Respecting the Faithful vs. Respecting the Faith

by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
June 3, 2009

During the pope's recent Mideast visit, the media reported that he has "deep respect for Islam." That exact phrase appeared in the Associated Press, AFP, BBC, Jerusalem Post, Washington Times, and Al-Jazeera.

Yet he said no such thing; instead, he mentioned his "deep respect for the Muslim community." There's a world of difference between respecting a religious group and respecting their religion, and the pontiff knows this.

As a Christian — indeed, as pope — by evoking his "deep respect" for Muslims, Benedict probably meant that Muslims, who believe in one God, pray, fast, and follow a strict set of moral principles, are, from a religious perspective, worthy of "deep respect."

Even the non-religious uphold this position. In fact, that is what makes the secular West unique: the right to follow any (or no) religion is guaranteed, is "respected."

Due to this, however, a subtle conflation has come to dominate our way of thinking: respect for people's right to believe any religion has somewhere along the line — and thanks to political correctness — morphed into respect for the religion itself (excluding, of course, cheek-turning Christianity, the secular West's "punching bag"). It was therefore only natural for the (increasingly sloppy) media to portray Benedict's respect for Muslims as respect for Islam.

But is this logical? Does respecting a person's right to believe necessarily lead to respecting what they believe?

Consider: billions of non-Muslims adhere to other religions or are simply atheistic; by default, this means they do not believe in the veracity of Islam. A Christian following Christian doctrine, such as the Trinity, cannot also believe that the Koran, which fiercely denounces the Trinity, is the word of God, while an atheist believes all religions and their scriptures are not divinely inspired (i.e., all euphemisms aside, are built on lies).

At the same time, however, Christians and atheists cannot "empirically" prove their position; faith is required — even for the atheist (accounting for the origins of the universe requires "faith"). As such, it is only logical that non-Muslims should respect Muslims' right to believe what they will — and, ideally, vice versa.

But short of truly believing Islam's first premise — that the Koran is the verbatim word of God and Muhammad his messenger — how can one "respect" Islam itself, considering it is entirely built around this assumption? In other words, if you yourself believe a particular system of belief is built atop lies, how can you personally respect it?

If the Koran was not dictated by an angel to Muhammad, what is it? If Muhammad was not sent by God, who was he? As with all who profess to be men of God, Muhammad must have been either who he said he was (prophet of God) or else the antithesis: a false prophet, a fraud. The first possibility is not a logical option for active non-Muslims. Nor are silly "postmodern" mantras — "just because I do not believe something does not necessarily mean it is not true, in its own existential way" — very meaningful.

Of course, this position applies to all religions and their founders. Without believing that the Bible is the inspired word of God, everything contained therein becomes suspect, including the person (and nature) of Jesus. As Christians themselves have long maintained, Jesus can only be viewed as lord, liar, or lunatic — nothing in between. Likewise, Muhammad was either messenger, mendacious, or moonstruck. Admittedly, most people are not comfortable thinking out such thoughts to their logical conclusions; they're happy to end it with an "it's not for me" attitude, without any further ado.

So why scrutinize Islam and its founder in the first place? Because unlike all other major religions, Islam is daily associated with violence, beheadings, misogyny, child marriage, and hostility for infidels and their ways. Pseudo-respect from non-Muslims shields it from open analysis.

Moreover, though non-Christians must ultimately conclude that either Jesus or (as Islam maintains) the Gospel writers were deceivers or delusional, the fact remains: As with most religions, Christianity revolves around the spiritual, the metaphysic; true or false, it does not intrinsically impose itself on politics. Islam, on the other hand — as embodied in Islamic law — is politics, indeed, dominates all aspects of human affairs.

As such, Islam's connection to "unpleasant" daily headlines becomes clear once non-Muslims allow their thoughts to develop logically and sequentially. Stripped of its hagiographic veneer, the history of Islam is the history of a warlord and his followers who conquered, subjugated, and plundered much of the old world, insisting that God told them to do it. For Muslims, it is only logical to rationalize this 1,400-year jihad as a means to an end — the establishment of Islamic law, from a Muslim perspective, the embodiment of all good. Non-Muslims do not have this luxury and must interpret the origins and essence of Islam a bit more cynically.

But why this philosophical exposition in the first place? To show that, while there have been countless talking heads, books, debates, seminars, and hearings dedicated to evaluating whether Islam is intrinsically at odds with the modern world, good old-fashioned common sense could have put the matter long to rest:

After all, do you really find it shocking that a comprehensive way of life, where right and wrong are meticulously based on the improvised "law" of a seventh-century warlord — who, according to your own inevitable conclusions, was an opportunistic liar or deluded megalomaniac — just so happens to be riddled with complications, especially vis-à-vis the 21st century?

This seemingly simple consideration has profound implications. Former Al-Azhar Muslim scholar and imam Mark Gabriel abandoned his faith by simply musing on such matters:

Did the true God of heaven give him Islam, or did Muhammad invent it? ... Did Muhammad express the heart of the true, merciful God, or did he merely express the dark corners of his own faulty human heart? The implication shook me to the core: If the true God never spoke to Muhammad, then I am a slave to the manipulative imagination of a desert tribesman from the seventh century! These were dangerous thoughts, and I had crossed a dangerous bridge in my mind that all Muslims are taught to walk away from.

In closing, let us respect everyone's right to believe what they will; however, let us at least be sincere to our own convictions. It's one thing to let political correctness stifle free speech; it's quite another to let it stifle the development of our very own thought processes, to the point that we fail to connect such clear dots in the privacy of our own minds.

