"There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12)

It IS bizarre, like anything that has happened in the Middle East over the past fifteen hundred years is fair game, but any attitudes common in the West more than, say, ten years ago are ancient history and Don't Count Any More.

The first hyperlink is moderately incoherent, leads back to here.

I don't know about Sullivan. Apart from when he's wrong, there's something about his political naivité I find off-putting. He seems to have only just considered the thought that the Bush admin lied about Iraq. It's the same naivité that had him whole-heartedly supporting the war.

'I will never trust his word after.'

Gullible, I already noted he's gullible and fairly superficial thinker when it comes down to it.

On the other hand, he has an easy and facile style and is useful.

In the way of Thomas Friedman, except a better writer. And not as dim.

or rich.

I actually like Thomas Friedman, even if he keeps being wrong about everything. Much more than Andrew Sullivan: he's not a bigot, and he once wrote well about stuff he knew. The first part of From Beirut to Jerusalem is very good still, I think, and I highly recommend it to anyone who cares about Lebanon. (Then part two about Palestine is duller, and part three about American Jews & Israel is valium.)

Plus his moustache gets me thinking about Tom Selleck. Why can't there be a Tom Selleck revival, the way there was a Ray Murray revival?

Uh, Bill Murray. I think he was "Ray" in Ghost Busters though. And it doesn't change the important point I'm trying to make.

Dear alle,

I've met Tom Friedman. He's a pompous #$%^&@*&#*.

He is the prime example of fame having gone to one's head. I do agree, however, with your take on "From Beirut ..." - it has a proud place in the Lebanon section on my bookshelves.

Quite frankly, I'd rather have drinks & a conversation with Sullivan than The Moustache Of Understanding.

--MSK

PS: The Tom Selleck revival already happened, in the 90s. It was called "Friends: Seasons 2 & 3".

I won't disagree, Friedman was once a better commentator. Sullivan still is readable, if of equally poor judgment.

Tom Scudder's point on history is well taken. In debates with non-Muslims, only the Muslims are afforded history. Thus we constantly get referred to Koran 9, the 'grassy knoll' of the anti-Islam crowd, while Western history, particularly its Christian aspects, is obliterated and the calendar always begins last night.
It's the post-modernist denial of history on the one hand, and a denial of historical progression on the other. The Christian West has moved on while all Muslims longingly await the restoration of the 7th century Hijaz, complete with Odalisque and camel raiding.

Like that: "the 'grassy knoll' of the anti-Islam crowd"; defintely will plagiarize if context fits.

"The Christian West has moved on while all Muslims longingly await the restoration of the 7th century Hijaz, complete with Odalisque and camel raiding. "

The root of that is actually in the basic bigotry hadnbook -- the concept that target groups are immutable. (Post-modern jargondegook says "essentialized" or "reified" but I hate that stuff, despite a certain sense in that area.)

The group members are thus stuck in whatever (degenerate) framework is imagined for them and cannot evolve or shift. They must therefore be obliterated, expelled, repressed, or excluded.

I think what irks me about Gullible Sullivan is how, to me, he reflects the mindset of the American nation. I can't help but read his blog in the light of his gushing patriotism that promoted Bush only to denounce him entirely later. To bring in all these emotions into foreign politics, and politics in general, is tantamount to disaster. If USA were a person, it'd be a manic-depressive in a tank, vaccilating between complete unapologetic meddling and self-imposed isolation.

Matt wrote a post earlier on Milton Friedman and his theory that free markets promote civil and democratic societies. I thought about it some, but I'm not buying it (the lefty counterpart would be that poverty breeds extremism, which I don't buy either, not anymore). Among the Western nations I'd say USA and France compose the opposite poles: Where USA venerates Authority and abhors The System, France venerates The System and abhors Authority. The Iraq war being a case of excessive and gullible belief in Authority, I doubt the French would have swallowed the crap the Americans did, in contemporary times at least. So that's the light I view Sullivan in. I actually think France could do with a little more patriotic solidarity. I'm going to have to wash my mouth with soap because of those two words now.

And if Europe were a person, it'd be a slightly senile but harmless old lady, rich, quite amiable, prone to occasional racist mutterings and nightmares of her past.

It IS bizarre, like anything that has happened in the Middle East over the past fifteen hundred years is fair game, but any attitudes common in the West more than, say, ten years ago are ancient history and Don't Count Any More.

This is unfair but not bizarre. Rather, it is a fallacy of composition.

There is a perfectly good reason why events of 1500 years ago are constantly being dredged up when discussing Islam. It's because there is a significant -- and dangerous -- minority of Muslims who are constantly dredging up events of 1500 years ago when discussing Islam.

The Christian West has moved on while all Muslims longingly await the restoration of the 7th century Hijaz, complete with Odalisque and camel raiding.

Many neo-salafis would indeed like to turn the clock back to the time of the Prophet. (As a compromise, though, most would settle for the Umayyad Caliphate.) Camel-raiding would be permissible but I believe odalisques would be right out as I think they were an Ottoman invention. Remember, we're talking about a group of people for whom the worst possible insult is to call something an "innovation."

By contrast, the West is forwarding-looking, ostentatiously so. The Western mindset, at least the current one, is a product of the Enlightenment. It's all about building a perfect future, not about restoring a mythical past. You don't, for example, find many Western leaders, whether political or popular, speaking with longing of restoring the Roman Empire. Well, Ok, yeah, Mussolini. But that was widely considered a bad joke, even at the time.

In other words, the past is considered something embarrasing. It's full of mistakes that you're supposed to learn from, rather than repeat. To that extent, it's difficult to tax the West/Christianity with past atrocities as they'll generally be cheerfully admitted. Neo-salafis, on the other hand, are generally violently opposed to any critical discussion of Islamic history, especially of the early years to which they'd like to return.

There's another aspect to this Islamic/Arab focus on the past which, coincidentally, got featured in Doonesbury yesterday.

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070218

But this tendency is unique to neither Muslims nor Arabs. In one of the most distressing features of the Balkan war, parties on all sides regularly dug up 500 year-old grudges as rationales for genocide.

All this is to say that, while it is unfair to hang the millstone of history around the neck of Muslims in general, a substantial minority of Muslims are simply begging for it.

To that extent, it's difficult to tax the West/Christianity with past atrocities as they'll generally be cheerfully admitted. Neo-salafis, on the other hand, are generally violently opposed to any critical discussion of Islamic history, especially of the early years to which they'd like to return

Umm, no...especially not among Americans. There are still people today who get angry when they hear the word "genocide" when applied to the American Indians (and there are people who get made when they hear the term "American Indian," but that's a slightly different--although related--story). There are still people who deny that the Civil War was about slavery. There are people who insist that the Founding Fathers set up a "good Christian nation." One might even throw in the biblical literalism of the American Xian fundamentalists. These are historical myths--perhaps creation myths--whose sanctity is central to the identities of the groups that uphold them. You can't challenge them openly without challenging the moral foundation on which the entire group stands. I'm sure I could dig up a decent chunk for other Western countries--although, admittedly, Europe is indeed much more post-modernist these days than North America.

Remember, we're talking about a group of people for whom the worst possible insult is to call something an "innovation."

Bid'ah, which I think you're referring to, means innovation in religion; the Taliban ride around in pick-up trucks, use cell phones, the internet and automatic rifles. The Amish are anti-innovation.

Neo-salafis, on the other hand, are generally violently opposed to any critical discussion of Islamic history, especially of the early years to which they'd like to return.

This has certainly not been my experience with them, in fact, quite the opposite.

All this is to say that, while it is unfair to hang the millstone of history around the neck of Muslims in general, a substantial minority of Muslims are simply begging for it.

Begging for what? The history of the Muslims is the history of the Muslims. What most Muslims object to is the suggestion that Islam is forever condemned to the 7th century because of something inherent in the religion. This is nonsense. The fact that a microscopic minority wants to live in the past is no different than the Amish or the Hasidim or some other back to Leviticus movement.

