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/