And while we're at it, let's not distort the well-measured words of the pope, who most surely knows the distinction between respecting the Muslim community and respecting Islam.

Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda.
Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/respecting-the-faithful-vs-respecting-the-faith/

Will and can the reformation come to Islam?

A few weeks ago, Fehmi Koru/Taha Kivanc wrote about how he happened to sit next to "Islam expert" Reza Aslan at some gathering, as another lucky encounter.

While Koru was mentioning Aslan, he described him as someone a "little confused." I am not sure how much Koru is familiar with his writings, but his "little confused" remarks urged me to read his long overdue book. I know it seems as if I, somehow, suggest that if there is something Mr. Koru disdains, it becomes worth paying attention to because I will likely find some jewels. I do not mean that necessarily. What I mean is, I remembered the book again.

I know Reza Aslan from his writings in the Daily Beast, also from talk shows and news hours on American TV that he joins occasionally. His sharp-witted humor with quick and intellectually superb arguments and jokes made him kind of a star.

So as I started to read Aslan’s "No god but God" book from 2006, first it seemed the book was one of those books which talks about the miraculous history of Islam and the flawless life of the Prophet Mohammad that I have read over again. Though, at some point in my life, I realized that whenever I read about the Prophet’s life and his wonderful actions, I was usually getting disappointed, because he was always so faultless and perfect and that comparison usually crushed my faulty life.

Here, however, Aslan brings an authentic look to the Prophet Mohammed’s life. We see that Mohammad’s pre-Islamic life wasn’t watertight. For example, his participation in pagan rituals, something that unheard of, actually is not contrasting with Koranic verses. Aslan is also analyzing the political aspects of the Islamic movement, with many checks and balances that Prophet Mohammed was paying attention to while he was constructing his religion.

As the book flies by, one feels like reading a real history, rather than some fairy tales. However, Mr. Koru can be relaxed, Mr. Aslan is still making the case ’for’ Islam, though a new Islam that is clean from its new idolsÑbigotry and fanaticismsÑthat have replaced Mohammed’s original vision of tolerance, against hatred and discord.

Mr. Aslan claims Prophet Mohammed was a social reformer before anything else. The Prophet’s first message was simple: the Day of Judgment was coming and those who did not "free the slave" or "feed others in times of famine" would be surrounded in fire. Mohammed was demanding economic justice, and trying to attract plebs, before challenging the leadership of Mecca. The messages of social and economic reforms were coming before monotheistic teachings.

With the unprotected of Mecca, whose rights he first started to advocate, Mohammed was also going after the "elite young men," from "the most influential families in the most influential clans," who felt the same discontent with Meccan society as Mohammad did. And this majority of less than thirty-year-old was relatively an easy target.

Not directly challenging the leadership of the Meccan society, and bringing a new religion to the already crowded religious field of Mecca, Mohammad was not making the powerful angry. After all, religion was what Mecca was making money out of. Therefore the more religion there was, the more merrier/money for them.

One of the most courageous assertions of Aslan is his challenge of the history and of the seemingly "strong" hadiths, or Mohammed’s sayings. Many of the hadiths, Aslan explains, even the ones that have been narrated by the Muslim and Bukhari, the most trusted two books, contrast with Mohammed’s own behavior and actions. The egalitarian (male-female equality) face of the early Islamic teaching and rituals seem to have taken the biggest beating by the male-dominated Orthodox Islam hadith transmission exercise throughout Islamic history.

Although Mohammad’s biographers present him as repeatedly asking for and following the advice of his wives, even in military matters, many hadiths have been transmitted intentionally to enable men to be superior and care for women as if they, with much-celebrated Koranic commentator Fakhr ad-Din ar-razi’s words, "were created like animals and plants and other useful things [not for] worship and carrying the Divine commands."

The reason of the huge difference between Mohammad’s approach and orthodox Islam, Aslan says, is that for fourteen centuries, the science of Koranic commentary has been the exclusive domain of Muslim men. Even the "untouchable" Omar, the second Caliph, was evidently ready to destroy this equality of Prophetic view.

Omar’s misogynist tendencies were apparent from the moment he ascended to the leadership of the Muslim community. He tries (and fails) to confine women to their homes, and institutes segregated prayers and forces women to be taught by male religious leaders, which all are an apparent and direct violation of the Prophet’s exercise. Incredibly, Omar also instituted a series of severe penal ordinances aimed primarily at women; "chief of among these was the stoning to death of adulterers, a punishment that has absolutely no foundation in the Koran."

Today, it is clear that Islam needs a reformation with a daring and unyielding interpretation for the modern world.

Today’s Islam can be enough for many who live in their backyard and haven’t changed their environment for centuries; however Islam feels stretched and falls short for those who are struggling to merge their values and beliefs with contemporary life.

Like other religions, Islam has encountered many historical and social adaptations on the way, and it also needs a course of elucidation.

As Aslan claims, and I believe, the voice of moderation, contrary to the common belief, is winning against the voice of extremism. Though this is not sufficient. The voice of moderation also needs tools to prove Islam has answers to many of today’s challenges that it can participate and live together with modern life that desperately lacks currently. When can the reformation come to Islam and who will lead the charge to reinterpret it more courageously to make it open its arms all humanity? And can it really make this historic leap forward? These are the questions.

I am curiously following Fehmi Koru about what to read, who to follow and not. It has been very useful so far.

Source: ILHAN TANIR

Families distraught by sexual violence in Afghanistan