"There is a perfectly good reason why events of 2000 years ago are constantly being dredged up when discussing Christianity. It's because there is a significant -- and dangerous -- minority of Christianity who are constantly dredging up events of 2000 years ago when discussing Christianity."

In these religions you kind of have to. They are about historical alleged revelations.

Returning to some mythical deal past is hardly pre-Enlightenment, discussion of which anyway is dredging up and sentimentalizing the events of 300 years ago. Americans also reference as ideals or returning to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, of 200 years ago. Israeli Jews hold commemorations at Jonestow-- I mean Masada (70 C.E), and that's from a post-Enlightenment nationalism.

My conservative Catholic university venerated the medieval city on a hill.

Future orientation is not a guaranteed goodie, as we learn from secular movements seeking dialectic materialist communism, or a period of Aryan racial utopia.

In any event, we see the same bigoted pattern. The fact that a minority of Muslims have somewhat of a backward orientation becomes an essential feature of all Muslims to which they are stuck or unnaturally attracted (when one is generous), whereas our mixed post-Enlightenment record is judged by its best aspirations, as if those best aspirations are the end of history, or even effectively implemented consistently.

One might even throw in the biblical literalism of the American Xian fundamentalists

Don't forget the twelve tribes of Israel that populated first Europe then North America, tee hee.

In anon's defense, the problem is that the neo-salafi fringe is an obnoxiously loud one, the idiocy being that its spokespersons are, for different yet equally daft reasons, taken as representatives of Muslims by both left and right. In Denmark, 'Islamic Faith Society' dominated the 'Muslim' side of the debate before the cartoon debacle. The organisation 'Democratic Muslims' was formed as a counterweight to the image the nutjobs were disseminating, and its members were subsequently accused of not really being Muslims. It hadn't been formed before simply because its members generally don't consider their religion to be particularly important, but the cartoon crisis demonstrated the need of its existence.

I also think it's a bit of a stretch to call neo-salafis a microscopic fringe, on par with the Amish. Too much Saudi money for that.

As for facing up to the past, I think only Germany has really done that. I can think of plenty of examples of European countries doing the twist on these issues. Never heard a Brit cry his heart out for the Chinese victims of the opium trade. French still admire Napoleon. Austrians basically ignoring their part in Nazism. Spanish Fascism buried quietly. Etc.

Umm, no...especially not among Americans. There are still people today who get angry when they hear the word "genocide" when applied to the American Indians . . . There are still people who deny that the Civil War was about slavery.

There's that fallacy of composition again.

Certainly there are groups in every society that make all sorts of claims, just as there are German neo-nazi holocaust deniers. But the prevaling ethos is to learn from the past rather than worship it. Take, for example, Indians/Native Americans. There is now a general public sentiment that INAs have been treated badly in the past. INAs sometimes make express use of this as in several recent ballot initiatives in support of tribal gambling casinos.

(BTW, FWIW, the civil war was not primarily about slavery -- or at least not about the human rights issues arising out of slavery.)

You'll also notice another key difference in Western groups that make a fetish of history. More often than not, these groups are attempting to justify historical events in terms of modern norms. By contrast, neo-salafis seek to impose historical norms on modern events. Even holocaust deniers are a product of the enlightenment.

-
-
-
What most Muslims object to is the suggestion that Islam is forever condemned to the 7th century because of something inherent in the religion. This is nonsense. The fact that a microscopic minority wants to live in the past is no different than the Amish or the Hasidim or some other back to Leviticus movement.

Microscopic minority? You're joking, of course. There is, unfortunately, a strong current in Islamic thought that looks backwards rather than forwards. Of course, it need not be that way. Islam could have taken-- and could still take -- another path. But Islam's humanstic renaissance was stillborn a thousand years ago. Had it not been, the world would be a dramatically different place.

Having said that, I don't doubt that most Muslims do not wish to be slaves to historical precedent. We often forget that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is a relatively recent phenomenon. Fifty years ago, secular pan-arabism was all the rage. One of the main drivers behind the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is that the secular philosophies of the fifties and sixties failed to deliver on their promises.

On the topic of Islam and writers that used to be better, here are the latest wisdoms of Bernard "end of the world" Lewis:

Muslims 'about to take over Europe'
By DAVID MACHLIS AND TOVAH LAZAROFF

Islam could soon be the dominant force in a Europe which, in the name of political correctness, has abdicated the battle for cultural and religious control, Prof. Bernard Lewis, the world-renowned Middle Eastern and Islamic scholar, said on Sunday.(Goes on.)

If, after that, anyone still doubts he's gone completely cuckoo, he proceeds to highlight the importance of forces such as the "Syrian Reform Party", a pitiful little postbox party on the neocon payroll. That its president (Farid Ghadri) openly admires Israel, even to the point of joining AIPAC, I think testifies to his credibility as a replacement for Bashar -- I mean, Ahmed Chalabi comes off as a credible, self-made Iraqi national leader in comparison...

Case closed: a sad, sad story. This man was once a rightly respected historian, but now a politically senile, babbling shadow of himself, he's being dragged around conferences billed as Bernard the quotable circus historian. $1 for grownups, kids for free, step right up to see!

No, I'm not joking. In an earlier post you made the ridiculous assertion that a 'substantial minority' of Muslims were begging for something; I'm still not sure what exactly. To avoid the dreaded fallacy of composition let's do some arithmetic. A simple minority would be 49% of all Muslims, so a substantial number of that would be, what, half? That would make 25% of all Muslims salafists. Is that correct? Of all the Muslims that I have known in my life I would say maybe 2% were what you might consider to be 'neo-salafist' - an oddball term. Of that 2% I doubt even a handful were prepared to do anything more about it than lecture the Muslims on the true tawheed.

There is, unfortunately, a strong current in Islamic thought that looks backwards rather than forwards

Yes, but that doesn't make people who think like that nefarious. Most of these people just want to be left in peace.

I'd say "from the religion that brought us 9/11" would be fair. However, so many right-wing Christians (Mr. Sullivan doesn't fit into that category, from what I know about his criticisms of the Catholic church) like right-wing Muslims conveniently forget about atrocities that are directly linked to their religion. But if they, or anyone else, were to reasonably examine their religions and other religions it all becomes clear that it's just putting blind faith into hearsay. That's more uncomfortable than hanging on to the status quo, so they'd rather not go there.

Where to start?

First, I'd say "from the religion that brought us 9/11" would be fair.

As fair as writing "from the religion that brought us Franco and the IRA bombing campaign in UK" which is to say bigoted tripe.

However, so many right-wing Christians (Mr. Sullivan doesn't fit into that category, from what I know about his criticisms of the Catholic church) like right-wing Muslims conveniently forget about atrocities that are directly linked to their religion.

It's the universal sin of partisans.

Right Wing Muslims hasn't much sense here.

But if they, or anyone else, were to reasonably examine their religions and other religions it all becomes clear that it's just putting blind faith into hearsay. That's more uncomfortable than hanging on to the status quo, so they'd rather not go there.

Well, one is free to take the athiest analysis, I don't see that as being any more enlightening in the end than religious faith, and has fuck all to do with the blind faith of partisans. The Sovs managed to do quite well in this area.

No, I'm not joking. In an earlier post you made the ridiculous assertion that a 'substantial minority' of Muslims were begging for something; I'm still not sure what exactly. To avoid the dreaded fallacy of composition let's do some arithmetic. . .

My goodness, you are tedious, aren't you?

A substantial minority of Muslims are begging to be taxed with Islamic history, as the bit before the comma spells out. Every time a Muslim launches into an analysis of Hadith to justify/forbid some current practice, they're inviting someone to start bothering them about Aisha.

It's quite disturbing to see even reformist Muslims fall into this trap. More often than not, Muslim apologists for modern democracy end up justifying it, in part, by arguing that the rightly-guided caliphs were democratically chosen.

