LETTER TO A MUSLIM
On March 3, 2004, I received an email from a Muslim who responded to things I've written in my blog about Islam. This wasn't the first such email I'd received, but it was one of the more reasonable-sounding ones. I shared it with some friends, and our discussions led me to write the following response
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ___________________________
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:52 PM
> To: Burch, Greg
> Subject: Islam/Your website
>
> Hello Gregory,
>
> I just recently came across your website on the Net. It
was hurtful to read
> the many things you had to say about Islam and Muslims, and
I really feel
> that you should tone down the hateful rhetoric. I'm not
sure if you've had
> bad personal experiences with Muslims, but it's obvious that
you have many
> bad impressions of us.
I had a very bad personal experience with Muslims. Two and half years ago 19 Muslims - in the name of their religion - killed thousands of innocent people in buildings in which I have done business many times.
My first instinct was to respond to your letter with either
three numbers, or two words: "911" or
"Salmon Rushdie". But it's obvious that
you write with sincerity and represent something I do not understand
- a relatively moderate Muslim. So let me respond at greater
length.
> There's so many things that you bring up that it would be
difficult to
> address all of them right now. Two things that come to mind
which you
> mentioned include your statement that there is no science
in the Islamic
> world and that we Muslims are buried in superstition. I'd
just like to
> bring to your attention the fact that there are many renowned
scientists in
> Muslim countries such as Egypt. Historically as well, you
may be aware of
> the Muslim contributions to science and math (`alchemy' and
`algebra' come
> from Arabic words, for example). You could find entire essays
on the
> Internet about this subject, including Muslim science in
Islamic Spain, its
> contributions to the study of optics, geography, chemistry,
and so on.
I'm well aware of the contributions to civilization and science that arose in the Muslim world. Long ago. Let me quote from an article which itself merely relays figures from a well-publicized recent UN report:
The 2002 U.N.-sponsored Arab Human Development Report, produced by Arab intellectuals, detailed the backwardness of the Arab world in freedom, knowledge, and the status of women.
"The 22 Arab states rank at the bottom of the freedom scale of the world's seven regions. Arab despots' fear of their own people forces them to keep a tight control on all knowledge. Internet connectivity in the Arab world ranks behind sub-Saharan Africa. The entire Arab world translates one-fifth the number of books annually as Greece. From 1980-2000, the Arab states registered 370 patents compared to Israel, with little more than 2% of the population, which registered 7,652. No wonder the total GNP of 22 Arab states, with 280 million people, is less than that of Spain, with 40 million.
Many Muslims and Arabs blame all this on the West or, more narrowly on "the Jews." Do you?
Beyond this, do not mistake my enmity for the superstitions in Islam as one aimed only at Islam. I abhor supernaturalism in all its forms. Supernaturalism is still rampant in the West, as well, but we managed with great effort to build at least a few institutions that can pursue a scientific and rational approach to knowledge and life largely unhindered by superstition and crippling beliefs in invisible beings. One of the fundamental values that has allowed science and reason to exist in at least a few places and, in a very few to even flourish in the West is the separation of religion and state. Do you support the separation of church and state? I do not find any support for this notion in the basic texts of Islam, nor in the practice of Islam anywhere in the world where Muslims are in the majority. Instead, what I see everywhere in the Muslim world is the notion that there should be no separation of church and state; in fact that the concept of shariah is precisely the opposite of this.
> The other point that you mentioned revolved around the
hadith in which the
> Prophet says that women are deficient in their religion and
that many of
> them will earn hellfire because of their unthankfulness towards
their
> husbands. I think that it's dangerous and misleading (for
both non-Muslims
> as well as Muslims) to quote from the hadith literature selectively
and
> outside of any context. It is well-known that the Prophet
could be very
> harsh on certain groups of people at certain times and also
very
> encouraging. Certain statements are also intended figuratively.
There is
> also a great deal of poetic exaggeration used in the Arabic
language as
> well. Lastly, there's the additional problem of hadiths
which are
> classified as `weak' by the hadith scholars, based on weak
chains of
> narration. The Prophet is also attributed to have said that,
of all the
> things in this worldly life, the most beloved to him are
`salaat' (the
> prescribed ritual worship that Muslims do five times a day),
horses, and
> women. I know that the biased anti-Muslim western mind automatically
jumps
> to the interpretation that this is because the Prophet Muhammad
was a
> womanizer (such ideas and allegations, in my opinion, reveal
more about
> those critics than they do about the Prophet's character),
however this is
> not the way Muslim scholars have traditionally viewed it.
