A Quiet Revolution Grows in the Muslim World

[Hypatia]

Fatah is Arafats PLO with a new coat, yet because Hamas and Hezbollah fire more mortars and kill more Israelis than Fatah currently does they are now the moderates. Can you show a difference between their ideologies or Charters? Why is Turkey considered a model moderate Islamic state but not Pakistan? In both countries their military (supported by US foreign policy/weapons/money) is the only thing from keeping the ‘radical’ elements in check.

You need to find some way of talking about things that are different from one another. Turkey is a secular state. It is in a major part of their identity and the backbone of the Kemalist ideology. There is separation of state and religion in a manner similar to what you find in European states. The opposition in Turkey is often Islamic, but they are forced by the constitution (and the courts) to keep that under wraps, because political parties of a religious nature are forbidden. I don’t know what “radical elements” you are referring to in Turkey. Turkey has had its problems with civil war and insurgency, but that is an ethnic clash with the Kurds and the Kurdish desire for autonomy, not really based on any form of religious ideology.

Pakistan is an Islamic country, but the radicals are certainly not the one’s running the country (though it is continually getting closer and closer to the lunatics running the asylum). The civilian government there is perpetually weak and often corrupt, but represents a very broad spectrum of Muslim views and even secular parties. The military is anything but a check on radicalization in the country and has very close ties with various paramilitary organizations and supplies them with weapons and information (the attack in Mumbai being yet another example). The military is doing very little to help and as far as the official government of Pakistan is concerned harbors those who are most firmly committed to maintaining Islamist groups in Kashmir and in the NWFP (there are also those in the military who would like to see that change, but its hard to fight time, tradition and the intelligence service). Moreover, there are vibrant arts communities in places like Karachi and Lahore, various centers of Sufism and Sufi shrines throughout the country. A politically active Shi’a minority, which is very successful. These are things that are deeply hated and opposed by the militants on the Frontier. If you cannot tell the difference between the practice of Islam in Karachi and in the NWFP you just are not paying attention.

Ba’athist parties are all secular so that would have included Iraq and still includes Syria. Syria is an excellent case where it is important to recognize that the ruling party has a deep stake in a secular government and secular values, because the ruling family is Druze (a group which most Muslims do NOT consider Muslim at all…and who as a group would be in deep trouble if the Islamists ever took over). One can probably group Egypt in here as well which shares those pan-Arab goals of the Ba’athists, as someone else mentioned, but does not really tie Islam deeply into that narrative.

To say that you cannot tell the difference between these various parties and their goals and actions is like saying you cannot tell the difference between Cromwell’s England (the Islamists), Elizabeth I’s England (representing Islamic governments of various types) and Revolutionary France (secular)…and, I suppose we could extend the analogy to include a party which we haven’t mentioned yet: the only successful Islamic Revolution – Iran, which would be comparable to the Papal States.

Those are all different things.

 

[tomarin]

Other meaningless terms:
Radical Islamic fundamentalist
Jihadist terrorist
Moderate Islamic governments

I think there’s a meaningful difference between islamic and secular nationalists. Their ideologies are different. Islamic nationalists want to purify the corruption and injustice they see in their society by making it more explicity Islamic. Secular nationalist parties have a much more accomodating view towards modernism, secularism, and the West. For that reason, it behooves us in the West to do whatever we can (within reason) to support the secular nationalist governments in order to stem the tide of islamic nationalism. Unfortunately that puts us on the “wrong” side of democratic and populist movements in those countries, which all seem to be drawn to Islam. But that’s just the way it is right now.

I can understand why your anti-Islam feelings predispose you to see them all as one undifferentiated evil, but if our dealings with the Islamic world are going to improve, we need to have a clear-eyed understanding of the different elements within that world; and if those elements are shooting at and torturing each other, you can bet that’s an indication they have significant differences with each other.

The importance of Islam in society? What does that mean?

In both cases religious people believe the problems with their society can be solved if the government adopted policies based on religious principles. I think it’s pretty predictable that they would think that way, being religious conservatives. They might be misguided (the muslims) but that is what they believe, and it’s the same thing conservative christians here believe, the only difference is their religion is Christianity.

If George Bush is your example of a leader putting the Christian faith into action and not just giving lip service to it then please justify actions taken under his term/leadership the Iraq war, open borders, and the unabated abortionas it regards the Christian ethic as you understand it.

I was just giving him credit for doing what he could for the pro-life cause, that is, nominating to the Supreme Court orthodox Catholic justices who respect the integrity of all human life. I don’t think it’s within his power as chief executive to declare all abortion illegal by fiat (and if it were I think he would have done that).