Of all the Muslims that I have known in my life I would say maybe 2% were what you might consider to be 'neo-salafist' - an oddball term. Of that 2% I doubt even a handful were prepared to do anything more about it than lecture the Muslims on the true tawheed.

Well, if you live in Malaysia, good for you. But had you lived in Saudi Arabia, your experience would have been quite different. Twenty-five million Wahhabis are hardly a microscopic fringe. While most Wahhabis are certainly not neo-salafist, they are obsessed with the past and with tradition.

The point is that Islam is far more likely than modern warm-and-fuzzy humanistic Christianity to justify itself with tradition as opposed to reason. (I take no position on which approach is "better" from a strictly religious perspective.) But those who live by tradition, die by tradition, so it's not surprising that Muslims are often being forced to justify epidoses from Islamic history.

BTW, the converse is equally true. The Crusades still strike a strong emotional chord with many Muslims. Many Westerners, by contrast, would be hard-pressed to tell you what they were. Indeed, the idea that the Crusades are somehow evidence of Western perfidy and hatred of Islam strikes Westerners as amusing.

Microscopic minority? You're joking, of course. There is, unfortunately, a strong current in Islamic thought that looks backwards rather than forwards.

The issue is though that it doesn't make much difference whether it's a minority or a "strong current" when the regressives have the weapon of a heresy charge over the progressives. I know ardent-but-moderate muslim journalists who are restricted from expressing their more progressive views even in the mildest way, for fear of being takfired by a "short-thobed verse mumbler" (as I believe Coll has described them).

I do agree with you, however, that it is a stronger rather than a weaker current at present. Which is all the more worrying.

Anon,

It's quite disturbing to see even reformist Muslims fall into this trap. More often than not, Muslim apologists for modern democracy end up justifying it, in part, by arguing that the rightly-guided caliphs were democratically chosen.

Sincere question. I understand one defends democracy based on its merits, and that's how I've seen Muslims do it. The reference you're mentioning comes as an additional argument to the less rational audience. How's that difference from, say, "democracy is at the basis of our civilization since it was there in Athena" (often heard in France at least)?

SD,

it is a stronger rather than a weaker current at present. Which is all the more worrying.

Honestly SD, I think your experience is probably biased by living in the Gulf (I don't pretend mine is less biased though - I'm just noting). That's the backwaters in terms of (the already weak) liberalism in the Arab World. I'm not under impression that radicals are stronger in many other areas than they are in Europe.

Also, if that minority is so vocal, it's also because it's given a platform to speak, more so than any other current. If AlJazeera showed the Amish, or the Neo-Nazis, or the hooligans, etc., everytime it spoke about the West, the image of Westerners in MENA would probably reflect the same degenerate image going the other way.

IOW, L's concept of the "pious middle" reflects a lot more the MENA I know than some sort of strong currents of radicals (as per the the 2-digit percent of extreme right in Europe for example).

(otherwise, just ignore the typos above...)

My goodness, you are tedious, aren't you?

I've been called worse. Listen: If you're a Muslim, and your intention is to further the good of the Muslims in whatever way you think is best, in whatever way you can, then we are on the same side and argument is embarrassment. If you're not: you to your way, me to mine - Islam is the business of Muslims.

Well

An obs.

Islam is the business of Muslims

Is fucking bollocks of the worst navel gazing kind, if I read the reaction right.

Natural reaction perhaps, but fucking bollcoks, rather like the reaction (entirely misplaced) to my critique of language usage recently.

Islam is indeed the business of Muslims, as Xianity is the business of Xians. However, constructive inputs from outside are are a nice relaity check to rip one away from navel gazing and give an outside reference.

The Islam is the Business of the Ummah and the Ummah don't listen to but the Ummah-gazers is one thing that got the Ummah in deep fucking shit.

I have no bloody patience for that kind of tripe. Anon has inputs, they're well thought out - I don't agree with many, but it isn't drooling whanking like, well, the subject of the OP. If Anon is Muslim or not, well that's another bloody matter. First, the quesiton is, does the points raised have substance. They do.

One should bloody well deal with them, if one wants to genuinely advance the interests of the community. Else, one is just enganging in a 500 yr old losing proposition of navel gazing and whinging on.

Navel gazing? Honestly, I think we're long past that. Muslims are being snatched off the streets every day and getting turned into desaparecidos, not to mention the usual run-of-the-mill assaults carried out in the name of reforming the wogs. These nonsense comments by Sullivan are nothing compared to the other stuff that's out there, as you know. My tolerance for anything remotely approaching bigotry is less than yours. I asked Anon his intentions: how many hadith are there about intention? Yet you object to it.

Our job as Muslims is to adapt our religion and traditions to the modern world, not abandon them. If non-Muslims can help with that, I'd be open to hearing about it.

It seems to me MENA problems to a large extent have their origin in focusing more on appearances than reality.

The way ahead is pragmatism, and 'forward-looking' does not inoculate anyone against the unrealities of conviction. Communists were very forward-looking.

That is different than the problems of European Muslims, whose problems are similar to those of the blacks of USA. What makes US blacks go gangster makes young Muslims in Europe listen to the local Egyptian or Saudi import at the mosque. It's punk. Youth culture, rebellion. Unfortunately, all put together, it is very easy to create an image of a world-wide totalitarian movement.

This in turn increases the focus on and fear of Islam (Westerners don't refer to Thai, Vietnamese etc. as 'Buddhists'), and Muslims are always asked to justify their religion, leading to increased identification with Islam, as in black and proud.

'Democratic Muslims', for example, are hated by the salafis of Islamic Faith Society (they are called 'pet pakis'), and distrusted by hardline Westerners (they're not really Muslim). The middle ground is squeezed out by these two put together. Criticizing your own community is very hard to do when it is under attack, as Göring knew.

If AlJazeera showed the Amish, or the Neo-Nazis, or the hooligans, etc., everytime it spoke about the West

That's where Israel and USA comes in.

Anon,

one point that I didn't really express in my last post - and which might answer my own question in fact. The history based arguments are basically about integrating certain values to the core of one's identity. Most Westerners think of democracy as one of the basis of their identity today. It isn't necessarily based on rational arguments. In fact, very recent history could point to a very different image. But today, the mythical arguments about Greece, Rome, the Bible, etc., on which humanistic and other enlightened values are often constructed in terms of "Western identity" help soak it down the masses. The very same goes with Muslims referring to shura, the Righteous Caliphs, etc. It doesn't only bring the benefit of converting the non-rationals, it's very much needed to make it a consensual no-brainer, ingrained at the very core of Muslim identity, something that's always been there and anything else is an aberration.

For reasonable discourse about Islam and Muslims, ahve a look at this, reputedly the most important American Conservative political site, where Senators, Congressmena dn even the former Speaker of the House, i.e. people with real political power, regularly post and read things like this

Oh, don't complain, the man's positively liberal -- he's saying it's NOT necessary to exterminate every single Muslim!

Anyway, it seems as if any random surfer can post there, and that "Marcus Traianus" is one of them. So I'm not sure you can blame Congress just yet. Or use fringe blog racism as justification for banning discussion of Islam with non-Muslims.

Wrong on all counts. I used to post there regularly, until I got banned for refusing to apologize for calling someone an anti-Muslim bigot. He was subsequently banned...for being an anti-Muslim bigot.
It's not a fringe blog. Conservative and republican party heavyweights post there. I only read their stuff because I'm concerned with getting out the Muslim vote in the US and the site is a gold mine for things like this: "The only good Muslim is an apostate or a convert".

I'm not for 'banning discussion of Islam with non-Muslims'. I have been, but concede the point. I just want to know what the intentions of such people are which, from my pov is not so much to ask. The intention of the kafir who posted at that site is clear enough.

Well, if you're only trying to say that US Conservative discourse about Islam is getting nasty, then I'm with you.

