just as involved in politics afterwards, maybe moreso. Nor did it promote religious tolerance, as for instance the Spanish Inquisition was in part a response to the religous ferment at the start of the reformation. During the middle ages the Catholic church was an important political player for two reasons – it was the only universal institution in the Christian world, and it was a feuditory in the fuedal system – i.e a bishop was just another baron, and the Pope even was like a King in the Papal States. The wars that the reformation started did have the effect of strengthening the central state and ushering out the feudal system.

The Reformation did not fundamentally change the nature of Christianity, just it’s organization. We can debate the proper role and balance of faith and works in the Christian life per the various Christian denominations, but they will agree upon what the faith should be in and what the works should be. Certainly the disagreements over theology that loom large within Christianity pale to insignificance as compared to differences with other religions.

Callimachus says that we are looking at an Islamic Reformation right now, and as he observes, not all religions are the same:

For another: There already was an Islamic Reformation. It happened while we were sleeping. The result is Wahhabi dominance, and Islamic Brotherhood, and Bin Laden. This is the Islamic Reformation. We’re fighting it now….

When Christianity reforms — when it goes back to its roots — it tries to foreswear the world. When Islam goes back to its roots, it tries to conquer the world.

OK, I will disagree, Christianity does not foreswear the world. Instead it tries (with mixed success) to love people. Islam at root is a rule based religion, Christianity at root is a relationship based religion. And not only are we facing a current “Islamic Reformation”, Islam had a failed but similar reformation at about the same time as the Christian one. From Venice: The Hinge of Europe 1081-1797, by history professor William McNeil:

Economic difficulties at home and the cessation of victory abroad had serious implications for Moslem thought and self-confidence. As long as success had continued to crown Ottoman standards, the Moslems of the empire could and did argue that the favor Allah continued to shower upon Ottoman arms attested the correctness of their faith. When successes ceased, the inference was obvious. Clearly, Allay was displeased; and the reasons were not far to seek. From almost the beginning of Islam, pious and fanatical puritans had taught that all innovation that went beyond the practices attested in the Koran was displeasing to God. This was a doctrine that demanded reformation of existing Ottoman religious practices every bit as radical as anything dreamed of by the Calvinist reform program for Christianity. The two movements coincided closely in time, for in the final decades of the sixteenth century and throughout the first half of the seventeenth, so called faki preachers inflamed popular discontents, already acute for economic reasons, by demanding uncompromising adherence to Koranic models of piety. The faki attacked the official hierarchy of Ottoman Islam for criminal laxity in condoning innovations of all sorts. They attacked the dervish orders no less vigourously for the heterodoxy of their opinions and ritual practices.Despite their passion and popular following, the faki did not prevail and were never able to seize political power. Their cultural influence was negative, inhibiting all buth the rich and privileged from exploring novelties, whether intellectual or otherwise, for which Koranic sanction was lacking. Even long established rational science — imported into Moslem learning in Abbasid times — withered away as subject of instructions in public institutions of higher learning. Symbolic of this transformation was the fact that in 1580 Sheik-ul-Islam ordered the destruction of the sultan’s private observatory. This institution had been as well equipped as any in Europe; but when popular preachers interpreted the outbreak of plague in Istanbul as a sign of Allah’s displeasure at the sultan’s impious efforts to penetrate God’s secrets by astrological science, the observatory (which was, in fact, inspired by astrological curiousity) had to go.

The book goes on to say that religiously questionable pursuits, such as medicine, were abandoned to Jews and Christians, and that higher education became the memorization of sacred texts and their commentaries. Sounds similar to the problem we’re facing today. And it sounds like that movement sowed the seeds of todays movement as well by setting the Islamic world up for failure in succeeding centuries, causing once again an attempt to return to the glory days of Islam.

Tags: , ,

Danish Cartoons Self Exam

While laboring mightly on a post that examine the responses to the Danish Cartoons and the freedom of speech issues surrounding them, I asked myself would these be cartoons that I would either draw (if I could draw) or originally publish? I would have only gone with the one captioned “Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins” because I think its at least funny (yes, I laugh at and have told St. Peter jokes – the ones that involve St. Peter and the Pearly Gates and people trying to get into heaven) and captures the western amazement at the thought that people who blow themselves up with innocent civilians think that the reward for such a heinous crime is an afterlife filled with sex with 39 virgins.

The others are all too bland and innocuous or inside jokes except for the one with the bomb in the turban which I don’t care for because it is too general. I understand that it may be an honest representation of the cartoonists feelings — that he associates Islam with bombers — but I think that subject is best tackled at length so that you can make clear that only the lunatic fringe of Islam are bombers but you worry that too many of the rest are at least sympathetic to such acts. Rather than be insulted by the cartoon, Moslems should examine why so many people outside Islam worry that the lunatic fringe is Islam. Hey, if they can demand a law that nobody in the world gets to insult the prophet , I think I can make the counter demand that they act in a way that doesn’t bring reproach on the prophet. And before you submit a laundry list of why you think that either the US or Christianity is just as bad as a defense, let me remind you that my dirty laundry does wash your dirty laundry clean, it just adds to the pile of dirty laundry.