Fatah is Arafats PLO with a new coat, yet because Hamas and Hezbollah fire more mortars and kill more Israelis than Fatah currently does they are now the moderates. Can you show a difference between their ideologies or Charters? Why is Turkey considered a model moderate Islamic state but not Pakistan? In both countries their military (supported by US foreign policy/weapons/money) is the only thing from keeping the ‘radical’ elements in check.

I didn’t say Fatah were moderates, specifically, I said they were secularists. And I stand by that statement.

You can’t have it both ways and remain intellectually honest.[/UNQUOTE]

I don’t understand what you mean. What is it that I want to have “both ways”?

Is it a Christian ethic to have self determination for all people? Is it a Christian ethic obey legitimate civil law and actively oppose illigitmate law? I think it is but we do not do that as a nation or a people.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. But my answers are: no, not necessarily; and yes. I agree we as a people do not do enough to fight against unjust laws (but that’s at least partly because there’s a fundamental disagreement about which laws are unjust).

Not sure I understand what that has to do with Fatah, Hamas, etc.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I think there’s a meaningful difference between islamic and secular nationalists. Their ideologies are different. Islamic nationalists want to purify the corruption and injustice they see in their society by making it more explicity Islamic. Secular nationalist parties have a much more accomodating view towards modernism, secularism, and the West. For that reason, it behooves us in the West to do whatever we can (within reason) to support the secular nationalist governments in order to stem the tide of islamic nationalism. Unfortunately that puts us on the “wrong” side of democratic and populist movements in those countries, which all seem to be drawn to Islam. But that’s just the way it is right now.

I think an Islamic nationalist as you descrbe it is like a pro-choice Catholic; an oxymoron that should offend the devout religious of either respective faith. You advocate choosing the lesser of two evils and I advocate supporting neither evil.

I can understand why your anti-Islam feelings predispose you to see them all as one undifferentiated evil, but if our dealings with the Islamic world are going to improve, we need to have a clear-eyed understanding of the different elements within that world; and if those elements are shooting at and torturing each other, you can bet that’s an indication they have significant differences with each other.

You see some good in the Islamic ideology and I do not. Islam is a qualified philosophy among non-beleivers and believers alike. For us to reach them in any meaningfull way is to show the truth of both ideolgies.

In both cases religious people believe the problems with their society can be solved if the government adopted policies based on religious principles. I think it’s pretty predictable that they would think that way, being religious conservatives. They might be misguided (the muslims) but that is what they believe, and it’s the same thing conservative christians here believe, the only difference is their religion is Christianity.

I disagree. Christian theology recognizes what Islam does not and that is the free will every individual human being is granted by our Creator. This is why most western governments was founded largley on the concept of individual liberty and freedom of religion and expression is tolerated and mandated by civil laws. In Islam the choice and freedom is to accept Islam or to accept being a 2nd class citizen at best with demeaning restrictions, exile, or death.

I was just giving him credit for doing what he could for the pro-life cause, that is, nominating to the Supreme Court orthodox Catholic justices who respect the integrity of all human life. I don’t think it’s within his power as chief executive to declare all abortion illegal by fiat (and if it were I think he would have done that).

The common misreading and misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment has done great damage to what you suggest as true because it no longer is true. Secularism and democracy is promoted in the west as this great equalizer among religious differences and it isn’t. There are five Catholics on the Supreme Court- enough to overturn the illigitimate annd unjust abortion law and if they were as orthodox as you suggest they would do so. Being Catholic in a democratic and secular America has come to ‘allow’ Catholics like Pelosi and Biden to remain Catholic in name only and Christian does not have the same catholic (universal) theology since Christians like Obama and Clinton see no contradiction to being pro-abortion and Christian as Catholics see a contradiction in the two terms.

We (America) are so upside down right now in that regard because neither a supposed pro-life President like Bush or orthodox (as you suggest) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will act on the obvious unconstitutional act when the 1973 activist Supreme Court made law, and set it aside which they could legally do right now. Only Congress can make law. The illegal act by fiat decision was done already, and by following our law in truth would only correct the travesty of abortion ‘law’.

I didn’t say Fatah were moderates, specifically, I said they were secularists. And I stand by that statement.

Ok, so that gives the religious (Hamas) more standing in my eyes since they embrace their ideology more truthfully. Hopefully this will become clear to you soon.

I don’t understand what you mean. What is it that I want to have “both ways”?

You want to divorce your own faith in public life while still claiming it and encourage others to do the same in order to achieve some undefined peace. The 1st Amendment protects your right to live it freely but it seems you prefer to compromise.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. But my answers are: no, not necessarily; and yes. I agree we as a people do not do enough to fight against unjust laws (but that’s at least partly because there’s a fundamental disagreement about which laws are unjust).