The reference you're mentioning comes as an additional argument to the less rational audience. How's that difference from, say, "democracy is at the basis of our civilization since it was there in Athena" (often heard in France at least)?

I, personally, have never actually heard anyone make this argument and would find it distinctly odd if they did. For one thing, democracy, while practiced in ancient Greece and the Roman Republic, largely disappeared from view for about 1500 years. With a couple of exceptions, it doesn't really exist again until the American revolution. It's particularly amusing to hear the French claim democracy as "the basis of [their] civilization" as they have a rather spotty democratic record, historically speaking.

Democracy (to be strictly accurate, representative democracy) is justified in Western thought based both on vast amounts of political theory and on simple pragmatism.

I think the crux of the problem is that Christianity and Islam take very different approaches to political science. Doctrinally, Christianity has nothing at all to say about the proper form of government. Not so in Islam. Since there is no Islamic equivalent of "Render unto Caesar" in Islamic theology, Islam considers government and religion to be, in effect, the same thing. You’ll never see a vigorous debate about whether democracy is compatible with Christianity -- or Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. -- but you regularly run across such debates regarding Islam.

In point of fact, Islam does not have much in the way of a democratic tradition. There are several reasons for that, one of which is that, if you get right down to it, Islam forecloses quite a bit of what a Western democracy would consider to be the proper scope for legislation and the popular will.

To their credit, the Iranians have made the best effort yet at creating a true Islamic democracy. Despite being a crusty old bastard, Khomenei was quite a political theorist. And yet, despite his efforts to synthesize Islam and democracy, it’s not working out so great in practice.

It is telling that Islam’s finest living socio-political theorist, Tariq Ramadan, is both Swiss and an inveterate whanker when it comes to economics. Unfortunately, Islamic political theorists, i.e., those who construct political theories based on every jot and tittle found in Islamic tradition, are the political equivalent of creation scientists. A frequent complaint made of Ramadan, who calls himself a "Salafi reformist," is that he is two-faced and tells liberal Westerners one thing and fundamentalist Muslims another. I can well believe it. Indeed, he has little choice since many Salafist principles are largely incompatible with liberal democracy, especially as it is practiced in the West.

I think the crux of the problem is that Christianity and Islam take very different approaches to political science. Doctrinally, Christianity has nothing at all to say about the proper form of government. Not so in Islam. Since there is no Islamic equivalent of "Render unto Caesar" in Islamic theology, Islam considers government and religion to be, in effect, the same thing.

Ah, now you're essentialising. Islam is this, Christianity is that. Not wrong per se (though there are tons of Biblical commandments one could easily turn into idiotic laws - no males shaving the side of their faces, for example), but often irrelevant. For example, think of how much political power the Catholic Church has held throughout history. If you had made the point about Protestantism it would have been more sound. Also, 'secularism', a Western concept, is basically about keeping religion out of the public sphere. Political Islam is historically quite new too. So nothing particular essential about either religion. As always, they are what one makes of them.

I mean. Somehow many People of the Book think that 'thou shalt not kill' is open to interpretation.

I've been called worse.

No doubt.

If you're not: you to your way, me to mine - Islam is the business of Muslims.

But your way gets in everyone else's way.

Whether I am a practicing Muslim or not is thoroughly irrelevant. Truth is truth -- the messenger is not the message.

There are several problems with your attitude. First, Muslims have been doing an utterly crap job of taking care of the business of Muslims. I agree that Muslims ought to be taking care of things like the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other such neo-Salafi rot, especially since these people do 1000 times more damage to other Muslims than they ever do to anyone else. And yet, the silence in the Ummah is all too often deafening. If Muslims can't -- or won't -- clean up their own messes then someone else will have to do it for them.

Second, most Muslims don't, and don't want to, live in Saudi Arabia. They want to live in, and participate in, the world. They want to live in Europe, Canada and the U.S. But in order to do that, they must make peace between their religious beliefs and the principles of liberal democracy. It is both risible and outright stupid to make strident religious-based demands that run counter to those principles, ala the Danish cartoon flap, and then get your panties in a bunch because someone has the audacity to question you.

Tariq Ramadan, though, as I said, he's a bit of a whanker, is at least trying to grapple with these questions. He's advocating dialogue, not separatist claptrap. Unless you're posting from Riyadh, "you to your way, me to mine" is unworkable, naive and dangerous.

Finally, if you really advocate, "you to your way, me to mine" you're going to be really disappointed here. This blog is dedicated to a reasoned discussion of MENA, and that includes, on occasion, religion. I doubt if half of the posters here are Muslims of any species. So if you don't want the kafirs sticking their oar in, you're in the wrong place.

BTW, not that I'm particularly fussed (as I thought it was pretty funny) but, on the off-chance you were serious, it's probably not the best idea to crusade against bigotry and call someone a kafir, all in the same post.

You’ll never see a vigorous debate about whether democracy is compatible with Christianity -- or Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. -- but you regularly run across such debates regarding Islam.

I don't remember ever hearing two Muslims debating whether Islam is compatible with democracy. Could be done in some wacko circles I guess, but never met any in real life (though I'm sure googling enough would make the proof of concept). OTOH, each time I came across that debate, it was non Muslims discussing whether the brownies have room for enlightenment.

To explain myself further, those I've heard rejecting the concept of democracy usually didn't do it on the basis of religion. It was either "Muslims are not ready for it because democracy would open the doors to Islamists" or their alter ego "democracy is the Western buzzword used as a pretext to kill Muslims". Both very unsophisticated ways of thinking, but which form the bulk of whatever opposition to the concept. Nothing related to "compatibility with Islam".

A frequent complaint made of Ramadan, who calls himself a "Salafi reformist," is that he is two-faced and tells liberal Westerners one thing and fundamentalist Muslims another.

I won't believe that until I see a proof that stands a court's scrutinity - I've heard Ramadan a lot, both in French and Arabic, never heard a contradiction. I disagree with him on many issues, but if one is to remain within Sunnism, he really is as pro-reform as one can be. Look, that Ramadan has a double speech is "common knowledge" in France, repeated ad infinitum by the many rag journalists there. Yet, Ramadan won lawsuits on that very matter, when those who were claiming he was having a double speech couldn't prove it in court. Every "proof" brought to date, was a doctored quotation, or taken out of context, etc. This bad reputation comes mostly from France, he doesn't suffer it to that extent elsewhere. I can't come up with some good reason why there's this eagerness to smear him, but I have to say I'm tempted by a rather simple explanation. Something along a pious Sunni who speaks perfect French and able to address Western audiences without looking like a buffoon as most imported imams do is very disturbing to those for whom the only good Muslim is the Aqoulish Muslim Reformist type.

BTW, just for the sake of accuracy,

It's particularly amusing to hear the French claim democracy as "the basis of [their] civilization"

the words don't come that way usually. But that Greece, Rome, the Bible are at the basis of Western civilization is often said in France (and now that I think about it, in Spain too). When they're mentioned, the implict (sometimes explicit) concepts that are meant are indeed democracy, rule of law, and other humanistic and moral concepts that they carry.

Come to think about it, not so different from the way Judeo-Christian with its historical load is used in the US or other Western countries - France included - either.

If you're not: you to your way, me to mine - Islam is the business of Muslims.

But your way gets in everyone else's way

My way, fwiw, is to live as a Muslim in the West. I prefer Tariq Ramadan to Irshad Manji. The Way is the Koran and the life and work of the Prophet, the source materials of the Muslims. Adapting these to life in the West is what we do. We can live in Saudi Arabia but we choose to live here. But we don't live as kuffar, mocking our religion and sneering at simple Muslim people in order to please the Master and the rest of the elites.

So if you don't want the kafirs sticking their oar in, you're in the wrong place.

You're right about that. But backbiting, and slandering people like Tariq, make it clear that traditional Muslims, we're not all salafi, don't belong here in the first place.

You’ll never see a vigorous debate about whether democracy is compatible with Christianity -- or Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. -- but you regularly run across such debates regarding Islam.

