Resolution On Being Faithful Muslims and Loyal Americans

[Peace_of_cake]

Well, it depends on the issue. Obviously on matters seen to pertain to the honor of God Islamic ethics aren’t utilitarian. But it seems to me that Khalid has a point that interpersonal ethics are seen in quite relativistic terms. Some of this may simply be due to the casuistic, highly specific nature of Islamic law.

I’d be happy to see specific examples cited on either side. That way I can learn

Edwin

Definately up for learning
I was reading Sh Ramadan al Buti’s (arguably the foremost Muslim scholar alive) book on the Jurisprudence of the Prophetic biography and he expressly commented how un-Islamic the Macchiavelian concept of the ends justify the means is. He was commenting on how Muhammad refused to become king of the Mekkans when offered because it was not on ‘just’ terms.
The first Hadith learnt by Muslims is normally ‘actions are but by intentions.’ the scholars comment that one cannot have a right intention in an impermissible act. So therefore it would seem both sincere intention and right action are at the core of Islamic teaching.
They do have the concept of the lesser of two evils (which of course is reasonable). So Ghazali, Baqillani and other political theorists spoke of the obligatoriness not to rebel against even corrupt governments because it causes a greater evil of civil war and chaos.
Anyway, that would be my understanding.
Thanks

 

[Khalid]

The first one is why have you said Sunni Muslims view Sufis as heterodox when the mainstay of Sunni Islam has been the turuq (mystical orders)? This is especially important when you give Sh Nuh Keller as an example of Sunni Islam when he is the spiritual guide of the Shadhiliyyah tariqa!?!

Most Sunnis, in my experience, view Sufis as you have said: heterodox. Only the more Salafist/Wahhabist kinds generally tend to view them as apostates. The distinction between jihad in Sufism and Sunnism was misinterpreted: I did not say that Sunnis do not apply both internal and external meanings to jihad, but that the Sunnis always hold the external philosophy (Sufis don’t); that to deny external jihad ideology is to go beyond the pale of Sunni Islam. I was asked to define “orthodox” as well: orthodox being defined as practice and belief of Islam within the well-defined law of one of the four schools of Islam, not a subjective interpretation. Trying to state it more simply: the division between external and internal jihad is held by both. However, the Sufis don’t believe in external jihad. The Sunnis always believe in external jihad. It is dishonest for Sunnis to adopt the distinction and speak as if their tradition calls the internal jihad more important, where the Sunni tradition always demands the imperialistic jihad.

Nuh Keller is the translator of the book alone: he does not voice his own opinions in it, but translates the text of al-Misri, Nawawi, Suyuti and Juwayni, the three foremost scholars of the Shafi’i school who contributed to the book (al-Misri wrote it, Nawawi expanded on it, and his opinions, in becoming a great 'alim, were eventually included as commentary). Juwayni can’t be considered a mystical, but he was a kalam scholar (an Islamic equivalent of a Scholastic theologian) before seeking such knowledge and research was generally denounced, which definitely puts him on a heterodox plane for the modern Muslim. Suyuti and Nawawi are still ultimately authoritative, and are second only to al-Shafi’i in the Shafi’i school.

The understanding of taqiyya I am advancing is in agreement with Ibn Kathir (Tafsir al Qur’an al Azim, “The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers”, Encyclopedia of Islam, “Takkiya”, p. 134-135, “Early Muslim Dogma: a Source-Critical Study”), Nawawi, (Al Majmu Sharh al Muhadhdhab, Minhaj al-Talibin, Commentary on Sahih Muslim and Suyuti (Tafsir al Jalalayn, al Durr al Manthur fi Tafsir bil Mathur). As far as I know, only the Tafsir al Qur’an al Azim, Encyclopedia of Islam, and Early Muslim Dogma by Michael Cook are available in English.

The above agrees to the best of my knowledge with the teaching of the Shafi’i school.

Ibn Kathir and the other exegetes and practical workers of Islam have had much more impact on Islamic practice, and the subsequent quasi-theory that grew out of it, than Ghazali - one result of Ghazali’s “Incoherence” was that his very own work was soon ignored in the Islamic world, as, in proving the “Incoherence of the Philosophers”, he was denouncing his own methods at the same time; however circular this is, it is how history played out, and the gates of ijtihad were closed, and philosophy roundly denounced, and the Mutazili rejected once and for all: after this point, seeking knowledge outside the Koran and Hadith was considered impious, if not a sin. Thus, practical and exegetical demands from the ancient scholars carry weight in modern Islam; philosophical considerations, in the sense that philosophy is or ever was known in the West (from Aristotle to Hume or Kant or Wittgenstein), do not. Islam is a legal, practical, and political religion, not a theological, theoretical and personal one.

I am suffixing all my posts with, “This is accurate according to the Shafi’i school of law” at some point in order to distinguish and delineate my opinions (that which comes after the statement, “The above is consistent with…”) from fact, that what is expressed is within the bounds of mainstream Shafi’i praxis. As far as I know, I have included no points that any other of the three schools would disagree with (most of the disagreement are on minor matters such as food law, exact dress code, prayer times, method of prayer, divisions of inheritance that don’t divide evenly in to the Koranic example, etc.). If I give a more faithful “by-Muslims-and-for-Muslims” interpretation or speech than the average Western Islamic apologists, or those who are altogether ignorant of Islam (or at least scholarly Islam from within Islam, i.e. the science of fiqh, the science of hadith, etc., not scholarly in the way we think of “Bible scholar”).

