A favorite observation of moderate Muslims you see interviewed in America on TV, when harsh aspects of sharia in Arabic countries is mentioned, is for them to say that those harsh aspects derive more from the Arabic culture than the Islamic culture.
But the opposite is also true, perhaps more so: our moderate Muslim freind's democratic, ecumenical, and tolerant views derive more from their Americanism than their Islam.
The question to ask these moderate Muslims who go on about what a peace-loving religion Islam is "Can you be a devout Muslim and believe this? How many mosques, even in America, would welcome a Muslim who openly espoused separation of church and state and left other believers alone. A Muslim who did not proclaim Jews as sub-human beings? A Muslim who actively denounced the form of Islam that propelled terrorists and worked with US authorities to hunt them out? A Muslim who believed in equality under the law and freedom of speech for all, including women?
The answer is not that many mosques would accept such a Muslim, precious few outside the US--and virtually none in the 50 or so countries that are majority Muslim.
There are certainly different interpretations of Islam, but a theology of moderate Islam does not exist. In fact, a moderate Muslim could be defined as one that rejects Islamic ideology.
Muslim reformer, Irshad Manji, in her insightful book on the subject, doesn't dance around the bush but admits that "extremist Islamists" didn't highjack the religion for terrorist purposes, mainstream Islam itself is the guilty one.
And she makes a further interesting distinction. "Moderate Muslims denounce terror that's committed in the name of Islam but they deny that religion has anything to do with it......reform-minded Muslims denounce terror that's committed in the name of Islam and acknowledge that our religion is used to inspire it."
The argument I presented in the other thread "their rage--over what is a wide range of political positions (derived from our values), fuels the hate" is one of the key points debated among analysts. I do think politics plays the much bigger role in the creation, or formation, of the terrorist anger. Changing US policy in a manner that changes this rage is easier said than done, as President Obama is learning the hard way. Though the rage is mostly political in origin and not uncommon, the small religious contribution is a large part of the motivation toward terrorist action by the few.
Of course, tens of millions Muslims around the world are wonderful folks to meet. Decent and very welcome and very moderate. They mostly practice a sort of folk/spiritual version of Islam, don't know and could care less about Islamic ideology---fine people despite Islamic teaching!
Ibn Warraq had an interesting discourse on this:
Ibn Warraq: I like to make a distinction that I actually owe to Bernard Lewis....It?s a very useful distinction that he made between Islam One, Two, and Three. Islam One is what?s in the Koran, what the Prophet Mohammed did and enjoyed. Islam Two is the sharia and the theological construct that we call Islam, as developed by the theologians over the centuries. Islam Three is Islamic civilization, which is what Muslims actually did do as opposed to what they should have done, what actually happened in Islamic history. Often Islam Three?that is, Islamic civilization?was far more tolerant than what Islam One and Two demanded.
Islamic history has never been a relentless series of theocratic governments; it has varied from century to century, ruler to ruler. Sometimes it has been very intolerant, and sometimes it has been very tolerant. Just look at some of the poets who were given free rein?for example, al-Mahawi, an Iraqi who was certainly an agnostic and very probably an atheist, but he was very critical. He was left alone; no one bothered him, so this is witness to the period of tolerance. This is, for me, the best way to approach the situation. For example, some of the terrorists are taking literally what is in the Koran. There are all sorts of intolerant passages in the Koran about killing infidels and not taking Jews and Christians as friends. It?s undeniably there, and you can?t get away from it. Chapter four in the Koran: you can?t get away from the fact that it gives men the power to beat women. It?s no good pretending that somehow the real Islam is tolerant, the real Islam is feminist, and so on. There is a great deal of confusion because people do not want to tarnish with the same brush a billion believers. We don?t want to be too crude in our defamation. We don?t want to call all Muslims terrorists, so the best way is this distinction between Islam One, Two, Three.
But the opposite is also true, perhaps more so: our moderate Muslim freind's democratic, ecumenical, and tolerant views derive more from their Americanism than their Islam.
The question to ask these moderate Muslims who go on about what a peace-loving religion Islam is "Can you be a devout Muslim and believe this? How many mosques, even in America, would welcome a Muslim who openly espoused separation of church and state and left other believers alone. A Muslim who did not proclaim Jews as sub-human beings? A Muslim who actively denounced the form of Islam that propelled terrorists and worked with US authorities to hunt them out? A Muslim who believed in equality under the law and freedom of speech for all, including women?
The answer is not that many mosques would accept such a Muslim, precious few outside the US--and virtually none in the 50 or so countries that are majority Muslim.
There are certainly different interpretations of Islam, but a theology of moderate Islam does not exist. In fact, a moderate Muslim could be defined as one that rejects Islamic ideology.
Muslim reformer, Irshad Manji, in her insightful book on the subject, doesn't dance around the bush but admits that "extremist Islamists" didn't highjack the religion for terrorist purposes, mainstream Islam itself is the guilty one.
And she makes a further interesting distinction. "Moderate Muslims denounce terror that's committed in the name of Islam but they deny that religion has anything to do with it......reform-minded Muslims denounce terror that's committed in the name of Islam and acknowledge that our religion is used to inspire it."
The argument I presented in the other thread "their rage--over what is a wide range of political positions (derived from our values), fuels the hate" is one of the key points debated among analysts. I do think politics plays the much bigger role in the creation, or formation, of the terrorist anger. Changing US policy in a manner that changes this rage is easier said than done, as President Obama is learning the hard way. Though the rage is mostly political in origin and not uncommon, the small religious contribution is a large part of the motivation toward terrorist action by the few.
Of course, tens of millions Muslims around the world are wonderful folks to meet. Decent and very welcome and very moderate. They mostly practice a sort of folk/spiritual version of Islam, don't know and could care less about Islamic ideology---fine people despite Islamic teaching!
Ibn Warraq had an interesting discourse on this:
Ibn Warraq: I like to make a distinction that I actually owe to Bernard Lewis....It?s a very useful distinction that he made between Islam One, Two, and Three. Islam One is what?s in the Koran, what the Prophet Mohammed did and enjoyed. Islam Two is the sharia and the theological construct that we call Islam, as developed by the theologians over the centuries. Islam Three is Islamic civilization, which is what Muslims actually did do as opposed to what they should have done, what actually happened in Islamic history. Often Islam Three?that is, Islamic civilization?was far more tolerant than what Islam One and Two demanded.
Islamic history has never been a relentless series of theocratic governments; it has varied from century to century, ruler to ruler. Sometimes it has been very intolerant, and sometimes it has been very tolerant. Just look at some of the poets who were given free rein?for example, al-Mahawi, an Iraqi who was certainly an agnostic and very probably an atheist, but he was very critical. He was left alone; no one bothered him, so this is witness to the period of tolerance. This is, for me, the best way to approach the situation. For example, some of the terrorists are taking literally what is in the Koran. There are all sorts of intolerant passages in the Koran about killing infidels and not taking Jews and Christians as friends. It?s undeniably there, and you can?t get away from it. Chapter four in the Koran: you can?t get away from the fact that it gives men the power to beat women. It?s no good pretending that somehow the real Islam is tolerant, the real Islam is feminist, and so on. There is a great deal of confusion because people do not want to tarnish with the same brush a billion believers. We don?t want to be too crude in our defamation. We don?t want to call all Muslims terrorists, so the best way is this distinction between Islam One, Two, Three.