Actually, a few decades ago, people did claim Catholicism was incompatible with democracy. As for Islam not having much of a democratic tradition, neither is this an insuperable obstacle, nor would it be impossible for people to take scripture or past events and interpret these as supporting democracy. Regardless of the spotty record of democracy thus far in Muslim countries, I fail to buy the argument that the Muslim world is inherently unable to democratize.

I would second dubaiwalla's observation, as indeed one can rewind to the early to mid-20th century to find just such debates in re subsets of Xianity. I am not familiar enough with Hindu political discourse to know the history or range, but for all my sympathy for Anon's general thrust of a critique (wrong on many accounts as it is), I doubt he knows enough to make the statement either.

On the accusations against Ramadan, I've said it before, knowing both the languages he talks into, I have never seen anything or heard anything that I found two-faced. I don't - like Shaheen - particularly care for his vision of the world, but unless he has said things in private that are two-faced, I would call him an honest actor, and far more honest than the hysteric islamophobes like Pipes who smear him.

Re Ramadan's economics - well he's typically French in his approach really; and of course sadly much of the modern Islamist world imbibed rather deeply from the Arab Socialist well in informing their economic thinking.

Now, as to JR:
If you're not: you to your way, me to mine - Islam is the business of Muslims.

Well, you know, on one level this is correct.

Just as Xianity is the business of Christian believers.

At the same time, pulling this out as a response to Anon's reasonable (if often wrong) criticisms smells like whinging exclusivism to me.

It's usually good to listen to the honest critic - Anon may be wrong in several areas, but the criticisms are honest enough.

But your way gets in everyone else's way

It's a big globalised world.

Get used to it. Only Muslims can inform Islamic practice as such, but looking, listening and learning is a healthy thing.

My way, fwiw, is to live as a Muslim in the West. I prefer Tariq Ramadan to Irshad Manji. The Way is the Koran and the life and work of the Prophet, the source materials of the Muslims. Adapting these to life in the West is what we do. We can live in Saudi Arabia but we choose to live here. But we don't live as kuffar, mocking our religion and sneering at simple Muslim people in order to please the Master and the rest of the elites.

"The Master"? "The Elites"?

Ah, such youthful activist language. Amusing, in its own way.

You're right about that. But backbiting, and slandering people like Tariq, make it clear that traditional Muslims, we're not all salafi, don't belong here in the first place.

Well, if you feel that way, you should indeed emmigrate.

Now, I think you probably meant something like the attacks on Ramadan - often rather unfair - give a sensation that no mater what, some people don't want you to belong. That's true. It's also something to overcome.

Reaacting to reasonably expressed criticisms, again some not well-founded, with childish "Islam is for Muslims" hand-waving merely confirms the worst fears and emphasizes a perception that the Muslim community is not politically mature enough to properly integrate into the rough-and-tumble of modern liberal society. I feel that is false, in large part, but there are tendencies...

I've heard Ramadan a lot, both in French and Arabic, never heard a contradiction.

I make no claim myself that Tariq Ramadan is two-faced. I have no way to judge. I suspect that the real problem is not so much contradiction as a change in emphasis depending on his audience. In a sense, this is just a basic rule of public speaking. Ramadan has this to say, re the stoning issue.

"Personally," he said, "I'm against capital punishment, not only in Muslim countries, but also in the U.S. But when you want to be heard in Muslim countries, when you are addressing religious issues, you can't just say it has to stop. I think it has to stop. But you have to discuss it within the religious context."

In other words, Ramadan is framing arguments in religious terms when speaking to Muslims and in more secular terms when addressing "westerners." Even if he's acting with perfect intellectual honesty and the thrust of his argument is the same, this can come across as pandering all too easily.

Re Ramadan's economics - well he's typically French in his approach really; and of course sadly much of the modern Islamist world imbibed rather deeply from the Arab Socialist well in informing their economic thinking.

From what I can see, it's substantially worse than that. Among other silly ideas, he's a proponent of radical anti-globalist flim-flam. It's kind of embarrassing, really.

As for slandering brother Tariq, well, I'm sorry, but I refuse to retract my allegation that he is Swiss.

Well, radical anti-globization flim flam credulism is standard fare in France, so....

Ramadan has this to say, re the stoning issue.

I was watching him when he made that statement. I remember the context and the general idea very well because I have witnessed the ensuing uproar in France where that was upheld as the ultimate proof that he was double faced and that he supported stoning.

It was within a debate with Sarkozy, and Sarkozy was pushing him to give a straight yes or no answer on whether he was against lapidation. I don't remember the exact wording of the whole discussion of course, but basically Ramadan's content could be summarized as "I am personally against it, but I can't pronounce myself for Muslims. There must be a debate among Muslims, and my saying it must stop wouldn't change a thing, all I can say is, until a consensus is reached, there should be a moratorium".

The fact that he didn't condemn it straight and didn't say that anything short of an immediate ban everywhere is unmuslim was upheld as a proof that he's an extremist etc. The idea he was trying to convey that he's not some kind of pope, that hysterically screaming against it instead of trying to open a debate where relevant wouldn't change reality and would be counterproductive was completely ignored in favor of the simplistic argument that Ramadan's half concession on a "moratorium" is a proof that he's actually playing moderate only.

Lounsbury, I really don't know how to read you, but I do believe that your intention towards the well-being of Muslims is sincere.

Reaacting to reasonably expressed criticisms, again some not well-founded, with childish "Islam is for Muslims" hand-waving merely confirms the worst fears and emphasizes a perception that the Muslim community is not politically mature enough to properly integrate into the rough-and-tumble of modern liberal society. I feel that is false, in large part, but there are tendencies

This is not fair. When I say that "Islam is for Muslims" what I mean that it is not the place of non-Muslims, or even Muslims!, to criticize Islam itself. The problems that we have, and yes, yes, yes, yes, I know we have many, are not the fault of Islam, they are the fault of Muslims, who from excessive zeal or its opposite, have ceased to function like Muslims, i.e. in the purest spirit of Prophet Muhammad and his Companions. I believe that Muslims who try to emulate the spirit of the Prophet will not only integrate into modern culture, but bring benefits to it.

Anonymous says:
In other words, Ramadan is framing arguments in religious terms when speaking to Muslims and in more secular terms when addressing "westerners."

The Prophet (saaw) said to speak to people according to their understanding.

Actually, a few decades ago, people did claim Catholicism was incompatible with democracy. As for Islam not having much of a democratic tradition, neither is this an insuperable obstacle, nor would it be impossible for people to take scripture or past events and interpret these as supporting democracy. Regardless of the spotty record of democracy thus far in Muslim countries, I fail to buy the argument that the Muslim world is inherently unable to democratize.

Though you might find it odd, I largely agree with this. The problem here is that you're eliding "Islam" and "Muslim."

There is no question that Muslims are perfectly capable of running -- or participating in -- a vibrant democracy. I offer Turkey as Exhibit A, India -- which is the second largest "Muslim" country in the world and a flourishing democracy -- as Exhibit B, Indonesia as Exhibit C and Malaysia as Exhibit D, just to name a few.

But none of these countries are "Islamic" countries, i.e. countries organized according to Islamic political principles. Rather they are (more or less) secular countries that recognize a division between public law and private morality.

The Islamic state, as traditionally envisioned in Islamic political thought, is very, very different. God has laid down certain immutable principles (and the occasional immutable detail) which an Islamic government is bound to enforce. In Islamic political theory, the state answers, ultimately, to God, not to the People. The state’s job is to help guide the people on the correct path. If the people don’t like it, too bad. The will of God trumps the will of the People every time.

This is, at its core, nothing like modern liberal democracy. First, it implies a permanent class of religious experts able to trump the popular will on any matter that may be touched on by either Quran or Hadith. Worst of all, perhaps, a great many things are placed completely beyond debate.