(Continued below)

 

[Khalid]

(Continued from above)

The interpretations may not be widely adhered to, or even widely known, but they do exist, they were ratified by consensus, they are a part of the Shariah that can not be altered: because of these and like facts are what give the fundamentalists the ammunition they need to “radicalize” Muslims by calling them back to the “true Islam”. Contrary to popular opinion, I doubt many Muslims are radicalized because of socioeconomic problems (jihadists and suicide bombers have an extremely high rate of literacy and higher education compared to the Muslim-Arab world on the whole), but because, in the ancient, authoritative texts, from the Koran and Hadith to the four mujtahidin, the fundamentalists can give a convincing exegetical and historical argument for their brand of Islam being the “purer, more ancient kind” of yesterday before the Caliphate was disestablished, and before colonialism did a great deal to disestablish the dhimma, grant equal rights, and in general modernize and liberalize the Islamic Middle East, and from their call their co-religionists to a “full observance” of all of Islam.

The arguments for taqiyya and jihad are convincing to many Muslims, and they are historically precedented and a component of the Shariah; this should be obvious from the fact that the fundamentalists win moderates to their side and convince them, the fundamentalists are often well-educated, and, conversely, how often do the moderates influence their co-religionists? It’s said they’re a silent majority, but they wage no influence: look at the recent “Arab Spring” and the establishment of strict Islamist governments that’s following from it; the moderates are unsuccessful in keeping their own from being “radicalized” or in “de-radicalizing” the “radicals”, because, however much their interpretation is more modern, better for the world, more civilized, etc., it doesn’t have the exegetical and authoritative weight of virtually every Islamic scholar from the AD 800s to the modern day with jihad theorists such as Sayyid Qutb behind it. It’s a less-convincing interpretation. Historically, the violent kind of Islam is what Islam was.

When I found that out conclusively is when I finally renounced Islam, albeit that I had major doubts and misgivings about Muhammad, the Koran (both in history, text, and content) the Shariah (in history and application), the Caliphate, the Dhimma (and, relatedly, Jew-Hatred and Christian-Hatred “the hated Zionist and Crusader”], all of the conspiracy theories about Jews that are demonstrably false but touted as true [think Protocols] and hatred of Zionists, and hatred of Jews for the fact that they were born Jewish, the blaming of all of the Muslims’ problems on Zionists, Jews, Crusaders, the West/Great Adversary, and all of the hate-filled rhetoric, dating back to the hadith that says, "In the end times, rocks will speak: “There is a Jew hiding behind me, O Muslim! Come and slay him!”), Jannah/Jahannom, Allah (I was internally an atheist for my life, acting as if I believed in God but not actually believing, until I came upon Aristotelian philosophy and St Thomas Aquinas’s Quinquae Viae), and virtually every other Islamic creed at that point; when I realized the fundamentalists had authority, history, and the texts on their side, my misgivings were confirmed tenfold and I could no longer abide.

 

[Khalid]

I’m sorry, but I have heard far too many ex-Catholics brag about their deep expertise in their former faith to be impressed by such claims coming from an ex-Muslim. The fact that Khaled has memorized the Qur’an is certainly impressive, but doesn’t mean that his generalizations about Islam are to be preferred to those of Western scholars who may have a broader perspective on Islam as a whole.

As I mentioned in my above post, “Note: just because I had memorized the Koran doesn’t make me an authority on any part of Islam; there are likely several million hafidh alive today, not to mention that most of Islam (including the five pillars, even the shahadah, which is nowhere in the Koran itself) is not derived from the Koran, but from the hadith, of which I had memorized very few; however, I had the sets of books and the commentaries (such as the massive nineteen-volume “Grant of the Creator” commentary on al-Bukhari) and had to look them up.”

Also, the Koran is very short, about the size of the four Gospels and Acts put together. And much of it has rhyme and rhythm, as it’s like poetry or a song; I’ve met people who had memorized the Koran from early childhood, and still said, “One day I’m going to get an translation of it so I can understand what it says”, and I’ve met Anglophone Muslims who don’t know any Arabic of either the classic or multitude of related dialectical varieties who also have.

“Arabic” is a very wide net, almost like “Chinese”. Arabic is better described as a set of languages, such as “Romance languages”, than it is as an individual language. If we take the analogy further, the dialects are like Spanish, Italian, Romanian, and Portuguese, and Classical Arabic is like Latin (it’s equally dead, both are only used for liturgy, except classical Arabic is used somewhat like Latin was in the 17th century, as a literary and scholastic language). If a non-college-educated Egyptian comes in to contact with a Palestinian, neither can understand the other, like a Spanish speaker coming in contact with an Italian speaker, although they may sound similar and seem to be on the edge of mutual intelligibility. Any two college-educated Arabic speakers can generally communicate by switching to MSA (an offshoot of classical Arabic and virtual synonym) which is learned in college, much as educated Englishman and Frenchman meeting in the 16th century could have switched to Latin to understand each other.

 

[Khalid]

If that’s all Khalid is saying–that we should be aware of the difficulties faced by liberal Muslims in reinterpreting the harsh aspects of their tradition–then I entirely agree with him. But Khalid seems to be saying that such Muslims are “ignorant.”

I’m saying that, and elaborating greatly upon it. I’m not saying they’re a priori ignorant, but only either ignorant of Islamic law, or willfully neglecting it, in the orthodox interpretations (see definition above) of the four schools. I gave an analogy with someone trying to re-interpret the Bible, or even trying to re-interpret sacred tradition (the Koran and Sunnah/Shariah respectively).