> Their explanation has been that the Prophet said this because
women have a less
> corrupted heart and feelings than men do. They are more
emotionally in
> touch with things, and their hearts melt faster than those
of men. That
> may be why women cry faster than men do, and why their feelings
are hurt
> faster than those of men. It was this pristine innate quality
of women
> that the Prophet loved and admired. It is something that
males have in
> earlier (childhood) years as well but is lost with the passage
of time. Now even
> if you are skeptical of such a Muslim interpretation, it
atleast reveals
> something about how Muslim scholars have traditionally viewed
women,
> gender relations, the Prophet's relation with and view of
women, etc. There
> are also the well-known hadiths in which the Prophet said
that every man
> must (atleast) revere the womb that bore him, that Paradise
lies at the feet
> of the mother (another hadith which requires a figurative
and not a literal
> interpretation), and that the best of men are those who are
the best to
> their wives.
Yes, I've seen that saying of Muhammed's. But I've also seen extended discussions by Muslim scholars that say that a husband may beat his wife or wives if they are disobedient and more gentle means of persuasion do not work to bend her or them to his will. Now these authorities are quick to say that you shouldn't hit your wife in the face. But did the Prophet say that one may hit his wife, or not? And doesn't the doctrine of the Sunnah set out as a basic tenet of Islam that the life of Muhammed is to be emulated in the closest detail, since he is to be considered the most exemplary of human beings? If so, does this mean that a man may - as Muhammed did - take as his wife a six year old girl (although he may not, apparently consummate the relationship until she has reached the ripe age of nine)? I cite this point -- the marriage of Aishah -- only to question whether the strict doctrine of sunnah is rational and morally defensible in the modern world and, if not, why more Muslims do not openly and loudly challenge it. I suspect that it is because a charge of impiety is feared -- as it would have been hundreds of years ago in the West, as a possible death warrant.
I ask these questions because I see tens or hundreds of millions of people alive today in the 21st century who bow to a doctrine that states that the specific details of the life of a 6th century tribal leader are to be taken as the template for their lives today. Is that a basic tenet of Islam? Or would it be bid'ah - forbidden human innovation - in the basic tenets of Islam to depart from the sunnah? Here at islaam.org, I find these words:
To include anything in religion not made so by Allah or the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), or to do it with the hope of attaining merit or propinquity to Allah, or to follow it with the same meticulous care as a religious observance is acted upon, amounts to bid'ah. It really means grafting of a man-made system to the Divine Order of laws or creation of a state within state. Bid'ah has its own legalism with obligatory, commendable and voluntary observances which run parallel to the Divine Legislation and sometimes even exceed them in number and importance. Bid'ah overlooks the fact that the Sharee'ah given by Allah is complete and that no addition or alteration can now be made in it. Imaam Maalik rahmatullahi alayh was correct in his remark when he said: "Whoever introduces a Bid'ah in Islaam and also considers it a salutary act, in fact enunciates that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was (Allah forbid) not faithful in preaching his message, for Allah says: 'I have this day completed your religion.' Thus, whatever was not religion in the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) life-time cannot be deemed as religion today."
Now of course, there are primitves among Christians who oppose any kind of change in the ancient form of their religion. Some of them even make movies. But -- other than in Ireland -- it's been hundreds of years since large groups of Christians have engaged in organized violence on the basis of their religion. I can write a novel that some in my country find offensive to their religion without fear that I will suffer an offical government death sentence as a a result, although Mel Gibson might wish it were otherwise.
> I think that in these trying times it's important that we
try to keep our
> minds open, our hearts soft towards one another, and genuinely
try to listen
> to each other. It's also important that we try to steer
clear of
> black-and-white generalizations and terms such as `Islamofascists'
which you
> seem to apply very liberally to anyone who has any support
or notion of
> political Islam. Things are not so simple and clear. I
would even agree
> with one of your criticisms of a common Muslim claim, which
I too would
> agree is a generalization and misleading-- "Islam is
a religion of peace."
> Well actually, I believe that it is a religion of peace,
*and* a religion of
> war. It just depends on what we're dealing with, what century
we're living
> in, and so forth. When dealing with people of peace who
seek peace, I
> genuinely believe and will be happy to prove that Islam is
a religion of
> peace. But when dealing with Crusaders or Mongols who are
running at us
> with swords in hand or (I'm sorry to say it) Americans in
Iraq, then Islam
> is a religion of war. We don't fight with kids' gloves.