But it wouldn’t have been because I was worried about offending anyone. I do try to think about what I say or write before I say it and the effect it has on others, but generally I try only to change the form so that it is an inoffensive as it can be and still be an accurate reflection of what I think, but that doesn’t mean that I can make it offense free. I need to curb my tongue out of love, not fear. I try to avoid being needlessly offensive [mighty big of you — thanks]. I don’t always succeed. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Tags: ,

Danish Cartoons 2 part 1

Let me try to chop up the whole Danish Cartoon affair into bitesize pieces. Part one of 2 today examining the cartoons themselves, part two of 2 examining everything else tomorrow (I hope).

The Cartoons.
They get lumped together, but there are twelve different ones of varying quality and content that were published. Most of them are simple depictions of the prophet Muhammed or poke fun at the commisioning of the cartoons themselves. Only 4 have political messages and could be considered offensive beyond just depicting the prophet in and of itself. And considering the level of discourse in the media today, the level of criticism is pretty mild. They all suffer from the problems of any single pane cartoon – they are essentially soundbites or slogans, and not a fully developed argument.

I’ve found essentially 3 objections to the cartoons, the first being that the commisioning itself was wrong because it would be knowingly provocative, would produce racist or anti-religious work, and had no news value. The problem is that if you think political cartoons do have merit (which by and large I don’t), then it would make sense to commission them on a topic that is undercovered and provocative.

The second is that any depiction of the prophet is offensive to Moslems and therefore should be avoided. I think there is some merit in this — and to explore it personally I need to substitute my own religions symbols and think about that case. But I also think you have to look at why there is this taboo on the depiction of the prophet Muhammed and that is to prevent the false worship of him. It seems to me that by having such a rigid taboo without the appreciation of why it leads to the very thing that it seeks to avoid in the first place. The prophet is placed on a level that no other person is allowed, and his person with Islam itself.

Perhaps my blase response to the cartoons is that I’m used to seeing critical cartoons of Jesus (who by the way isn’t just a man but God when comparing what believers of both religions believe). Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, so my response as a Christian is to worry about the critic’s soul, not their punishment.

The third is that by using the prophet in a political cartoon, the religion itself is attacked, and not the believers. IOW it’s one thing to say that there are a few wild eyed crazy terrorsts who happen to be moslems, but another to say that Islam turns its adherents into wild eyed crazy terrorists. While this is a distinction about the point of the cartoons, I don’t see it as making a real difference in the response. Why is one worse than the other? And aren’t political cartoonists free to criticize a religion as well as particular adherents?

The Fake Cartoons
In addition to the twelve cartoons that were actually printed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, three cartoons (here, here, and here (which as you can see are of a much insulting nature) were added by certain Danish Imams when they circulated them in Arab countries. The Imams declared that the cartoons were the work of Danes even though they hadn’t been published with the others. It now appears that they have pulled a Dan Rather and have been caught peddling phonies.


The first photo is what the Imams claimed was a Danish cartoon, the second an AP photo of the winner of a French pig squealing contest discovered by who else, a blogger.

No doubt the defense will be the same, fake but accurate.

I have no idea if the imams were duped or if they made the cartoons themselves, but my BS detector votes for them being deliberate hoaxers. The only thing that argues against them drawing the fakes is this fact, pointed out by Paul Belian (linked above):

Denmark is being punished at the instigation of radical imams because twelve cartoonists have depicted Muhammad. However, these imams created their own three Muhammad images. They have even presented a French clown as being Muhammad. Because the twelve JP cartoonists are not Muslims, the Muslim blasphemy laws do not apply to them. But these laws do apply to the imams. Consequently, these imams deserve death. They – and no-one else – depicted the prophet as a pig – the highest imaginable insult in Islam.

I’d have to believe they would commit such a blasphemy. Again, I have no idea, but it is as far as I can see the onlyfact that argues against the imams drawing them themselves.

So the response we are seeing isn’t to just what was published, and given the contents of the fake cartoons, the response isn’t to what was published at all, but to fake cartoons either made up or provided to radical Danish imams who then circulated them in several Arab countries.

Those are the facts. I hope to get to implications and speculations tomorrow.