If a Catholic is to claim that Jesus had full brothers and Mary wasn’t a virgin, they are either ignorant of the fine points of Catholicism, or willfully ignore them, and are no longer Catholic by the orthodox definition. Even if they still believe in the Trinity, they have left the pale of Catholicism. Denying an element of the Shariah or the perfection of Muhammad or the greatness of his example is like denying a belief in the Trinity; one is generally considered to have left all Christianity of any kind behind. Those acts, and many more, are considered by Muslim jurists to be acts of apostasy (see the relevant sections of the Reliance).

I’m sure a better analogy could be made with canon law, but I know nothing about canon law; there is nothing analogous to the Shariah in Christianity, in my experience or knowledge.

The below analogy is very rough, but should convey the crux of the issue:

The attempt to re-interpret Islam is harder than an equivalent attempt to reform Christianity in favor of euthanasia, abortion, fornication, polygamy, adultery, homosexuality, cursing father and mother, hating one’s enemies, and lying by demonstrating to the majority of orthodox, mainstream Christians (or even sola scripturists; and remember that a mainstream Muslim is much more conservative than a mainstream Christian) that the Bible says those things, and having an exegesis convincing enough to get people to switch from one to the other, and convince them the plain interpretation that they have read and heard preached and were taught as children, and that their fathers did, and their fathers’ fathers, so on, for the past 1400 years, has been wrong.

It is harder for many reasons, due to the lack of a Reformation/Enlightenment period, due to a lack of philosophical and intellectual tradition and rigor, a victim complex, and ingrained cultural issues such as Jew- and Christian-hatred of over a millennium, and the very formation and function of the Koran and Hadith as they compare to the Bible, so on.

That’s an excellent point. I would make one qualification, though–you are defining “conservative” with regard to prayer as “adding more obligations.” However, there’s a sense in which “sticking to the basic requirements” could be seen as conservative, isn’t there? I’ve come across [Wahhabi?] websites that refer to some of these extra prayer practices as “bidah.”

Point made that “left-right” distinctions don’t work on Islam, and point also taken. I was defining “conservative” along two dimensions as “fundamentally hadith-based” and “more onerous to the believer [and others]” (therefore 4 rakat being “more conservative” than 2). I neglected the historical element, in which case I believe it would be the Malikis are conservative by definition, as they historically have been relatively dominant and over-represented in the various dynasties and Caliphs and ruling classes, and additionally are the chronologically oldest school. The Hanbalis are the most recent, but in many ways “more conservative”. Hanbalism, being fundamentally steeped in the traditions and hadith, is obviously the jumping-off-point for “Salafists” (Hanbal was the original Salafist, arguing for a return to the ways of the Sahaba only 350 years after they lived) and the different “Ahl al Hadith” movements, which from can be drawn a shaky analogy to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

 

[meltzerboy]

Your learning I respect–your status as a former Muslim probably makes it harder, not easier, for you to understand Islam. Certainly ex-Catholics typically show more of a tendency to caricature Catholicism than other non-Catholics. The same seems to be true across the board for people who have abandoned a religious tradition.

The Shafi’i school is certainly mainstream, but I understand that the Hanafi school takes more liberal positions on many issues. I’m not claiming that this is one of them, but I question whether one can take one influential late medieval Shafi’i work as speaking for all four schools.

Can you point me to the specific passage in Reliance of the Traveller dealing with this issue?

I myself dislike the coinage of words ending in “phobia.” However, I have encountered a level of fear and hatred and irrationality among many Americans speaking of Islam that certainly seems pathological to me.

To substantiate this, you would need to define “front groups” and give some documentation for your claim.

I think it is odd, and probably unwise, for someone not a member of a religious tradition (even someone such as yourself who used to be a member) to make a claim about what is or is not “orthodox” within that tradition. That is for Muslims to decide. I have no interest in maintaining Islamic orthodoxy–surely you don’t either? So why raise this point at all? There are Muslims who consider themselves to be orthodox who argue that a democratic country that does not persecute Muslims is not to be regarded as part of the “house of war” (Tariq Ramadan is one particularly well-known proponent of this view). Now maybe in your view this isn’t “orthodox” Islam. But with all due respect, who cares? You aren’t Muslim anymore, so your view on what is “orthodox Islam” is irrelevant, just as mine is.

You also ignore the widespread calls within Islam for “reopening the gates of ijtihad” and rejecting the traditional four-schools approach. This certainly has its dangers for us non-Muslims as well as its promise, since it may give rein to fundamentalist as well as liberal reinterpretations of Islam (indeed, to judge from John Esposito’s work on the subject, it appears that the two have often been closely connected).

There has been a good deal of reform in Islam in the past century. Again, John Esposito has written quite a bit about this in his book Islam: The Straight Path. and as I said, this is not unequivocally a good thing–many radical Muslims are “reformers.” Indeed, the Wahhabi movement of the late eighteenth century was a major reform movement within Islam. I see no historical basis for your claim whatsoever.

Certainly the Sunni emphasis on Muslim solidarity hinders the response of moderate Muslims to radicalism. But I would like to hear from someone with well-established credentials in the study of modern Islam before accepting the claim that “moderate Muslims” are doing nothing to resist radicalism.

The two aren’t necessarily the same–again, I refer you to Esposito’s work. Islamic “modernism” was an alternative to secularization, and led in both liberal and fundamentalist directions.