But these problems are not unique to an Islamic government. They will arise in any theocratic state. For various historical reasons, however, (which I won’t bore you with unless you really want me to) this is a much bigger issue in Islam than in Christianity. Christianity never had an opportunity to develop anything like the Caliphate. On the contrary, the struggle between temporal and spiritual power is one of the major themes in European history.

Many progressive Muslims attempt to circumvent the tensions between democracy and the traditional conception of the Islamic state by doing some fairly elegant intellectual gymnastics regarding "the Caliphate of the many" and other such things. While I wish them well, I doubt their ultimate success. There is simply too much of a disjunct between the immutable teachings of Quran and Hadith and the very mutable nature of democracy and the popular will. It’s a bit like the old joke about communism. "An Islamic democratic government would only work if everyone were a devout and rightly-guided Muslim. But if everyone were a devout and rightly-guided Muslim, there would be no need for an Islamic democratic government."

All this is to say that a Muslim democracy is perfectly practical. An Islamic democracy, as is any theocratic democracy, is a political chimera and unlikely to be either pretty or, in the long term, viable.

I am not familiar enough with Hindu political discourse to know the history or range, but for all my sympathy for Anon's general thrust of a critique (wrong on many accounts as it is), I doubt he knows enough to make the statement either.

While I don't hold myself out as a Hindu historian, I am somewhat familiar, as I need to be, with Indian politics and recent/not-so-recent political history. India has many problems, but an allergy to democracy is not among them. In fact, if one is statistically inclined, there's actually a strong correlation between Hinduism and democracy/freedom. It's a pretty small sample size but you work with what you've got, I suppose.

You've got me dead to rights about Buddhism, though.

Anon,

I'm not sure I'm following your logic here. I fail to see how the argument you're making about Islam couldn't be made about any other religion.

So if your point is that there are some who want to re-establish the Caliphate, it should be noted that there is no consensus about what form such an institution should take. Besides, taking history as a reference since you're bringing it up here, it can be argued that Islam hasn't been as static as it has been since the fall of the Caliphate. There has been no consensual legitimate authority to make it evolve since then, and maybe the religious insecurity that resulted in its loss played a role in making Muslims being less open to let Islam change. In fact, the Caliphate itself did adapt Islam to its needs whenever necessary - it didn't blindly follow the letter or have a bunch of mollahs impose their vision of it, it created the understanding of the letter according to the Empire's needs. Had the Caliphate survived, there are serious chances it would simply have adapted to its time and evolved towards a fully democratic system. See the whole Tanzimat period, which though it came too late to save it, was definitely a period of heavy reforms. So to sum up, reality mandates the way religion and authority are understood, not the other way around.

I think this could be made into a point about the essential vs the historical. Anon is making the almost same distinction here with 'Islamic' and 'Muslim'. It is irrefutably true that religions change over time. While the Quran does not, the interpretations of it do. That's historicism. But it is also true that at this point in history a 'significant - and dangerous - minority of Islam' see it as God's words. It's the perfect book, perfect as in flawless. That's the fundamentalist viewpoint, a term originally used for some American Christians that later got a president in the White House. So, to suggest that the Quran is a historical document, rooted in time and reality, and subject to all the imperfections that this perspective reveals, is poison to this minority. There was...his name escapes me...an Egyptian professor who advanced this viewpoint, and was for that reason severely harassed publicly and privately. But he persevered, and made his point, if not accepted, then tolerated.

But in making this point, Anon essentializes 'Islamic'. There is no Sharia that is commonly agreed upon. The Quran may be perfect, but its readers never were. As in quantum physics, the observer always influences the observed. What one today thinks is Islamic, isn't necessarily so, and certainly won't be tomorrow. '...the immutable teachings of Quran and Hadith' never were.

By claiming to be the actual words of God, the Quran does harbour the seeds of fundamentalism. It is latent, like any religion that is built on scripture. For example, the Haredi live by the Torah. They are also a significant and dangerous minority within Judaism. So I agree with Shaheen, Anon's point could be made for any religion. It is simply that we live at a point in history today where fundamentalism currents run through the Islamic world. They'll fade away soon enough, when they will have failed miserably.

Dear all,

having observed this thread for a while, I cannot but feel amused about how both Mr. Anon & jr786 maintain that old "Islam and Muslims are two different things" charade.

One gets to say "Muslims are compatible with democracy, but Islam isn't" and the other one can claim "Muslims can be criticized, but Islam can't."

I am still torn in my reaction between "haha, so cute" and "WTF???"

Islam is what Muslims make it to be. Just like Christians make Christianity, Jews make Judaism, Hindus make Hinduism, liberals make liberalism, conservatives make conservatism, leftists make the Left, etc.pp. Period.

--MSK

Dear MSK,

Well, of course people are free to think, say and do as they wish. But if you want to democratize the Muslim world, or liberalize, or secularize it, or whatever it is that's necessary, do you really think it's such a good idea to go into a chaikana in, say, Waziristan, and start criticizing Islam? Or do a Barbrak Karmal and kick the Koran across the floor? Or uphold the rights of man by distributing pornography with images of Ayesha?

While it may be shocking to a lot of non-Muslims, most Muslims don't think there is anything wrong with Islam at all, but rather that political problems, most notably the complete absence of anything resembling a just society, have much to do with bad Muslims. If you think that's an artificial distinction, well then I think you're wrong.

If you want to convince ordinary Muslims of the desirability for political reform and modernization, which I do and I think most people here do, maybe there is something to be said for method. In this case, that means respecting the sensitivity and sensibility of simple, observant Muslims by upholding the centrality of the Koran and Sunnat rather than trashing them.

For example, Klaus said: By claiming to be the actual words of God, the Quran does harbour the seeds of fundamentalism

I'm not offended by this, but how many Muslims would be? To win the hearts of minds of ordinary Muslims, who are feeling pretty fucking threatened right now by the cluster bombs of liberal democracy, we should concentrate on method. Part of that method is, IMO, reminding ourselves that there are other ways of building a just society than just implementing the sharia of the 7th century. We're forever talking about democracy and freedom while the Islamists talk about justice - this is what resonates with the Muslims that need to be convinced.

Now this last message by our dear JR I can heartily agree with. In particular this:
If you want to convince ordinary Muslims of the desirability for political reform and modernization, which I do and I think most people here do, maybe there is something to be said for method. In this case, that means respecting the sensitivity and sensibility of simple, observant Muslims by upholding the centrality of the Koran and Sunnat rather than trashing them.

Regardless of one's own sentiments there is zero to be gained from radically secular critiques of Islam - it isn't going to achieve any change in the Islamic world, and is simply going to be rejected as such, or have the inverse effect from that desired.

JR's observation with respect to Justice and the Islamist discourse is also very well taken.

Finally with respect to the Islamic state issue raised by Anon: well, being a fair student of the history I would say that stripping thought back to the sources, away from the medieval imperial and even Caliphate, there is plenty of basis to go in a variety of directions. And the old Church and State issue is also, if one looks at reality, exagerated.

Interpretation: the challenge is helping drive interpretation towards more liberal directions - in particular with respect to government and economy. Asserting Islam qua Islam is fundamentally flawed (i) merely allows the neo-Salafine to coopt Islam, their POV wins, and (ii) alienates the pious middle who basicaly just want to live peacefully and well, without too many problems, and feel like they're also in basic accord with their religion. Rather like the emergence of Christian Democratic movements in Europe.

Like any religion, Islam is going to be what its adherents make of it; and there is lots of interpretative space to make the Islamic world more liberal - as well as lots to make it less liberal. Objectively, my sense is more liberal is the better choice for seeing rising material prosperity and reducing discontent and frustration.

Ergo, one should work towards that.

Klaus,

a 'significant - and dangerous - minority of Islam' see it [the Quran] as God's words. It's the perfect book, perfect as in flawless.

Actually, that's a basic tenet of Islam, and any (believing) Muslim assumes so. It doesn't make it any less open to interpretation though (and in the end, even fundies are just upholding only one possible interpretation with their set of emphasis among many).

