Hasan Ali Tokuqin Posted December 13, 2005 Author Report Posted December 13, 2005 Which West? Which Islam? by columnist SAHIN ALPAY http://www.zaman.com The “Clash of Civilizations” theory with the clash between the West and Islam at the center, which was first put forward by Bernard Lewis and later publicized by Samuel Huntington, is a theory which is misleading, which distorts reality and which at the same time is quite dangerous. In order to see this, it suffices to ask the following questions: Which West, which Islam? What is meant by the West? Does it mean the West that gave birth to nationalism, racism, fascism, militarism, colonialism, imperialism or the West that is the cradle of liberalism, human rights, the rule of law, democracy, multiculturalism that envisages respect for different views, faiths and lifestyles? What is meant by the West? The US or the EU? What is meant by the US? Does it mean “Red America” or “Blue America”, two Americas wide apart? Does it mean Clinton’s liberalism or Bush’s militarism? What is meant by the EU? “Old Europe” or “New Europe”? Monoculturalist Europe, EU as a “Christian club” or the multiculturalist EU that is built on universal values? Does the West mean the one that supports Israel’s domination of Palestinians, Arab dictators, invasion of Iraq or the one that stands for settlement of international conflicts through law, fairness, dialogue and peaceful means? What is meant by Islam? Is it Sunni or Shiite Islam? Is it the Islam of ulema, religious scholars or of Sufi mystics? Is it the Shiite tradition or the Khomeini interpretation? Is it Islam as a spiritual -moral creed or political Islam? Is it the fundamentalists who oppose modernism or modernists who reinterpret Islam according to the requirements of the contemporary world? Is it the Islam of the Wahhabis and Osama bin Laden or the Islam of Fethullah Gulen and Abdulkarim Soroush? Do we refer to Saudi Arabia, Iran or Turkey when we use the word “Islam”? The truth is that there are many different religions and cultures in the world, but there is just one modern civilization to which they all contribute; and modern civilization is nothing but the principles that stand for respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, respect for diversity of opinion, beliefs and lifestyles and settlement of conflicts not through force but through law, fairness and dialogue. The conflict between modern civilization and forces that resist it continues today in almost all regions, cultures and countries of the world. Bush militarism in the US challanges both modern civilization and the liberal and pluralist traditions of America. Those who want to build the EU as a “Christian club” challenge the EU as a project for permanent peace and democracy in Europe which started two disastrous world wars. (Do not the recent riots in France witness to this?) The main struggle in the Muslim world is between those who want to adopt modern civilization and those who resist it. The basic cleavage in Muslim-majority Turkey is certainly not between those who defend secularism and those who want to establish a religious state. It is between those who want to consolidate a liberal and pluralist democracy and the style of settling conflicts through law, fairness, dialogue and peaceful means on the one side, and those who oppose it on the other. To explain the conflict between Bush’s militarism and al-Qaeda’s terrorism as “a clash of civilizations” or “a clash between the West and Islam” is turning reality upside down. What is common to both Bush’s militarism and bin Laden’s terrorism is that both are enemies of civilization; one is equally dangerous as the other, and the fight against one of them cannot be won without fighting the other. These were my concluding words of the statement I made at the international conference on “Dialogue among cultures and religions” that was organized by Fundacion Atman in Madrid on October 28. The founder of peace studies, Professor Johan Galtung said the following: “There is really no difference between bin Laden and Bush in essence, but the former may be more intelligent than the latter.” November 8, 2005 Quote
Hasan Ali Tokuqin Posted December 13, 2005 Author Report Posted December 13, 2005 Muslim's Mentality by Columist ETYEN MAHCUPYAN www.zaman.com There are several political reactions to the hegemonic dissemination of Western culture and norms to the entire world as a result of globalization. These reactions naturally are limited to mental capacity, intellectual horizon and depth of the reactors. But at the same time, they need an ideological background to feed the mental worlds of these people. Hence, while we witness the genesis of an “anti-global” stance failing to detach itself from the classical left line in the West, politicized movements reducing Islam to an ideological envisagement are seen in the East. However, there is a significant nuance between these two forms of reactions from the point of view of identity: As leftism is a political identity based on how others perceive you, being a Muslim is a cultural identity functionalizing as a form of identifying and introducing the self. In other words, leftism requires our internalization as “leftists” by others; however, the state of being a Muslim does not need the approval of a third person as is valid in all religions. That’s