Edwin

What a fascinating discussion between you and Khalid! I’m rather ignorant of most of the intricacies you both have raised although I’m aware of the essential confrontation between moderate and fundamentalist Islamic views. I tend to agree with your critique of the perspective expressed by Khalid, if only due to the fact s/he is an ex-Muslim. This is based on my own experiences with ex-Jews, who usually either have a personal ax to grind about their former religion or never truly understood the tenets of their faith to begin with. I’m not saying this is necessarily the case with regard to Khalid; however, it does raise a red flag, in my view.

 

[Khalid]

[BIBLEDRB]John 4:21[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Contarini]

What a fascinating discussion between you and Khalid! I’m rather ignorant of most of the intricacies you both have raised although I’m aware of the essential confrontation between moderate and fundamentalist Islamic views. I tend to agree with your critique of the perspective expressed by Khalid, if only due to the fact s/he is an ex-Muslim. This is based on my own experiences with ex-Jews, who usually either have a personal ax to grind about their former religion or never truly understood the tenets of their faith to begin with. I’m not saying this is necessarily the case with regard to Khalid; however, it does raise a red flag, in my view.

Right–that was my initial reaction. But Khalid responded to my challenges with detailed, careful, and modest posts that fleshed out his position. I am very impressed with his answers, and I’ve learned a lot, especially about the different schools of fiqh (which I knew about on a very general level, but he’s given me a lot more detail).

Edwin

 

[Khalid]

I’m a he. And I can’t stand politically correct “inclusive” language! especially when it is at the cost of poor linguistic style or accuracy, such as the infamous, so-called “singular ‘they’” and constructs such as s/he (albeit I find “s/he” to be the most elegant solution to a constructed problem that doesn’t exist where every solution ranges from inelegant to ugly [cf. “human beings”, the aforementioned “they”, “herstory”, “womyn”, “LGBTQ”, “like a mortal” in Daniel 7:14 {NRSV}]).

I wonder when they’ll start using “consciousling” or “sapient” instead of “humanity” (itself a replacement for the proper “mankind”, as both contain the m-word), and “female-gendered spouse” or even “a human being who chose to self-select and identify as female-gendered and entered in to a domestic union with a human being who chose to self-select and identify as male-gendered” in place of “wife”.

I saith unto thee, That ye shalt hear such Obscurantist language amongst thy people before a generation hath passed from the Earth.

If we were speaking a Romance language it wouldn’t matter, as every grammatical object is already gendered. Or, it would matter a lot more, as the language would become incomprehensible when male-grammatical-gendered nouns were eliminated.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, again Khaled…you have explained very well the different thoughts and practices, as well as defining Islam as practical, political…

There was a convert to Islam who spoke for some time of the Salafis and you clarified where they are in this…I read different posts by Muslims and your explanation helps me to identify them better and where they are coming from…and yes, we cannot expect more moderate Muslims to do anything effective in dealing with the more militant form…

Have you heard of NewAgeIslam that is wanting to return to Islam’s golden past when Arab scholars were drawing on Aristotle and others? I cannot see them communicating with the more extreme branches of Islam.

I am very leery of Muslim groups suing their way as newcomers…see this as contrived and politically motivated…I believe in tolerance of others but not in abuse of others, especially when they would not allow the same rights in return. So I tend to look at what people say vs what they do…and Islam has its complexities as does the other major world religions.

 

[Khalid]

A return to even a fictitious “Golden Age” (all of the great philosophers were heretics or apostates and killed or exiled, like Averroes and Avicenna) may actually provide enough of an ideological basis to form a break with Islam, or be subsumed under Sufism, and become a sort of logico-mystical creed, almost like Gnosticism, unto itself, related to the internal world instead of the external. I’ll have to think on it more, but, with numbers, that sounds like one of Islam’s best hopes. Or, as an analogy to Sufism, the new Aristotelian creed would be to Sufism what Catholicism is to Orthodoxy (if it didn’t go the way of Plotinos, that is, in which it would end up a new kind of gnostic religion).

 

[jbeck43]

How about sound reason, leavened with a little courtesy.

That’s a good sentiment, but one you could also practice. Here’s a few of your other quotes, copied and pasted from your comments right from this thread:

"Now maybe in your view this isn’t "orthodox"Islam. But with all due respect, who cares? You aren’t Muslim anymore, so your view on what is “orthodox Islam” is irrelevant… "

“Even if you’re right–why should we care?”

"You are being insulting when you assume that either Muslims or non-Muslims who believe there can be a peaceful Islam are “ignorant” of naskh. You assume that Muslims cannot reinterpret their own tradition–yet many do this. Again, this may not be “orthodox,” but I fail to see why that is a matter of importance to non-Muslims.

Insults are not arguments.

Good point.

As Khalid admits, he is the one who made the analogy[concerning Islamic taqiyya and Catholic mental reservation]–from the little I know on the subject, it seemed like a fairly reasonable one. I take the point that of course the two concepts are not exactly the same–no two concepts in different cultures/religions are.

Taqiyya is a tenet whereby any means that advances the cause of Islam is acceptable, whether that means employs lying, deceit, or even violence. Catholic mental reservation’s standard, albeit extreme example is that if you, as a good Catholic during World War II were harboring Jews and a Nazi Commandant knocked on your door for Jews seen in the area, you could withhold that information from them without incurring sin, but lying in of itself still is sinful. (so you could say to the Commandant something like, “Do you think that I, a good German, would care for Jews?” or “Am I a Jew?”). The difference is that lying is a sin extrinsic to the situation in Catholicism, while in Islam, the morality of lying is intrinsic to it. If it advances the cause of Islam and the Ulema, then it is acceptable and even laudable. Taqiyya couldn’t be further apart from Catholic mental reservation.