I fail to see how the argument you're making about Islam couldn't be made about any other religion.

I completely agree.
But these problems are not unique to an Islamic government. They will arise in any theocratic state.

Second, there's a disturbing amount of hand-waiving going on in this thread. Many posters seem to imply that "Islam" is a fuzzy, amorphous concept that anyone is free to re-invent on a whim.

On the contrary, Islam has a strong, well-developed jurisprudence with at least a thousand years of inertia behind it. While Islam does have a few, slightly different schools of legal thought, there are precisely that -- schools. None of these schools allow their adherents to start interpreting the Quran afresh. Rather, they must follow previously accepted precedent, in many cases, precedent laid down 1000 years ago. Adhering to one of these schools gives even the best-intentioned scholar little room to maneuver.

You can trace the problem, if problem it is, right back to the defeat of the Mutazilites a thousand years ago and the publication of "The Incoherence of the Philosphers." Had the Mutazilites prevailed, Islam might well have had a humanistic revolution and a sort of mild version of the Reformation. But they didn't.

To the extent that Muslim thinkers -- and this may well be what Tariq Ramadan is up to -- want to re-ignite the Mutazilite spark, good for them. To the extent they want to make Islam a matter of personal conscience and morality rather than a politico-legal system, good for them too. But I do not believe that you can graft an Islamic politico-legal system onto democracy with much success.

Also, I'm afraid, I must take issue with this.

If you want to convince ordinary Muslims of the desirability for political reform and modernization, which I do and I think most people here do, maybe there is something to be said for method. In this case, that means respecting the sensitivity and sensibility of simple, observant Muslims by upholding the centrality of the Koran and Sunnat rather than trashing them.

This is just crap. If you want to convince ordinary Muslims of the desirability for political reform and modernization, give them some. Results talk and bullshit walks, to borrow a phrase.

Once again, people forget that Western-looking secularism was all the rage for three decades after WWII. These regimes didn't deliver on their promises and so lost support. If people are given results, real results that improve their lives, the vast majority will be perfectly happy living in secular, democratic states. Why do you think there are so many Muslims in Europe? These people weren't exactly rounded up and forcibly deported to East London, you know.

You don't have to convince ordinary Muslims that democracy is Halal. Just let them try it. The harder problem is convincing the parasitic regimes that rule them to step aside in favor of democracy.

@Shaheen

that's a basic tenet of Islam, and any (believing) Muslim assumes so

So any Muslim who does not think the Quran is flawless is not a believing Muslim? Sounds a bit like 'Bible-believing Christians' there, those who actually believe the world is 6000 years old. If that is what you're saying.

As for: that means respecting the sensitivity and sensibility of simple, observant Muslims by upholding the centrality of the Koran and Sunnat rather than trashing them.

Something that's overlooked here on Aqoul is how Islam-bashers do not address a Muslim crowd. Usually it's directed from and at native Europeans as a way to assert one's own beliefs in response to Islamist encroachments at the local level, and also some basic territorial pissings. 'Reforming Islam', as the phrase goes, is not a goal. Attacking it is. It's a matter of perspective, the frog said to the bird.

And on the topic of Andrew Sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/the_jewish_walt.html

The vid is truly "something else".

--MSK

Anon,

None of these schools allow their adherents to start interpreting the Quran afresh

This is a point where you're wrong. An interesting example, often mentioned here on Aqoul, is the case of interests. None of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence is remotely as restrictive as the common complete prohibition of any form of interests promoted by most of today's scholars for example. Though granted, I personally find the Sunni schools to be too tight for free style reform, there's room for interpretation nonetheless, and in any case the basic tenets in Islam allow you to step out of them and review them.

Klaus,

So any Muslim who does not think the Quran is flawless is not a believing Muslim?

Exactly. This is one axiom of Islam, and the most important one on which Muslims differentiate themselves from Christians and Jews (the Quran was not tampered with, it's not human, it's the perfect word of God, unlike the Bible, etc.). Ironically, whatever addition came later (e.g. the Hadith) made Islam as it is today self-contradicting on that point and more Christian/Jewish like than the original idea.

Sounds a bit like 'Bible-believing Christians' there, those who actually believe the world is 6000 years old.

This is where interpreting the word of God plays a role in creating different understandings of the same letter.

"None of these schools allow their adherents to start interpreting the Quran afresh

This is a point where you're wrong. An interesting example, often mentioned here on Aqoul, is the case of interests. None of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence is remotely as restrictive as the common complete prohibition of any form of interests promoted by most of today's scholars for example."

That fallacy of composition really makes the rounds, doesn't it? Traditional Islamic jurisprudence does not put everything beyond discussion but it does put a great many things beyond discussion. The entire point of the Asharite reaction was that certain precepts are matters of faith and are not subject to reason. If the Quran says X, then X it is, no matter how much reason and evidence indicate it is really Y. This is certainly the philosophical position taken by the vast majority of mainstream Islamic teachers and thinkers.

There is some room to argue what the Quran says and which Hadith are really accurate. The tangled jurisprudence used to attempt to harmonize apparently contradictory passages in the Quran has been frying synapses for over a thousand years. But there are certain things, under this view, that pretty much everyone agrees on.

Whatever set of these Islamic principles you wish to place as matters of faith dictated by God conflict with the basic principles of democracy, albeit to a greater or lesser extent. Either God runs the state or the People run the state -- it can't be both. There is, however, nothing wrong with having a Godly electorate elect Godly people to run the state.

The bottom line is that democracies respond to the will of the people. To the extent that the electorate agrees with Islamic principles, whatever they are, then it's just an ordinary democracy responding to the popular will. To the extent, however, that the government believes it has a mandate from God to impose Islamic principles on the electorate, whether they like it or not, it is no longer a functional democracy.

Re: "You’ll never see a vigorous debate about whether democracy is compatible with Christianity."

X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the ***** religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- [redacted]

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some ***** countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- [redacted]

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- [redacted]

80. The [redacted] can, and ought to, reconcile [it]self, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.

Anon,

again, you have me at loss with your argument. What is it that you're trying to say about Islam that couldn't be said about any other religion?

(btw, don't take Wikipedia too seriously on matters related to Islam)

@Shaheen

whatever addition came later (e.g. the Hadith) made Islam as it is today self-contradicting on that point and more Christian/Jewish like than the original idea

Are you saying contradictions in scripture were introduced later and not present in the Quran? Or just that Islam contradicts itself on 'There is no God but God, and Muhammed is his prophet' because of these developments? If you mean the latter, you'll find Protestantism rather like Islam. Obviously the Pope was/is the Anti-Christ, usurping his position etc. People being what they are, there will always be those who claim to know God's will instead of shutting the hell up, never mind what the good book says.

Man, this is getting theological. If Anon would concede that his analysis is valid at this point in history, I'd grant him his point. I mean, look to Salafi-Shia clashes on the true meaning of 'there is no God but God'.

people forget that Western-looking secularism was all the rage for three decades after WWII

Wasn't it rather Communist-looking secularism that was all the rage?

Klaus,

I meant self-contradicting in the sense that if you accept the axiom that Islam, through the untouched word of God found in the Quran, came to correct what has been tampered by humans before it, you pretty much tampered with the original message once you introduced the Hadith corpus - whose methods of collection are not so different from the ones used by the Church - and the rest of whatever is considered canonical.

(Right, this is turning theological, which streches a bit on my comfort zone's limits - I don't mind exchanging information on theology but I dislike debating it for the sheer amount of irrationality that underlies such debates).

Klaus:

Mate, you needs to do some learning.

So any Muslim who does not think the Quran is flawless is not a believing Muslim? Sounds a bit like 'Bible-believing Christians' there, those who actually believe the world is 6000 years old. If that is what you're saying.

Try not to do Xian- Muslim direct comparisons.