God gave everyone free will and self determination- why do you feel a right to deny it to others? If you support giving finacial and military aid to the Islamic dictators in order to keep this reality:

Pakistan is an Islamic country, but the radicals are certainly not the one’s running the country (though it is continually getting closer and closer to the lunatics running the asylum). The civilian government there is perpetually weak and often corrupt, but represents a very broad spectrum of Muslim views and even secular parties.

You deny that self determination which is a foundation not only of Gods law but our own civil law. It is hypocritical. Let the lunatics run the asylum and declare their intent. At least the fight then would be honest and open.

Not sure I understand what that has to do with Fatah, Hamas, etc.

Do you not get it now? I am a Catholic in America and as such I can vote and act in accordance with my theology as is my civil right but more importantly it follows the Commandment given by Christ to stand firm and not yield to this world in ways that violate His ethic. I will vote for life, I will vote to keep my nations sovereignty and the right to protect myself by maintaining the 2nd Amendment rights afforded to me by our civil laws, I will vote to against the death penalty, use of nuclear weapons, cluster bombs…, and I will vote against those who are in opposition to these principles. This is what my well formed conscious tells me to do. I will try and act with charity at all times and give aid to those who need it regardless of religion, race, color or citizenship but that aid and help does not include giving up my other principles or make me weaker in the process. I would hope the Catholic in France, Canada, Mexico, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, China- everywhere; if they have these freedoms to act/vote similarly. Why shouldn’t I expect that? Why shouldn’t the Islamist feel similarly about those who claim their own faith?

I give this same freedom and right to others including any Moslem, Atheist, non-religious, Communist…what ever and where ever they may be. It is not in my Catholic ethic to use force of arms to give them that choice or change their ideology, but to do so by personal example. Creating Islamic democracies by war is not only against the founding principles of America but against the Christian ethic since instituting the Islamic government gives legitimacy to an ideology I oppose theologically.

 

[manualman]

Hypatia,

Thanks for the insight. I see your point. The ‘protestant reformation’ in christianity was initially motivated by the perception of corruption and abuse of power by those in the hierarchy. From that perspective, I DO think there are some similarities to the situation in Islam.

But you may be right that the approach taken by Luther and Calvin would be (has been) a disaster for Islam. By rejecting the human leadership, protestants defaulted back to the scriptures. Christian scriptures conspicuously lack military domination and conquering strategies like those present in the early history of Islam. If I understand you correctly, defaulting to rigid interpretations of that era is NOT considered a good thing for Islamic progress! Am I hearing you correctly?

By the way, did you have a chance to consider my question about muslims who convert to christianity?

 

[tomarin]

You want to divorce your own faith in public life while still claiming it and encourage others to do the same in order to achieve some undefined peace. The 1st Amendment protects your right to live it freely but it seems you prefer to compromise.

What is it exaclty that you wanted Bush to do that he didn’t? I’m just curious.

Also for the record, I’m opposed to both all forms of legal abortion (and vote accordingly) and any war that is not strictly in self-defense of our nation.

 

[cathopologist]

The new revolutionaries are synthesizing Koranic values with the ways of life spawned by the Internet, satellite television and Facebook."

Pardon me, but I think this was Ataturk’s ultimate goal - unfortunately he also had to deal with the conservatives of his day - remnants of the Ottoman Empire and their supporters.

 

[Verisimilitude]

What is it exaclty that you wanted Bush to do that he didn’t? I’m just curious.

With regard to what: 9/11?

 

[tomarin]

With regard to what: 9/11?

No, abortion.

 

[Verisimilitude]

No, abortion.

Use of the Presidential bully pulpit to declare the obvious. Abortion is a human rights violation which goes against our Declarations mandate when our nation was established that Life and Liberty are granted by our Creator and governments of men (ours in particular) cannot take them away unjustly but must protect these unalienable rights.

Declare that science has caught up with the religious ideology many Americans share, in that unique human life begins at conception and it was more than just common law for over 200 years that abortion was the unjust ending of a human life before an activist court made new law in violation of the Constitution taking away the personhood of the unborn that has allowed 50 million human beings be killed at will with State protections in America.

To remind Congress of its sole authority in making new law and not shirk it as they have done in this and other instances over the years. To chastise the Courts regarding their abuse of its earlier actions and telling both end the travesty immeditely if not for its unconstitutionality but their own morality.

To force the public debate all now want to avoid if some minority wants to redefine personhood in order to kill a human being without justification, for if the gestating ‘blob of cells’ is not a living human being that deserves the protection of US or international law because it has no brain activity or heartbeat before some moment in time, or before the act of natual birth then it applies to other born human beings who find themsleves in similar situations due to accident or illness.

 

[tomarin]

Use of the Presidential bully pulpit to declare the obvious. Abortion is a human rights violation which goes against our Declarations mandate when our nation was established that Life and Liberty are granted by our Creator and governments of men (ours in particular) cannot take them away unjustly but must protect these unalienable rights.