And yet you give not one single example of these supposed contradictions. Allegations without evidence are just a waste of both our time. Why bother?

ok. Here’s a few:

This thread:

You:
“I think it is odd, and probably unwise, for someone not a member of a religious tradition (even someone such as yourself who used to be a member) to make a claim about what is or is not “orthodox” within that tradition.”

You in CAF Excessive wealth thread, no. 39

“I think a more reasonable Catholic response is that St. John Chrysostom is not, in himself, the Magisterium, but one very great bishop and preacher of the early Church. His teachings–like those of St. Thomas Aquinas, which are also more “socialist” than those of Pope Leo according to most scholars–need to be taken seriously as part of the Tradition…”

In the above you’re trying to speak to Catholics as an Epicopalian as to what our tradition ought to be. Nice. You are also in this thread constantly trying to tell us without knowing what Islam really is what we as forum members ought to think or not think regarding this religion, and demeaning those who actually do. And you’re doing it as an episcopalian. Sure, I’m doing it as a Catholic, but these aren’t my rules, they’re yours.

Here’s another. I love this one:

You to Khalid:
"To claim that any time a Muslim says something that doesn’t square with your interpretation of “orthodox” Islam that Muslim must either be ignorant or lying is simply unjust. It is quite possible that the Muslim in question simply interprets Islam differently from you! Again, whether this is “orthodox” or not is not really a relevant question for non-Muslims. Since, Islam is itself best seen as a Christian heresy, it seems ridiculous to me to fret ourselves over whether Muslims are being “orthodox’ by the standards of their own heretical tradition.”

So you think it is unjust for Khalid to claim that certain Muslims are not orthodox in their beliefs but you have no qualms about calling all of Islam nothing more than a Christian heresy? You think that any Muslim, orthodox or not would find your claim just slightly distasteful or ‘unjust’ as you put it?

 

[jbeck43]

continued from above

I didn’t wonder anything of the sort. I expressed the wish for it to be otherwise (that standard works be in english). Your malicious misrepresentation of what I am saying does you no credit.

Forgive me. I’ll rephrase. I think your wish that standard works be in English makes me laugh. There are two things that make up the Quran: the holy words of Allah; in Allah’s language. That is why knowing the Quran by memory in arabic, since the Quran only exists in Arabic, earns such a grand title as Hafidh in Islam. The knowledge of what those words means to the memorizer is entirely secondary. That is why most works are in Arabic, because it is Allah’s holy language. To ask why or to wish that it was in another language comes from a Judeo-Christian mindset foreign to Islam. That works like the Quran are in English at all is because of western influence in evangelization primarily, but even then it is not considered the Holy Quran because it is not in Arabic. Islam is not like Christianity where God calls us to be His children. He condescends to us, even to the point of death. This is Shirk to the Muslim. In Islam the relationship to Allah is more akin to a relationship between a master and a slave. You and I as slaves don’t ask the Master to condescend to our understanding in transmitting the Quran. We follow the Master, and as such, we either understand the language that Allah speaks in or don’t bother. Everything else is Shirk.

So you’re somehow suggesting that using deceit to infiltrate the enemy in guerrilla warfare is a practice peculiar to Islam?

No, I’m not suggesting it–I’m outright saying it. And I think what you’re implying is troubling. Who’s the enemy here? This is a tenet of faith for Islam that they not only practice against CIA agents or Mossad operatives, but little girls in cafes, wedding receptions, and airplanes full of civilians. To pass this off as simply a tactic that Islam uses to infiltrate a legitimate enemy is naive.

Edwin you have a way of trying to come off as vastly knowledgeable on a subject without knowing the facts and denigrating the people who do, with some quaint look-ups from your quickest internet source. Your flip sometimes condescending attitude towards others is a little distasteful, and I thought I’d check you this time. If you don’t like what I’ve written here to you, maybe you could leave your own pride at the door of other forum threads before walking in. Just my thoughts.

 

[manualman]

… The attempt to re-interpret Islam is harder than an equivalent attempt to reform Christianity in favor of euthanasia, abortion, fornication, polygamy, adultery, homosexuality, cursing father and mother, hating one’s enemies, and lying by demonstrating to the majority of orthodox, mainstream Christians (or even sola scripturists; and remember that a mainstream Muslim is much more conservative than a mainstream Christian) that the Bible says those things, and having an exegesis convincing enough to get people to switch from one to the other, and convince them the plain interpretation that they have read and heard preached and were taught as children, and that their fathers did, and their fathers’ fathers, so on, for the past 1400 years, has been wrong.

It struck me this way as well, which is why I was surprised that Edwin seems to hold hope or expectation that this may occur (not these particular examples, but this level of departure, mind you). Some of these very examples ARE underway in major christian ecclesial communities today and I know it causes Edwin no small amount of pain to see it. Edwin, are you saying you HOPE this happens in Islam or are you saying that you aren’t convinced yet that Islam contains a significant number of fundamentally objectionable teachings that have the tendency to create cultures of domination, violence and injustice? Rather perhaps what Westerners perceive as morally wrong in Islam is just poor interpretations of Islamic teachings practiced by badly formed muslims? That does seem heroically charitable of you, but at what point does charitable assumption turn into ignoring the reality of world events? Must everyone really become a scholar of languages to determine what principles a religion esteems and that which is denounces?