why when differences arise among Muslims, none of the groups can be excluded from Islam although some of them claim they are the only “genuine Muslims.” The only thing that can be said is that differing understandings of being a Muslim exist. Hence, in order to grasp the nature of a religious identity at any time in history requires a meticulous analysis of the mental diversity between people who adopt this identity through their own free will. Today, we can see forms of democratic and fascist-like conservatism side by side in the Christian world and still accept both as “Christian.” Similarly, we need to absorb the fact that Muslims as well perceive their own religion through differing mentalities and that’s why they produce differing approaches and policies. But this seems difficult for some Muslims…As a matter of fact, even Kerim Balci, who says, “not every act by every Muslim is necessarily Islamic,” interprets the issue as follows: “I am not saying that terrorists cannot spring up from amongst Muslims. Instead, all I am saying is, if such people emerge, they become non-Muslims.” This surprising slackening needs to be focused upon. That is to say, you will determine what being a genuine Muslim means based on your own interpretation and assessment and later haphazardly exclude others from the religion because of their ideas and acts. All right then. But what if another Muslim claims he/she has the same right? At this point, a second slackening like, “The Koran tells us what being a genuine Muslim means,” also does not sound like a saver. Because if what the Holy Text says had been crystal clear for human beings, there would not have been no debates or sectarian divisions in any religion. In short, as long as the Holy Texts have to be grasped and realized by human beings, they will always require a subjective interpretation and that’s why no one’s interpretation will be ontologically dominant over that of another person. This means Muslims who commit violent acts do not become non-Muslims. They are also Muslims but have authoritarian mentalities. They perceive life as a conflict area, think that the end justifies the means and believe that practicing violence means seeking remedy, even purifying the self. I don’t know whether it is possible to say that Balci is far from this approach. He did not only manipulate my quotation but also metaphorically described Zaman as the famous Halil [faithful friend of Allah] Ibrahim’s [Prophet Abraham] bosom flowing with milk and honey, and me as a single hair dropped on this table. Moreover, his appendix in this newspaper did not mean, “Come and be whatever you like here.” That is to say, he meant I should go if I don’t adjust to their codes. If you really have a world of meaning with an authoritarian mentality, you will have difficulties in absorbing diversities. And excluding the “other” is always easy. But what will you do with those undergoing a metamorphosis while carrying your identity? October 28, 2005 Quote
Argus Posted December 13, 2005 Report Posted December 13, 2005 In order to see this, it suffices to ask the following questions: Which West, which Islam? What is meant by the West? Does it mean the West that gave birth to nationalism,racism, fascism, militarism, colonialism, imperialism The West gave birth to Imperiaism? I think the Chinese and Japanese might disagree, as might the Egyptian Pharoes who killed thousands just to build their tombs. The West gave birth to Nationalism? To Racism? Really? Isn't Slavery still alive and well in the Muslim world? Weren't Arab slave traders carting off blacks to their markets long before Europe showed any interest? Colonialism is nothing more than one nation conquering and ruling another people, which was hardly invented by the West. And Miltarism has been a human fixation among governments and rulers since the birth of the city state. And was facism really any worse than the Islamic conquests which forced everyone to convert to Islam or be murdered? What is meant by Islam? Is it Sunni or Shiite Islam? Is it the Islam of ulema, religious scholars or of Sufi mystics? Is it the Shiite tradition or the Khomeini interpretation? Is it Islam as a spiritual -moral creed or political Islam? Well, in the context of a "war of civilizations" it means the slavering hordes of drooling religious fanatics eager to kill for Allah in order to destroy the infidels. Those who want to build the EU as a “Christian club” challenge the EU as a project for permanent peace and democracy in Europe which started two disastrous world wars. (Do not the recent riots in France witness to this?) The world wars were not especially nasty as compared to other wars throughout history. The wars in the middle amd far east were worse in many respects, the slaughter more thorough and murderous. The only difference in WW1 and 2 is the technology made it easier to kill people faster. The main struggle in the Muslim world is between those who want to adopt modern civilization and those who resist it. Actually, the main struggle through much of the Muslim world is between those who want to keep things as primitive as they are, adn those who want to make it even more primitive. People aren't demanding democracy and liberalism in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, they're demanding Sharia To explain the conflict between Bush’s militarism and al-Qaeda’s terrorism as “a clash of civilizations” or “a clash between the West and Islam” is turning reality upside down It certainly is, because Bush's "miltarism", while the main opponent of Islam is not the only target. Islamism sees all non-Islam nations as enemies and seeks to conquer them in Allah's name. There is really no difference between bin Laden and Bush in essence, but the former may be more intelligent than the latter.” November 8, 2005 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which is why Bush is living in a mansion at the heart of power while bin laden is hiding in a cave. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