The Quran is flawless in Islam, period. Any Muslim that does not believe that is, well, highly unorthodox.

However, the Quran is also, well, vague on many, many things.

On a very practical level, unlike the Bible and to an extent the Torah, there is less of an opening for doubting the text as transmitted. Yes, there is some wiggle room with respect to compilation between revelation and finalisation/formalisation of the text, but frankly not that much.

Direct comparisons between Xianity and Islam on this kinds of points is, to be frank, stupid and like trying to compare say Budhism and Xianity on a textual history basis.

As Shaheen says, the style of the interpretation of the text is vastly different - to be frank I can't ever recall meeting a Muslim who was a young earth creationist. I am sure they exist, but even the neo-Salafi people I have known were of the mind that science illuminates the meaning of God's word, and so human interpretation of the Revelation has to follow.

"To the extent, however, that the government believes it has a mandate from God to impose Islamic principles on the electorate, whether they like it or not, it is no longer a functional democracy."

Actually you will probably have a functional Islamic democracy.

In an American-style liberal democracy, judges believe they have the right to impose constitutional or even divinely/natural law ("endowed by their Creator") liberal provisions on the electorate. It does not cease to be a democracy, it is merely a constitutional and/or liberal democracy.

The fallacy in anon is the idea that Muslims are supremely rational and consistent creatures, a rare ironic flattery. That people from diverse, and in many cases, barely literate societies, are going to follow Quran verse X to a single inevitable conclusion Y with a rationality and unanimity that an American jury cannot achieve in a closed room while the specific law and its permissible interpretation are right in front of them, as laid forth in an explanatory fashion by the appropriate robed-appointees of an ancient document.

Let Muslims in such majority societies be human, not hyperlogical ideologues or subhuman cyberrobots of textual programming. They will or may set up an "Islamic" government, if they even bother to do that, that reflects some select themes from the vast poetry of a heartfelt religion, themes that match the social preferences of the time and places.

In the US one cannot get literal textual things like the right of the people to bear arms to be interpreted according to the text, or traditional practice.

Muslims, like any aggregation of humanity, no more or no less, will establish a society and governance, if allowed, constrained by their preferences, habits, and economics, and ordered according to textual interpretations that fit those preferences, habits, economics and relations. Religious convention or authority will influence, often decisively, those preferences, and sometimes, and often, it wont.
Either way it will all be called Islamic whether it is a republic, a democracy, a kingdom, a caliphate, or a porno-trade-center.

By the way not all Muslims, TODAY, NOW, if one goes a little far afield from conventional Sunni, beleive the Quran as final authority. Ismailis and other Shiite offshoots give authority to different figures and traditions, somewhat the way Catholics prize Church Father interpretations over literal things mentioned or not mentioned in Scripture. Or even as far afield as Mormons (cf. Alawites).

It is not trivia to mention that, given that somewhat secularish and not Quran-literal Ismaili Muslim leaders helped push the political separatist statehood of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Pakistan calls itself Islamic but the only authoritarians running the show have been intermittently religious military men. Or perhaps plutocratic women.

By the way not all Muslims, TODAY, NOW, if one goes a little far afield from conventional Sunni, beleive the Quran as final authority. Ismailis and other Shiite offshoots give authority to different figures and traditions

When I first saw this blog mentioned I read the name as 'aql, and thought it was some kind of Shia site. All these points are well taken. We have somehow to reconcile 2:2 with 3:6, the rule of interpretation, which allows for allegorical interpretation. There are many weapons to use against the Islamists that indicate the path towards liberalization, 2: 256, for example, a verse that is arguably only for Muslims.

We have to educate and be patient with people who are not so sophisticated and who want reassurance more than anything else. Most Muslims, when they discuss the life of the Prophet, don't talk about lapidation, or not liking garlic or wearing a beard a certain way. They talk about his humanity - this is the way to engage the Muslims.

Matt: The constitution can be amended.

L: The Quran is flawless in Islam, period. Any Muslim that does not believe that is, well, highly unorthodox.

Granted I only know upper-middle-class Maldivian Muslims that reject Hadith outright, have no problem with drinking alcohol or eating pork in the unlikely case they like the taste, but they are Muslim nonetheless, just culture Muslims as opposed to believing.

So where exactly do you disagree with Anon? His point was, as I understood it, that Islam is more prone to literalism, and not so amendable by the will of the people as the scripture of other religions. Leaving aside the discussion of the merits and drawbacks of democracy itself.

all - I just want to point out that this is a very interesting debate, and that whether G-d is pleased with you or not, I am.

Now carry on.

Matt: The constitution can be amended.

And so can a particular society's interpretation of what "Islam" demands politically, and without the burden of concurrence of the legislatures of 2/3ds of the states. There have been probably far fewer Amendments to the US constitution in 200 years, than contradictory political fatwas issued in the last 2.

I do agree that a formal rhetorical separation of religion and state is less easy to reconcile with Islamic tradition. Big deal. So don't waste the time on that. Britain hasn't annulled its official church or its blasphemy laws. Oh well.

I don't think I need to repeat Pius X's encyclical already kindly posted by Matt H. I should also point out that some old, traditionalist religion still hasn't reconciled itself with the secular government of the world's most populous country over the group's political role--and it's not Islam.

@Matt

USA is special in its reverence of its constitution and those bleedin Founding Fathers. I don't know any other country that has canonized its constitution like it. There are other democracy models out there.

This is getting amusing. Most everyone seems to broadly agree and yet everyone still seems to be getting all worked up.

again, you have me at loss with your argument. What is it that you're trying to say about Islam that couldn't be said about any other religion?

Yes, yes, yes, for about the fifth time. The argument holds true regardless of what type of theocracy you're trying to graft onto democracy, Islamic, Christian or Church of the Flaming Elvis.

(btw, don't take Wikipedia too seriously on matters related to Islam)

Good point. Never draw to an inside straight. Does anyone else have any bits of random advice they'd like to share?

In an American-style liberal democracy, judges believe they have the right to impose constitutional or even divinely/natural law ("endowed by their Creator") liberal provisions on the electorate. It does not cease to be a democracy, it is merely a constitutional and/or liberal democracy.

This is, to be charitable, just silly.

The whole point of a democracy is to respond to the popular will. A corollary of this is that functional democracies require a great deal of open debate to, well, function.

But the whole point of an Islamic democracy is to place certain things beyond debate. Because debate about certain topics isn't just a policy dispute, it's heresy and/or blasphemy. Therefore, in an Islamic democracy, not only are certain policies imposed as being God's will, those policies are not open to debate.

Anyone who believes that a judicial opinion, even by the U.S. Supreme Court, ends debate on an issue has no clue whatsoever regarding either current events or recent and not-so-recent U.S. history. In fact, this is one of the key strengths in the Canadian, U.S., Australian and similar systems. The vigorous debate that surrounds important issues long before they work their way up to a Supreme Court is just as valuable, and sometimes far more valuable, than the judicial decision that is eventually handed down.

In sum, comparing an Islamic democracy founded on unchangeable and unquestionable principles drawn from Quran and Hadith and a constitutional democracy founded on an amendable -- and always debatable -- constitution, is ridiculous.

They will or may set up an "Islamic" government, if they even bother to do that, that reflects some select themes from the vast poetry of a heartfelt religion, themes that match the social preferences of the time and places.

Quite. But the social preferences of the majority will change but the "themes" will not. The themes, being taken as the imutable will of God, will inevitably conflict with the quite changeable will of the society at large.

Islamic democracy (as does any theocracy, for, what, the sixth time?) fundamentally conflicts with what has been come to be called "the marketplace of ideas." As Justice Holmes put it,

If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole-heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

An Islamic democracy does not, by its very nature, believe that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Rather, it believes that certain things are irrefutably true and that anything that contradicts these truths is, of necessity, false. To the extent that the market place of ideas does not accept these truths it is, to extend the metaphor, a market failure that must be corrected by the firm hand of the state.