Declare that science has caught up with the religious ideology many Americans share, in that unique human life begins at conception and it was more than just common law for over 200 years that abortion was the unjust ending of a human life before an activist court made new law in violation of the Constitution taking away the personhood of the unborn that has allowed 50 million human beings be killed at will with State protections in America …

All good, I agree. But other than talk about it, there’s not much else he could have done to protect unborn life, right? He rescinded Clinton’s Mexico City policy, appointed pro-life SC judges, and banned federal funding for stem cell research. Maybe you’re right and he could have talked more about the value of respecting life. But to judge him by his actions alone, I think he did as much as he could within his authority and that these actions were guided by his Christian prinicples. And he deserves credit for that. I’m not going to class him with soi-disant Christian politicians when he did what he could, other than talk.

 

[Verisimilitude]

All good, I agree. But other than talk about it, there’s not much else he could have done to protect unborn life, right?

You asked what I wanted him to do that he didn’t do. Pushing the Constitutional issues I mention would have done a great deal more than just talking about it.

 

[Hypatia]

Thanks for the insight. I see your point. The ‘protestant reformation’ in christianity was initially motivated by the perception of corruption and abuse of power by those in the hierarchy. From that perspective, I DO think there are some similarities to the situation in Islam.

But you may be right that the approach taken by Luther and Calvin would be (has been) a disaster for Islam. By rejecting the human leadership, protestants defaulted back to the scriptures. Christian scriptures conspicuously lack military domination and conquering strategies like those present in the early history of Islam. If I understand you correctly, defaulting to rigid interpretations of that era is NOT considered a good thing for Islamic progress! Am I hearing you correctly?

By the way, did you have a chance to consider my question about muslims who convert to christianity?

I think you got the gist of what I was saying.

By the way, I wouldn’t be so kind to the Protestant Reformation as you. It seems to me that the Reformation was the catalyst for at least 150 years (and if you wanted you could extend it out to about 300yrs) of explicitly religious military violence in Europe: open warfare between Protestants and Catholics (and sometimes Protestants and Protestants). I do not mean to lay that all at the feet of the Reformation, it takes two to tango, but it was part of the legacy of the Reformation era.

I do not have anything terribly insightful or profound to say about conversions. I think the original question was “what if your sister converted”. Obviously in a situation like that the person has excluded themselves from certain aspects of the life of their family and even from the larger community. This is their decision, to no longer participate in the life of the Islamic community. This is going to be felt as a painful loss by the community, because one of their own is now absent from the holidays, rituals and rhythms of daily life that bound everyone together. I can only imagine that it would also be extremely painful for the convert who finds themselves isolated from those things that once gave her identity.

[obviously that is a description of an “ideal” situation. I suspect the reality in the case of many converts is that they convert because they already feel isolated or alienated from the community. There has been a major failure, somewhere along the way, in the community’s embodiment of tawhid with respect to that person.]

 

[manualman]

Thanks, H.

It’s not often I’m credited with being too kind to Luther, et al! (Usually I’m accused of polemics against them…) The thing is that poor decisions and bad reasoning do NOT require that the offender be a BAD person. Sometimes they are actually good people reacting against REAL evils and corruptions. As GK Chesterton put it “Reformers are usually right about what is wrong. They are also almost always wrong about what is right.” (apologies to Gilbert for the paraphrase). In their case, the proposed cure was likely worse than the disease…

Your description is almost spot on to how catholics feel when a family member converts to fundamentalist protestantism. By the lack of any such reference, I presume you don’t believe Islam sanctions the use of force to prevent or react to apostacy in the family?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut to the forums.

 

[Hypatia]

Your description is almost spot on to how catholics feel when a family member converts to fundamentalist protestantism. By the lack of any such reference, I presume you don’t believe Islam sanctions the use of force to prevent or react to apostacy in the family?

I do not believe force is appropriate. In fact, I think it undermines values are that central to Islam:

1. it violates the famous Islamic claim that there is no compulsion in religion in ways that ought to be fairly self-evident
2. it violates tawhid (making one): the use of force against a convert is a very cynical and despairing claim that reconciliation with that individual is impossible and that tawhid is to be abandoned. The situation, in that moment where one uses force against them, is transformed from one in which they exclude themselves, to one in which you actively exclude them. You are thus denying that peace is possible and therefore denying Islam itself.
3. It is, at its most extreme, shirk: First, it places oneself in the position of God to stand in final judgment over the person and their ultimate state in the eyes of Allah (swt). Second, to make a final an irrevocable breach in the community (to kill the person), is to say that this person is nothing, i.e., that they do not belong to the One, i.e., that the One is somehow limited and this individual falls outside.

Allahu alam.