So in short, I
> agree with you, and I disagree with you. Just as I agree
and disagree with
> those Muslim `moderates' who apologetically tell everyone
on CNN that Islam
> is about `peace.' Well it undoubtedly is. It comes from
the root letters
> "sin", "lam", "mim", which
are also the root letters for the word `peace' in
> Arabic. But hey, like America, like Israel, and like every
other
> civilization/state, Islamic states also reserve the right
to defend
> themselves. I don't however believe that this is done best
through suicide
> bombs, and for every fatwa that legalizes such a thing (such
as the one you
> selectively quoted), I can give you ten which condemn it,
flat out.
Here is the problem I have with the reasonable-sounding words you have written. What evidence is there that Muslims of seemingly moderate opinions such as yours have ACTED to stop the violence? What I see is bloody rhetoric dominating what gets called "the Arab Street." What world-recognized Muslim or Arab authority has taken a stand to support a constitutional separation of religion and politics? How can you reconcile what you've written with the concept of dividing the world into the dar al Islam and the dar al Harb? And why do I find some Muslim scholars who find an intriguingly different translation of the very word "Islam" - to mean "submission," not "peace," as in, for instance, http://www.submission.org/.
Why are there so many websites -- in English -- that seem to state with commendable clarity that Islam is most defiinitely not a "religion of peace." For instance, here we have what appears to me to be a site created by Muslims with the fairly straight-forward URL of "www.understanding-islam.com" that clarifies that no, "jihaad" doesn't mean just "spiritual struggle" as some Muslim apologists state or just "defenseive war" as others state but "war fought for the cause of the Almighty." If this is what I can easily find at the top of any search for guidance on Islamic doctrine in English, what must be written in Arabic?
Finally, let me address the use of the word "Islamofascist." Here is a quick definition of "fascism:"
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Before you deny that political Islam has these characteristics, consider the notion of the dhimmi, or the non-Muslim living under Muslim rule. What is this but the functional equivalent of racism? I've read Bat Yeor's scholarly works, and I know of no Islamic or Arabic scholarly work that comes close to refuting the overwhelming evidence she has mustered that dhimmitude is a legally-sanctioned second-class citizenship, and that the suffering of dhimmis was and continues to be widespread.
Perhaps you will protest that there is nothing inherently dictatorial about Islam and shariah. I can only point to the states that have managed to institute strict shariah-bound societies, such as Iran under the ayatollahs, Afghanistan under the Taliban and Saudi Arabia. Are these polities in which open dissent and free expression are allowed? They look like theocratic dictatorships to me.
> Anyhow, I've written more than I intended to. In summary,
I hope that you
> may engage in an honest and open study and attempt to understand
Islam from
> authentic Muslim sources, which includes living teachers,
professors, and
> lecturers, and not just randomly pulled-out Sahih Bukhari
hadiths from some
> Internet search engine. You owe the Muslims-- even if you
view them as your
> enemies-- a bit more than that. May I suggest the essays/lectures
of one
> (Shaykh) Hamza Yusuf Hanson, an American convert to Islam
and a
> traditionally-grounded mainstream scholar. That would be
one place to
> begin.
I've spent some time this evening reading material by and about Hanson. I find things like this heartening. But it didn't take me more than a second to find him strongly condemned. Why? Because Hanson condemned the 911 murderers. In fact, it didn't take me long to find a website devoted solely to a strong condemnation of Hanson's attempts to find a "progressive" Islam.
What I see is a bloody rear-guard action by the most energetic force of the pre-modern world, Islam, against the modern world. Those who seek to reinterpret Islam in a more progressive and peaceful way are condemned as heretics. Those who seek to enforce the strict interpretation of Islam drown out voices of moderation and silence them with death threats. A conflict over a tiny slice of what Arabs consider to be their land -- Israel -- is used as an excuse to avoid any step toward modernity. Anyone in the Arab world who counsels peace and compromise seems to end up where Anwar Sadat did.
I wish I could be hopeful. I'm sorry, but I can't. I look at the Arab and Muslim world today and I see a culture that is in the same state of development that Europe was when it was wracked by genocidal wars of religion hundreds of years ago. I imagine what the intollerant religious zealots of Europe would have done if they had had access to machine guns and tanks and jet planes and now atomic bombs ... and I see the Arab and Muslim world. Can this change? Certainly. It did in Europe. But not before millions of people were killed, with the relatively primitve technologies of the 16th and 17th centuries. With nuclear weapons just a heartbeat away from the hands of the equivalent of Oliver Ceromwell or Savonarola, are you hopeful?
May we all live to greet each other in peace and tolerance.
GB, THHotA