Though I am trying as hard as I can not to let my research into my (proposed) novel infringe upon my other studies, it is invariably taking up most of my time. In my pursuit of an understanding of the current and historical evolution and perception of Islam I have come accross a great many fascinating opinons regarding this subject. Many are encouraging, some, not so. Though an atheist I have a great deal of respect for religion generally. or more precisely, those who practice religion within a moderate reading of the Bible/Qur’an and so on. It is well known that the bible as well as the Qur’an has passages that wouldn’t be advertised on church billboards, at least not in the 21st century. One passage of such a Judeo-Christian God that Dr Atkinson might not propogate is that of Numbers 14:26. A seemingly pissed off God gets Moses’ attention and asks “How much longer are these wicked people going to complain agaiinst me?…I have heard enough…you will die and you corpses will be scattered accross the wilderness…because you have complained!!!” (ED-exclamation marks added for effect). Enough of this though, my intention isn’t to suggest that Christianity is wrong, or Islam or any religion, far more intelligent people than I have covered this topic countless times.
What I want to suggest is that, at least one likes to think, that Christians in Britain today, in the post-enlightenment west have come to understand their holy book as a thing open to interpretation. It is an act of faith by which believers question their God as much as they might their government, sometimes this might even take the form of complaining but I’m sure only a fundamentalist would suggest disease or war is a punishment for such questioning.
I spoke earlier of the many opinions I have come accross in my research. Perhaps the most vitriolic, if not offensive, is that of Robert Spencer’s. He is an American writer and picking up his book alone The Politically incorrect guide to Islam alone one suspects it might not be a wholly unbiased view of the religion. The cover is characterised by a man in a balaclava wielding what I can only imagine is an AK-47, or the like. Having read his book one thing becomes clear. Spencer believes that all moderate, peaceloving muslims, enlightened muslims one might call them, are not really muslims at all. At least not good muslims. A good muslim for Spencer wields AK-47’s and locks his wife up in a cellar one can imagine.
The Islamic world, a world, lamentably, characterised by countries governed under sharia law, a law based within their religious texts, may presently be more fundamentalist than what the west has changed into. One might thank the enlightenment for this, but no such evolution happens from a single movement alone. Perhaps the Islamic world is waiting for their own enlightenment, but those pushing for it, those that go by the name of moderate muslim should and must be encouraged. The alternative is to insult their enlightened philosophies and cement the idea that Islam is and always must be a religion that is manifested most perfectly within Jihadists. As a tool of terrorist recruitment Spencer is doing a good job by understanding islam in this way. Carl Jung wrote in his “The Philosophical Tree” that “enlightenment is not imagining figures of light but making the darkness conscious”. A more zealous atheist would suggest that all of religion is that said darkness. I would not. Moderate Islam is doing that great thing of bringing the darkness within its faith, a darkness that can be seen in all religion, to light, to enlightenment and, by doing so, make it concious. Good luck to them.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: islam, robert spencer
In honesty, I think American writers writing about Islam are bound to be vitriolic, as you put. After all, how many muslims live in the U.S. compared with over here? Probably more each year, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if the “war on terror” still was making an effort to paint Muslims as “The Others”. I’m well aware that I’m making a judgement about the book having not read it, but I thought I should put my initial reaction besides.
It’s important to bear in mind, when reading religious texts that there are hundreds of different translations based on the particular message that the translator desires to bring out of the text. Thus, I would say, it is not necessarily comprimising beliefs or questioning God to interpret the Bible, but merely enhancing them and growing in understanding. I would define a fundamentalist as someone who, though uncompromising, is spiritually blind.
Well done by the way for such an interesting article and staying relatively neutral in the midst of controversy.
I am also exceedingly fascinated my the nation of Islam and am relatively jejune in my understanding of its tenets and issues. I look forward to reading your novel/part of novel.
the nation of islam is something altogether different who believe, amongst other things, that the biblical figure Jacob was an evil scientist who artificially created the white race. It is mainly an anti semitic fallicy. The group is seen by the Islamic community as blasphemous…though the name Nation of Islam is easy to mix with simply Islamic nations. thanks for the interest CandBH
I think you missed the point here. All this ‘moderate’ categorisation puts you squarely in with the orientalist bunch. Think like you were a Palestinian, and no-one was listening to you because of politics. Then think that the religious deal comes as part of that. Try and see that the empathy of muslims living with the kuffar (the non believers) – is going to lie squarely with their fellow co-religionists, at least where they practice the same ideals. Why? Not only ideology, but also connections. Most muslims are white. Most people interfering in Middle Eastern affairs are white. There are other things at stake, politics and race. Its not just ‘moderate’ islam vs other stuff. Appreciate the difference and stop trying to think like you want to homogenise everything to ‘modern’ ’secular’ ‘western’ values, it doesnt help at all.