Tags: ,

Danish Cartoons

I have to admit I’ve been puzzled by the whole Danish Cartoon ??? I don’t even know what to call it. Controversy seems too mild a word when buildings are burning and people are dying. Debacle implies that the Danish newspaper did something wrong, or at least something worse than what every other newspaper does, and that is to continue publishing political cartoons, an artform that (in the US at least) is simply wretched, worn out, and cliched. Who can take them seriously anymore? Crisis may be the best fit, but that depends on whether anything is learned or changes (on either side) or if after awhile the whole thing settles down to the status quo ante.

So how did we get here? The Brussels Journal provides a pretty good overview of the whole affair (there, I’ve made my decision on what to call it for now):

Do not think that by now you have heard all that there is to say about the “Danish cartoon” crisis. Last September, a Danish paper noticed that some cartoonists were frightened to depict Near Eastern topics. They seem to have sensed that being funny leads to serious trouble. So the paper made some effort to get such material. The result was twelve drawings [see them here, halfway down the page]. Some are good, others so-so. Still others are not especially funny. When perusing the material before the cartoons became the story, I thought that they depict an “Islamic type” in different situations. The best one seemed to be a scene at the gates of heaven. Incoming suicide bombers (“martyrs” if you insist) are told by the gate-keeper: “Stop, we ran out of virgins.” Another favorite is several women in burkas that follow a turbaned fellow. The rectangular eye-hole cut out of the black cloaks is transferred over the eyes of the (unenlightened?) man. In time it was discovered that the caricatures show the Prophet. That is a no-no if you are a Moslem. As time passed there was, rather than boos, a bit of protest. When it intensified, other papers reprinted the cartoons to show what the outcry is all about. Thereupon the insulted protestors defending the messenger of peace became violent. Considering that Islam claims to be a creed of mercy, peace and benevolence, its discontented are surprisingly violent. All of which makes one wonder what would happen if the faith would not have peaceful forgiveness in its core.

And they are one of the few places you could see the cartoons over the past four months. So by all means, go and read up on the subject there if you are interested.

The contrast between the anger of those upset and the silliness of the simple cartoons can serve to distract us from the important issues confronted here — at core what can I expect of and what can I demand of my fellow man. Normally in religion the questions are about the relations between man and God; here despite the religious angle the questions are about the relations between man and man, and the different beliefs on that subject that are informed by the overall culture, not just religion (and it can be mighty hard to separate the two). Christopher Hitchens agrees with me, just at greater length and with a different view of religion.

The fault lines are not just between West and East; there are fault lines within the West as well, and are well explored by Jeff Goldstein:
“This battle over the Danish cartoons highlights all of these philosophical dilemmas (which I have argued previously are the result of certain linguistic misunderstandings that are either cynically or idealistically perpetuated); and so we are brought to the point where this clash of civilizations – which in one important sense is a clash between theocratic Islamism and the west, but in another, more crucial sense, is a clash between the west and its own structural thinking, brought on by years of insinuation into our philosophy of what is, at root, collectivist thought that privileges the interpreter of an action over the necessary primacy of intent and agency and personal responsibility to the communicative chain – could conceivably become manifest over something so seemingly trivial as the right to satirize.”
Actually, I think that arguments in the abstract don’t cause anyone but college professors to get excited; it takes something simple and concrete like satirical cartoons to set everyman’s heart to pounding.

I expect there are fault lines within the East as well, its just as a man of the West I’m not the best judge of them.

And I have to wonder, with all the provocations to chose from, why this one?

Another view is that the cartoons are an excerise in racism, freedom-of-speech a dodge to hide it, and that the Prophet Muhammad is not a current figure who would be an appropriate target for political cartoonists. Apparently symbolism is lost on some people.

Cassandra, not surprisingly, has girded her loins for intellectual battle:

Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than the Danish cartoon kerfuffle. But for all the overwrought fulmination about freedom of expression, what the Coalition of the Outraged hate to admit is that unfettered speech in the Western world is more sentimental fiction than reality. By law and by custom, Western society has always recognized all sorts of limits on the right to speak freely. A notable example is the fighting words exception to the First Amendment, which recognizes that certain words and ideas are so inflammatory that society’s interest in maintaining order outweighs the individual’s right to express himself without limitation. Another, the criminalization of ‘hate speech’, places paramount value on the feelings of certain identity groups while allowing others to be insulted or attacked with impugnity. A third, cultural bugaboos, are equally problematic in that they allow rappers to casually drop words like ‘nigger’ but mandate that everyone else use silly euphenisms like ‘the n-word’ as surrogates for an appellation so shocking that only the pigmentally gifted may utter it without rending the fabric of the universe in twain.So it would appear that protestations to the contrary, our own tolerance for free speech has definite limits. The question then becomes not, “Does a free society recognize any limitation on speech?”. Of course it does. The sticking point becomes “Where do we draw the line, and who gets to draw it?” And therein lies the rub. The mainstream media regularly exercise self-restraint… but only when it suits them. As I observed earlier regarding the JCS controversy, media self-censorship is at best a hypocritical exercise:

She doesn’t stop there my friends, but of all people I don’t want to steal her thunder.

