http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/local/16458753.htm
Be careful when judging Islam, Moslems One positive result of Pope Benedict's Regensburg lecture that linked Islam and violence was an open-letter response sent by 38 Moslem religious leaders and scholars, including several grand muftis. The letter is a small, but significant step in opening up a much needed dialogue between Islam and Christianity, and, more generally, between Islam and the West. The tone of the letter is very respectful, addressing the pope as "Your Holiness." The authors applaud Benedict's efforts "to oppose the dominance of positivism and materialism in human life" and appreciate the pope's own expressions of "profound respect" for all Moslems. But in the spirit of open exchange that the pope had called for, the authors also critique some errors that they find in the lecture. The pope had cited the work of Ibn Hazm, a Moslem theologian, who argued that God is so far beyond human comprehension that he could issue commandments that (in human understanding) would be unreasonable or even immoral. The pope implied that this could include God's command to use violence in spreading religion. The scholars responded that Ibn Hazm does not represent the mainstream of Islamic thought. This mainstream tradition has in fact sought to balance the demands of reason and faith: While human reason on its own can never grasp ultimate truth, the will of God as revealed in the Quran does not contradict human reason. The authors quote the Quran, "We shall show them our signs in the horizons and in themselves until it is clear to them that it is the truth," (41:53). The pope had noted that Quranic passage that rejects the use of force in religion ("There is no compulsion in religion," (2:256), but attributed it to the early, more peaceful, part of Mohammed's career, contrasting it to later Quranic commandments regarding "holy war." The scholars deny this distinction, arguing that the standard Moslem view is that one cannot force religious belief on people. As an example, they point out that in the early Moslem conquests, "people of the book" (primarily Jews and Christians, but also groups such as Zoroastrians), were not compelled to convert. The letter argues further that the term "holy war" is a misleading translation of the Arabic word jihad. Jihad may include war, but generally means any struggle against evil. In the Islamic tradition, a military jihad must follow certain principles: (1) non-combatants are not legitimate targets; (2) religious belief alone does not make anyone the object of attack; (3) Moslems can and should live peacefully with their neighbors. The fact that some Moslems have disregarded these principles should not obscure the fact that they are solidly established in Islamic tradition. We can only appreciate this step toward greater mutual understanding. In particular, I appreciated the letter's many quotations from the Quran, and the point that the Islamic tradition has in its own way tried to balance faith and reason. But some of the letter's points are themselves open to further question. While it's certainly true that "people of the book" were not forced to convert when Moslems conquered their lands, they were forced to pay a special tax, and did not enjoy the same rights as Moslem citizens. The whole question of jihad also needs further clarification. The authors admit that "as a political entity" Islam was partially spread by conquest, but deny that the purpose of jihad was to force conversion. While this is true, I see it as misleading to separate political Islam from religious Islam - in the classical Moslem view they are inseparable. As the scholar Daniel Pipes argues, military jihad is indeed not intended to force religious conversions, but it is intended to spread the rule of Shari'a - Islamic law, under which non-believers have some rights, but quite diminished ones. One should also consult Andrew Bostom's book "The Legacy of Jihad," for classical Moslem views that are much more militant than those portrayed in the letter. Like any religion, Islam is a complex, ever changing reality. It's overly simplistic to stereotype it as inherently violent, but it's also na.ve to deny the potential for violence and coercion in the classical doctrine of Shari'a rule. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/