 

[Contarini]

It struck me this way as well, which is why I was surprised that Edwin seems to hold hope or expectation that this may occur (not these particular examples, but this level of departure, mind you). Some of these very examples ARE underway in major christian ecclesial communities today and I know it causes Edwin no small amount of pain to see it. Edwin, are you saying you HOPE this happens in Islam or are you saying that you aren’t convinced yet that Islam contains a significant number of fundamentally objectionable teachings that have the tendency to create cultures of domination, violence and injustice? Rather perhaps what Westerners perceive as morally wrong in Islam is just poor interpretations of Islamic teachings practiced by badly formed muslims? That does seem heroically charitable of you, but at what point does charitable assumption turn into ignoring the reality of world events? Must everyone really become a scholar of languages to determine what principles a religion esteems and that which is denounces?

I see it happening. Everyone sees it happening–hence the cries of “taqiyyah.” People who are convinced that Islam can’t change can only interpret evidence of change as deception.

Anti-Catholic Protestants responded (and some still respond) to change in Catholicism in precisely the same way.

I’m not sure why you would ascribe to me the view that morally objectionable parts of Islam are “poor interpretations . . . practiced by badly formed Muslims.”

I have said repeatedly that I think such language is presumptuous when used by an outsider.

Why does one group or the other have to be “ignorant” or “misunderstanding” or “badly formed”?

Why can’t we just recognize that there are numerous versions of Islam, each of which has committed, well-informed supporters?

Clearly there are Muslims who reject the harsher aspects of their tradition in one way or another. I agree that such folks face huge hurdles in getting Muslims as a whole to see things their way. I take Khalid’s point that “fundamentalists” have a fairly easy job persuading earnest young Muslims that they represent the “true” interpretation of the Qur’an. I find Daveed Gartenstein-Ross’s My Year Inside Radical Islam instructive in that regard. I read his book with my usual dose of skepticism about ex-members of a religious tradition, but I find his account of the process by which he became “radicalized” compelling.

I think that you are attributing to me a level of rosy optimism of which I am not guilty. I don’t know what is going to happen. I know that very surprising things happen and the things that turn out to look as if they were “inevitable” are often not the things that people think are “inevitable,” or sometimes even possible, in advance. (Remember how many experts said it was impossible for Ratzinger to become Pope? Both Vatican II and the present conservative reinterpretation of it did not seem at all likely before they happened.) But that doesn’t mean that I expect only good surprises

I do think that you are vastly underestimating the extent to which religious traditions, even very conservative ones, can change.

Edwin

 

[manualman]

It’s not often I quote Rush Limbaugh as if he were any sort of original thinker, but “words ARE supposed to MEAN things.” I can’t help but hear in your post a sort of hope that Islamic teachings and traditions will be redefined over time into something different. You insist that outsider must not attempt to define Islam, but don’t we use words precisely to identify what we mean? Are you saying we must simply allow “Islam” to mean anything a particular muslim says it is and accept that at face value?

Something tells me that dog don’t hunt.

I may overestimate the extent to which religious traditions tend to stay true to their history, but isn’t it also possible that (given the context you live in) you are UNDERestimating the frequency and likelihood of a religious tradition changing its stripes?

To your example, perhaps BOTH the 70’s radicals AND the subsequent reactionaries to Vatican II and history will simply accept the teachings of VII in the context of what came before and will confirm that early enthusiasm that appeared to constitute contradictions with pre-V2 teaching were THEMSELVES erroneous and that the council documents themselves can be understood without dissonance with earlier authoritative teaching. I know that sounds weasly given the prominance of Kung, Curran and Brown scholarship of recent decades, but in the end, those guys are hired help, NOT the teaching authority of the catholic Church. Examination of the authoritative documents stripped of all the external spin attempts has yet to reveal to me any fundamental change in doctrine or moral teaching. Certainly nothing of the magnitude for muslims of admitting that not everything Muhammed did is worthy of emulation! That would be very nearly like suggesting that Jesus and Mary Magdalene… I can’t even type it!

But my original point all along was to state that I DO believe that nominal muslims CAN be loyal Americans. I just happen to think that doing so requires them to be unorthodox muslims in the process. Don’t worry though, they’re not likely to ask my opinion!

 

[Contarini]

Taqiyya is a tenet whereby any means that advances the cause of Islam is acceptable, whether that means employs lying, deceit, or even violence.

Sources? Even “quick online sources”?

I take Khalid’s point that the Islamic attitude to lying and similar issues is somewhat utilitarian. Reliance r8.2 says that “misleading impression” (which does seem to be pretty much exactly the same thing as “mental reservation”) is preferable to outright lying, but outright lying is permissible (or even obligatory) if the end is permissible/obligatory and can’t be obtained in any other way. That’s certainly an “ends justifies the means” view of lying.

However, those Christians who do not follow the strict Augustinian view of this matter would also take a “utilitarian” view of this particular question, simply because they do not regard the telling of untruths as intrinsically sinful. I’d like to hear a bit more from Khalid (in response to Peace of Cake) about this, but my own tentative hypothesis would be that Muslims tend to view ethics having to do with relationships among humans in highly relative terms, but not matters having to do with the relationship between humans and God. I certainly agree that the Christian tradition has more resources for helping Christians overcome our sinfulness in these particular regards!

The difference is that lying is a sin extrinsic to the situation in Catholicism, while in Islam, the morality of lying is intrinsic to it.

I don’t quite follow your use of “extrinsic” and “intrinsic” here.