And as far as the cowardly response of the American Press to spare our delicate sensiblilities by not showing the cartoons, what am I as a Christian to learn? That there is a double standard when handling Islam or Christianity? That we would be better off killing abortionists, blowing up abortion clinics, burning down movie theaters that show movies like Dogma or The Last Temptation of Christ, offing Dick Wolff or any other TV producer when he shows Christians in a negative light, or anyone else who disrespects us because then we would get respect? Then would our feelings would taken seriously? We’ll never know, will we, because we wouldn’t be Christians if we did. There’s an idea for a movie – The Latest Tempation of a Christian.

Maybe, just maybe we should applaud some obscure Danish newpaper for having the audacity to commission cartoons these cartoons, and by doing so have caused not just turmoil in Islamic lands but soul searching in Western lands . We live in interesting times.

Tags: ,

Light Of Day

I wrote a letter to the editor at my local paper, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, last week about how I thought they and the rest of the media were handling the Quran “desecration” issue. I was surprised when it didn’t run, but then they whole thing seems to have sunk without a trace from their pages. But since I do have my own virtual printing press, I’m running it here:

The headline read “White House plays down report of Quran desecration by guard” but it should have read, “Media plays up American Quran mishandling”. The media seems to show little interest in informing the public but plenty of interest in settling a score with the White House which called Newsweek out on inaccurate reporting. So we went from a report of a guard flushing a Quran down a toilet to a guard deliberately kicking a Quran and a bare mention that the only Quran in a toilet was placed there by a detainee. Detainees abused Qurans three times as often as guards. Some scandal, especially in light of real, documented abuses of detainees at the hands of US soldiers, and the routine murder of captives at the hands al Qaida.

What puzzles me is the lack of interest in the media that the US government is providing a religious book to prisoners and issuing instructions affirming the holiness of the Quran. I wonder, do they provide Bibles, or Bhagavad-Gitas, or even copies of Dianetics on request? If my local school district or prison started passing out Bibles and issuing guidelines on the proper handling of the Bible based on the idea that it is the one true scripture of God, wouldn’t there be a huge uproar? Hindus would be pleased with the size of the cow that a certain segment of American society would have over that. But the media is focused with laser like intensity (read the transcripts at www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/) on guards mishandling Qurans and the meta-questions that raises. No wonder people no longer trust the media.

Tags:

Islamic Reformation

Islamic Reformation is one of those topics that has been floating around awhile. You can find academic treatments, left-of-center discussions, right-of-center thoughts, pundit pieces, and of course blog musings. Despite the implicit or claimed parallel to the Protestant Reformation, what’s really being proposed would be nothing like the that. What really being proposed is nothing to do with a return to Koranic principles and behavior, but typically the opposite – the use of interpretation to remake Islam in a way the author likes.

To get a better understanding, let’s review a little. First came Judaism. Classical Judaism was a very legalistic religion – the path to rightness with God was through following the Mosaic laws which covered all aspects of life, and as time went on interpretation of these laws was often more severe than the original. This would change with the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora, and Judaism became less legalistic. When Christianity came along, there was a struggle at the very start about whether Christianity would be another sect of Judaism. This was resolved by the first church council, and one presided over by the Apostles, which decided that Christians did not have to follow the Mosaic law. It was over this struggle that Paul penned Galatians, in which it is made clear that in Christianity faith alone is the path to rightness with God. Over time, the Catholic church would develop it’s canonical interpretation of the Bible, and this would change to faith plus works. In addition to the interpretations, there were clear abuses, where people within the church hierarchy were not following the teachings of the church. Along came reformers who not only objected to the abuses, but argued that interpretations that had built up over the centuries did not properly reflect God’s will as revealed in the Bible. Martin Luther would be the most famous, and start the Protestant Reformation which was a rejection of centuries of interpretation and call to return to original, Biblical, Christianity (sparked by Luther’s reading of Galatians). The Protestant Reformation was about more than just curbing abuses within Catholicism, it was over fundamental doctrines.

My understanding of Islam is that it is much like classical Judaism — very legalistic with rules set forth to cover all aspects of life. Oddly enough, most people calling for an Islamic Reformation are not looking for a return to its seventh century roots, but instead want a wholesale build up of non-Koranic interpretation to try to bring it to what is, in their opinion, up to date. The real parallel, unmentionable due to the Jew hatred indemic in the moslem world, is the change in Judaism from the time of the pharasees to its more modern versions like Reformed or Conservative — or how it went from a legalistic faith with specific rules for every circumstance to a faith that is far less legalistic and adaptable to where and when the believer lives. 

Tags: