Contarini: I thought you might be referring to me in the OP, but apart from the weird distortion of my views, you spoke of Islamic apologists. Since I am no such thing, and you have no reason to think me to be one, I charitably assumed that you were not guilty of the grave sin of calumny. I am sorry to be mistaken.
Here’s the problem. You basically attempt to shut out mine and other people’s attempt to classify who is closer to muhhamad’s everlasting commands: those who blow themselves and innocents up, or those who argue that muhhamad could have never sanctioned such actions.
you try to shut out legitimate historical criticism by saying that non-muslims have no business saying who is closer to muhhads commands or not. are you denying that you’ve said such things?
That’s the problem, so, if you are not an apologist of islam, then what are you? A defender of islam? A shield of islam? I’ll let you pick the adjective that you prefer.
Sure, but he probably wouldn’t care. More to the point, you could certainly point out that this idea is unique to him as far as you know, and challenge him to support it in terms of Islamic tradition. But this is hypothetical, and so pointless. I am interested in what people claiming to be Muslims actually believe, not what some person claiming to be a Muslim might possibly believe.
In case you did not notice, my example was “hypothetical”. A real-life example would be “muhhamedans claim that he dis not order aggressive wars”! and yep, I am also interested in what muslims actually believe. The difference between you and I is, that I do not accept lalaland arguments. I try to be as historically accurate as possible.
I think one of the big reasons you and I talk past each other is that you are concerned with how to talk to Muslims, and I am concerned with how to talk about Muslims. My only objection to your using historical arguments to discredit Islam is the pragmatic one that I think it will do more harm than good (i.e., the particular line of argument that dismantles claims for Muhammad’s peacefulness is more likely to drive moderate Muslims to radicalism than to have any positive effect). (Well, I also have a certain distaste for those kinds of polemic–I think spending too much time on that kind of argument doesn’t do much good for anyone’s soul, but perhaps I’m too fastidious. As long as you balance your polemic with a positive presentation of Christianity, as far as I’m concerned you can go right ahead!)
so you admit once again that you do object to my approach to the analysis and debate? Good, we’re making progress. And again, just before you go off tangent, how do you prefer to be classified when you object to a sound and consistent approach such as mine and other people’s?
And, well, what can I say about your next argument? You fear that exposing historical islam/muhhamad is going to push so-called “moderate” muslims towards extremism? Wow, so perhaps they were not that moderate and peaceful to begin with? Just to understand you better Contarini: who can be considered a moderate, and under what circumstances will he still posses the label of “moderate”?
My concern from the beginning has been with how we as Christians (or at least non-Muslims) classify Islam. Do we dismiss moderate Muslims as being by definition ignorant of their own tradition and thus not real representatives of Islam, or do we accept as Muslims any significant group of people who identify themselves with the Islamic tradition, however much they may tweak it? I have argued consistently for the latter. Yes, this has implications for how we talk to Muslims. But I have never said that you can’t argue history with Muslims, only that you can’t conclude that because a group of Muslims makes dubious historical arguments therefore they aren’t “real Muslims” or “have no theological justification” for their position. Theological justification is precisely what they have, whether they have historical justification or not. Everything people believe about God is theology, period. It may be good theology and it may be bad. But if it’s a belief about God, it’s theology.
Who is saying that they do or do not have theological justification? Who cares about whatever theological justifications they might have about their beliefs? For the millionth time, I am not arguing nor interested in whether so-called moderate muslims claim to have theological justification for their lalalaand beliefs!
What part of “I am judging, debating and classifying who is closer to muhhamad’s message and orders from a historical perspective maily and principally” don’t you understand?
As I said before, I could care less if muslims claimed that muhhamad was crucified and resuscitated after 3 days! I’d be refuting them from a historical perspective mainly and principally. What’s so difficult to understand about it?
But how would you go about doing this? Consider a Christian equivalent–if there were clear evidence that Jesus’ body had been found in a tomb in the Middle East, we would (most of us) abandon Christianity (or at least radically refashion it). But speaking personally, it’s almost impossible for me to envision what kind of historical evidence would convince me of something that so radically contradicts my most fundamental religious belief.
How to do that … mmm lemme guess …. Got it!, what about a sound and detailed historical analysis? don’t you think that historian in islam, including early commentators and compilers of hadiths and traditions could be of some help?
This applies even more to Muslims, who by and large seem (this may be an unfair generalization on my part) to be less rational and less interested in serious historical analysis of their faith than Christians (which is saying something, because relatively few Christians are interested in this either). Furthermore, the line of argument you are taking could point to one of two conclusions for moderate Muslims: that Muhammad was not really a prophet of God or that the slaughter of unbelievers is God’s will. There is abundant evidence that moderate Muslims are frequently prone to radicalization when confronted with arguments showing (or purporting to show) that the more “radical” reading of the Qur’an and hadith is more “authentic.” This, for many Muslims, may be less disruptive than abandoning their tradition altogether. And those who abandon Islam may become bitter skeptics rather than embracing Christianity (this is probably a good thing for the peace of the world, but a bad thing for their souls and indirectly for everyone else’s). I do not put much weight on these pragmatic arguments–obviously we should witness to the truth whenever and however we find the occasion to do so, and when I talk to Muslims I explain to them as courteously as I can the reasons why I do not find either the historical or moral claims of Islam compelling (certainly not in comparison with Christianity). As I said, my original concern was with how we talk about Muslims rather than how we talk to them. But I don’t think your program for converting Muslims is well-advised, if it comes to that.
Again, since you assert that so-called moderates will be driven towards extremism once they are exposed to the true teachings of islam, perhaps the were not so moderate to begin with?
By your rationale, Zarqawi and bin laden could have been everyday “moderate” muslims not long ago, until the day they were exposed to islams true teachings?
And yep, you are darn right: my hope is that by exposing so-called moderate muslims to islams true teachings instead of the lalalaland type that you support, they will abandon islam. I have read many such cases, so that gives me more than enough hope that mine and other people’s approach is a correct one.
To repeat: my claim is and has always been simply that “Muslims” should be allowed to define themselves, and if they disagree as to what is “Muslim” we should use the term about all the contending factions, while noting the disagreements (i.e, paarsurrey says he is a Muslim, but probably most Muslims would say he isn’t–I would call him a Muslim but when necessary would note his group’s marginal status in the tradition as defined by the majority of Muslims). We can and should make historical arguments about Islam, but ultimately these arguments are of only limited relevance (at most) to the way Muslims define themselves. Contrary to your characterization of me, I oppose any attempt to confuse a historical with a theological description of Islam. Theological definition pertains to those who identify themselves with the tradition in question. Historical definition can be done by anyone.
And to repeat my position once more: I have taken a historical perspective, to my analysis of muslims and interactions with them. I could care less about their theological justifications regarding their lalaland beliefs. Moreover, you have acknowledged that my approach does work, so what could be wrong about it? ahhh, maybe your suspicion that so-called moderate muslims might be pushed towards extremism if they are exposed to islams true teachings?
So, by your rationale, there are potentially millions and millions of bin ladens and zarqawis walking down the streets of every city at this very moment?
Maybe they’re not so moderate after all, eh?
I have many muslim neighbours and colleagues. So, in your opinion, what could be the detonator that will transform them from fine moderate people into people like bin laden and zarqawi?
.