If it advances the cause of Islam and the Ulema, then it is acceptable and even laudable.

I do not find the position stated in quite that way in Reliance r8.2. Perhaps you can give me a better source or a better interpretation of this source?

Taqiyya couldn’t be further apart from Catholic mental reservation.

Based on Newman’s Note on Lying and Equivocation, I am unconvinced. Perhaps you can elucidate the extrinsic/intrinsic distinction or provide some other support for your claim?

Regarding your accusation of inconsistency, it struck me after writing my last reply that you were probably thinking of cases where I have spoken about Catholicism as if I were an insider. And you are right that there probably is inconsistency there–however, the inconsistency is not on the point at issue here, but rather in my own personal relationship to Catholicism.

I would like to point out to you that your own Church acknowledges that non-Catholic Christians are “imperfectly” joined to the Church. When I have spoken as an insider, I have spoken out of that imperfect union and my strong desire for it to be more perfect. I probably would have been in a stronger position in the debate to which you refer if I had simply said, “As an Anglican, John Chrysostom matters to me a lot more than Pope Leo.” But in fact, I don’t really care about the Anglican position on social issues. I do care, very deeply, about the Catholic position. And that’s why I spoke as I did.

In the above you’re trying to speak to Catholics as an Epicopalian

No. I probably had no right to speak as other than an Episcopalian, but in fact I wasn’t speaking as an Episcopalian.

 

[Contarini]

You are also in this thread constantly trying to tell us without knowing what Islam really is

Petitio principii. You are assuming that Islam has an essence which can be known, which you know, and which I do not know.

what we as forum members ought to think or not think regarding this religion, and demeaning those who actually do.

You seem to think that anything except uncritical acceptance of Khalid’s assertions is “demeaning” to him. (Khalid himself, to his credit, doesn’t seem to think anything of the kind–we could both profit by imitating his humble and substantive approach to this discussion.)

"To claim that any time a Muslim says something that doesn’t square with your interpretation of “orthodox” Islam that Muslim must either be ignorant or lying is simply unjust. It is quite possible that the Muslim in question simply interprets Islam differently from you! Again, whether this is “orthodox” or not is not really a relevant question for non-Muslims. Since, Islam is itself best seen as a Christian heresy, it seems ridiculous to me to fret ourselves over whether Muslims are being “orthodox’ by the standards of their own heretical tradition.”

So you think it is unjust for Khalid to claim that certain Muslims are not orthodox in their beliefs

No, I thought it unjust for him to say (though I’m not sure now that he actually meant to say this) that such Muslims were ignorant or deceptive. Khalid was using “orthodox” in a specific, historically defensible way–what I said was that whether Muslims are “orthodox” or not in that historical sense (i.e., whether their views correspond to the consensus of the four schools of fiqh as established by the time of the “closing of the gates of ijtihad”) is not something a non-Muslim ought to worry about. It seemed to me (rightly or wrongly) that Khalid was slipping from simply making a historical judgment (Muslims who are loyal to America are going against the consensus of the four schools of fiqh, presumably because of the teaching about the “house of war,” though perhaps he has a more specific teaching in mind that he hasn’t cited yet) to the assumption that such people are either ignorant or deceptive.

My point was and is that there are many Muslims who do not adhere to the form of Islam Khalid accepted when he was a Muslim. No matter how historically venerable that form of Islam is, modern Muslims may choose to remake their tradition.

When I see Catholics trying to remake their own tradition in destructive ways, I mourn, because I care about the integrity of the Catholic tradition. But I don’t care about the integrity of Islamic tradition, because I consider Islamic tradition as a whole to be heretical.

but you have no qualms about calling all of Islam nothing more than a Christian heresy?

No, I don’t. Because when I say that I’m speaking as a Christian. Islam is obviously heretical from my perspective as a Christian. That shouldn’t be controversial.

My point is that it’s not my job to police other religions for orthodoxy. You’re right that I don’t keep this rule with regard to Catholicism, but rightly or wrongly that’s because I don’t consider Catholicism to be an “other religion,” but the most normative form of my own religion, to which I remain a reluctant partial outsider.

You think that any Muslim, orthodox or not would find your claim just slightly distasteful or ‘unjust’ as you put it?

They would probably find it distasteful. That is a subjective judgment. Sometimes truth is distasteful–that’s no reason not to maintain it.

However, if they found it unjust they would be wrong. As a Christian, I have every right to use the word “heresy” about what I believe (by the authority of the historic Christian Church) to be erroneous developments of my religion.

Like many people with whom I argue about these topics, you seem to assume that I’m arguing out of a position of political correctness or sensitivity or some nonsense of that sort. I’m not. I’m arguing on the basis of what I believe to be true. Meet me on that basis and we can get somewhere.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It’s not often I quote Rush Limbaugh as if he were any sort of original thinker, but “words ARE supposed to MEAN things.”

Well, I agree, but I think it’s an empty remark. Words do mean things. I don’t find the citation of Limbaugh helpful, because I find him precisely the kind of person who thinks that words are supposed to mean whatever his ideology needs them to mean.

Let’s indeed consider the question of language. Here’s the basic issue: when we name a religion (although, in my opinion, the issue is complicated from the start by the failure of scholars to find a satisfactory "neutral’ definition of religion in the first place) are we speaking as nominalists or realists? Is there an essence that underlies the name? If so, what?

My argument, simply, is that the essence of any religion is divine truth. Period. Insofar as a religion is not true, it has no essence. If it does, kindly tell me what that essence might be?