Hi malaleke, thanks for the comment. And though you have a unique way of structuring sentences, i think i have grasped what you are saying. I do not agree that i have missed the point however. To suggest so is to suggest that there is only a single ‘point’ to grasp, whereas, and im sure you agree, the middle east crisis has myriad ‘points’ with which to grasp. My post does not champion the the neo-conservative dream of a westernised islam at all, far from it. It does congratulate certain Islamic thinkers and theologians who, as all religious people should, have interpreted their religion in a peaceful and loving way. This doesn’t mean it is westernised. If anything my belief is that muslims who interpret islam this way will maintain an identity that it is still very much traditional, maintaining a heritage of their own. This I didnt touch on in my post however and I cant help but think you have a problem with globalisation and the spread of starbucks than the idea of a modern islam. Considering the alternative, for example a perpetual Iran that treats women the awful way they do or elects a president whom propogates holocaust denial, then I will use the word modern if it encourages a more enlightened philosophy of the world and views of the people within it. This was ultimately a short note against those whom belittle moderate Muslims in the western world. I have no problem using the word moderate, though I would add the ultimate goal is, by refering to any muslim, would be a reference to a moderate. The problem is, particualarly in the current political climate, and no doubt thanks to people such as Robert spencer, debate concerned with muslims is inexorably linked with terrorism. This is lamentable. And, for the time being at least, disparity between fundamentalist Muslims and moderate is practical to mantain. Homogeneity isnt particularly my aim, or desire, though I cant remember the last time a british journalist was sentenced to death for blasphemy, I happen to know this happens in the middle east. If this stopping means Islam has become ‘modern’ then…i dont see a problem. And I only begin to wonder and fear why you would.
Please forgive my english and adversarial position, but your sentence structure is also funny.
quick point to note:
‘though I cant remember the last time a british journalist was sentenced to death for blasphemy, I happen to know this happens in the middle east.’
- this was sudan, not middle east, is generalising (ok was quick example, i forgive you)
I don’t think you have bad intention, but for sure the important thing to get is that the myriad points you mention also applies to conception of islam: it is not one axis with khomeini on one side and totally relaxed sufi on the other, it is mixture of these things – like the Taliban who will take Westerner as guest, and upon order to kill him by seniors says ‘No, he is our guest, we treat him like a guest.’. It is a mixture between regional cultures (arabic, persian, afghan, indian etc) and religion, and religious strands (shia, sunni, sufi, ismaili whatever). The things you have said sound more like you are thinking on a continuum of single axis, where west and islam can relate (ie compare crusade with jihad and almohad empire religious freedom with secular europe of today), but the actuality is based totally upon difference – the cultures are not comparable, but they do interact/interrelate on some places.
You sound like you are well-meaning, but still thinking in the wrong way. You should think in terms of cultural difference, not multi culturalism, I think this is the divide. Islam can be moderate and still hijab wearing (this is simply religious observance), or violent but democratic (Hamid Karzai is like this by using warlords to control provinces)
Lastly, peaceful and loving way – maybe this is a western thing, drawn from church teaching – in islam, this is stressed, but also justice, and you dont find such mercy emphasis in judaism either. An example- in the west there is a lot of talk about saladin, how he was good leader and chivalrous. In gulf, he is seen as slightly weak – baybars his successor was strong, and drove out crusaders and beheaded them! ok, so its not nice, but thats the historical figure who won in middle east stories etc. Shows the difference right? You have to get this before you can lose middle class mantle of cosmopolitanism, and replace with better understanding of difference.
I’m you can understand it, just you havent been exposed to it yet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7204341.stm
well, its not just sudan either.
“you are thinking on a continuum of single axis”
I am not. i tried to repeat this in my reply to you. This post is a single example of one american writer, Spencer, apparently nullifying the efforts of a single group of muslims and thereby doing them, and in turn the world, a great disservice. I should refer you to the moderate muslim writers he does write against. When I have the copy of his book with me I will endeavour to do so.
“they do interact/interrelate on some places.”
something of an understatement
“You should think in terms of cultural difference, not multi culturalism,”
Disregarding my latent aversion to you telling me how I “should” think, I am having trouble seeing, in the context of this topic, which eventually encompasses globalisation, the point of distinguishing betwen cultural diversity and multi-culturalism.
“Islam can be moderate and still hijab wearing”
I didnt suggest otherwise.
“violent but democratic”
I certainly did not suggest this either. The benefits of a truly free vote are hard to dispute however.
And, on a lighter note, how dare you speak badly of my sentence structure.!!!!
Thanks for your comments.
OK, I think this time we see the points of each other more clearly. I am still not entirely convinced you understand my point – but like you say, it is not just a point, but many, maybe even sliding scale of understanding, and we are not quite in tune, but playing like a vibrato on string to sound like it, you know?
Anyway I am convinced you are on right track. I found some things for you to read if you like that can better show my viewpoint on the issue:
Bhabha – ‘The postcolonial and the Postmodern’ -
Maybe you have read this but I know that one of his important points (maybe is a different essay actually) is that there is big difference between multiculturalism and culture difference. multiculturalism insists everything will blend, but difference allows for many strands to coexist, rather than get subsumed alltogether. (the globalised identity is pretty western to many people – maybe even the French! so i feel there is a big point to make the differentiation)
i think it will be generally interesting to look at chechnya (noxchi) culture and see what other muslims say about one practice: dhikr – it is condemned by many wahhabi muslims and they are really against! like the bomb attack against shia district because sunni doesnt like pets in islam. These things can show that there is big divides/difference everywhere and generally unless we are in the culture we dont know them. Is really interesting for you to explore i am sure you will like it, especially if you are interested in islam.
anyway, I enjoy conversation with you, I hope you can see different viewpoint (not better not worse – just different to you!) now we have had our talk.
Biggest thing to remember : I will never fully understand you and your culture and you will never fully understand me and mine, but we can coexist just fine with good interrelations. thats cultural difference.
ma salaama
Malaleke