Except insofar as a religion reveals truth, it is simply a cultural tradition–a name that we give a lot of phenomena that have some kind of similarity with each other.

In short: I’m a realist about true religion, and a nominalist about all other religious phenomena.

That is why jbeck could accuse me of inconsistency: I do often speak about Catholicism in the way I say people shouldn’t speak about Islam. That’s because I do perceive an essence in Catholicism–that essence is exactly what Catholics say it is, namely the deposit of faith preserved through apostolic succession. I may question some of the details–I am certainly not what people on this forum would consider an orthodox Catholic–but I speak about Catholicism as someone who perceives truth in it.

I don’t perceive a true essence in Islam except insofar as Islam agrees with the truth revealed in Jesus Christ. Hence, I have no business speaking of “true” or “false” Islam.

I can’t help but hear in your post a sort of hope that Islamic teachings and traditions will be redefined over time into something different.

I hope that heretics will come closer to the truth (and in the process will enrich everyone’s understanding of the truth). Indeed. Don’t you? Why does it matter whether such a thing is called “Islam” or not?

Certainly one should not use language in misleading ways. For instance, I question the practice of some evangelicals in teaching their converts to continue to call themselves “Muslims,” although given the harsh reality that faces Muslim converts to Christianity, I can understand why they engage in such “taqiyya” and am slow to judge them.

When speaking of, say, the Ahmadis, of course I recognize that most Muslims don’t think they are Muslims. Similarly, when speaking of Messianic Jews, I recognize that most Jews don’t think they are Jews. But that doesn’t mean that I myself have any business saying “they aren’t really Muslims/Jews.”

 

[Contarini]

You insist that outsider must not attempt to define Islam, but don’t we use words precisely to identify what we mean? Are you saying we must simply allow “Islam” to mean anything a particular muslim says it is and accept that at face value?

I am saying that we should allow Islam to be the highly diverse and ever-changing historical reality that observers perceive empirically, and not to seek in it some kind of “essence” that is itself other than divinely revealed truth. I think that such an approach is simply incoherent.

To your example, perhaps BOTH the 70’s radicals AND the subsequent reactionaries to Vatican II and history will simply accept the teachings of VII in the context of what came before and will confirm that early enthusiasm that appeared to constitute contradictions with pre-V2 teaching were THEMSELVES erroneous and that the council documents themselves can be understood without dissonance with earlier authoritative teaching. I know that sounds weasly given the prominance of Kung, Curran and Brown scholarship of recent decades,

I think (speaking again as a quasi-insider in the manner that infuriates jbeck42) that you are bordering on slander in comparing two people who have been disciplined by the Church with someone (Brown) who was frequently honored by the Church as an eminent Catholic scholar.

Of course you think that your faction will eventually win out:shrug:

But purely as a church historian, I have no business speaking of what is “erroneous” and what isn’t. It seems to me, as an observer, that both “conservatives” and “liberals” grasp different aspects of what was going on at Vatican II, which was a complex phenomenon.

As a quasi-Catholic with a good deal invested in the integrity of the Catholic tradition, I find myself most in agreement with the “ressourcement” theologians such as De Lubac and the early Ratzinger; basically in support of Pope Benedict but worried that he’s giving too much leeway to the forces of reaction; and increasingly appreciative of the critiques offered by Catholic liberalism although utterly unpersuaded by its claims to represent the best Catholic response to the challenges of modernity!

but in the end, those guys are hired help, NOT the teaching authority of the catholic Church.

Is “hired help” really the way to describe any baptized member of the Church? (Again, I’m speaking theologically here as a baptized Christian with some claims to adhere to the Catholic Tradition, if imperfectly.)

Examination of the authoritative documents stripped of all the external spin attempts

I think your language is highly dubious here. I don’t think the liberal reading of the documents is “external spin.” Certainly the priest who told me that Gaudium et Spes contradicted Trent’s teachings on original sin was unable to point me to the specific passage that supported this interpretation, and the layperson who said that “Vatican II forbade kneeling” was simply wrong, if she meant that the texts actually said anything of the sort. But both sides have a lens through which they view the texts. Conservatives aren’t simply taking the “plain meaning” while liberals engage in “spin.”

has yet to reveal to me any fundamental change in doctrine or moral teaching. Certainly nothing of the magnitude for muslims of admitting that not everything Muhammed did is worthy of emulation!

Distinguo. It would indeed be hard for Muslims to say that Muhammad was imperfect and continue to hold to anything closely resembling historic Islam. However, many Islamic “modernists” stress the historical contingency of Muhammad’s actions, seeing them as appropriate in their context (and often putting what looks to you and me like a lot of “spin” on them–see the work of Reza Aslan for an example of this). That is indeed different from the traditional attitude, but it doesn’t seem to be unimaginable for a significant number of Muslims.

But my original point all along was to state that I DO believe that nominal muslims CAN be loyal Americans. I just happen to think that doing so requires them to be unorthodox muslims in the process.

Again, if you simply mean “disagree with the traditional readings of the four schools of fiqh” then that’s a meaningful claim which may well be correct. But the meaning of disagreeing with the four schools of fiqh is a meaning that derives solely from the decisions of Muslims to accept that definition of “orthodoxy.” Neither you nor I believe that this “orthodoxy” is divinely revealed. Therefore, I think that the language is misleading. It would be better to say “it requires them to challenge long-established rulings of Islamic law and re-open the 'gates of ‘ijtihad.’”

Edwin