kimmy Posted December 14, 2005 Report Posted December 14, 2005 The church has historically been a teacher of morality and behaviour. Those who belong to a church are supposed to abide by its teachings in moral matters. In most cases that's fine with everyone. Churches generally teach and practice charity and love of ones fellow man. But there are other aspects of their moral codes that seem more problematic to people in modern society, such as telling its people that sex outside marriage is wrong, that looking at pornography is wrong, that the pursuit of ever greater amounts of money and consumer goods over all else is wrong. There is nothing essentially wrong with this. They are speaking out on subjects they believe in. Since they have no power to affectively change anything except people's opinions I see no reason to suggest their opinions be excluded from public discourse as though somehow their religious origin taints them and makes them unacceptable. I mean, who else, however biased, however wild their opinion, are we suggesting should not enjoy the right to make they or their organizations opinion known on economic and moral issues? No one. And I don't disagree with any of that. What I object to is when the church undertakes to impose its values on science or academics (for instance) -- for the most part Christians have recognized that allowing people to pursue knowledge is important to our continued well-being as a society. And when you look around the world at times and places where people could get sentenced to death if they angered the politburo or the bishop or the imam with ideas that challenged conventional thinking, the overall pattern is probably pretty similar. If you wipe out your best minds or drive them away, you fail before very long. You become weaker or poorer, or your enemies become stronger or richer. And, oddly, none of those who are outraged when churches call for retention of same sex marriage are upset when churches criticise the government for not spending more money on the poor. Nope. This is more a matter of "I don't like what you say so you shouldn't say it". And while I'm no great religious believer I do strongly support everyone's freedom to speak their mind. I have no objection at all to religious people speaking in favor of values they hold dear. Traditional families, the virtue of charity, whatever else. I'm not as big a fan when they try to become active in politics to enforce their beliefs onto others who might not subscribe to their philosophies. If you track back to my first message in this thread, I did not say "the church needs to STFU." What I said was "Progress, in the west, has come only when the church has been made to STFU and MYOB in spheres of science and politics and commerce." Talk about virtues and families and morals, but don't talk about astronomy or quantum mechanics or assassinating Hugo Chavez. There are fields of human endeavor that don't need input from the church. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Hasan Ali Tokuqin Posted December 14, 2005 Author Report Posted December 14, 2005 From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/1167 Debate: Islam and Democracy by Daniel Pipes PBS "Wide Angle" July 15, 2003 In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, many individuals have come to the conclusion that the lack of democracy in some Muslim countries has contributed to the spread of Islamic extremism and poses a continued threat to global stability. With the United States actively attempting to establish democracy in a Muslim nation -- Iraq -- we invited two scholars to discuss several issues related to the compatibility of Islam and democracy. Participant's Bios Dr. Muqtedar Khan Dr. Muqtedar Khan is the Chair of the Department of Political Science and Director of International Studies at Adrian College in Michigan. He is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He is the author of AMERICAN MUSLIMS: BRIDGING FAITH AND FREEDOM (Amana, 2002) and JIHAD FOR JERUSALEM: IDENTITY AND STRATEGY IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS (forthcoming from Praeger, 2004). He is a fellow of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy and the Vice President of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists. He earned his Ph.D. in international relations, political philosophy, and Islamic political thought from Georgetown University in May 2000. Dr. Khan's column has appeared in: THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, NEWSWEEK (Arabic), THE GLOBALIST, NEW YORK POST, NEWSDAY, ARIZONA TRIBUNE, DULUTH NEWS TRIBUNE, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH (London), THE SUN (UK), AL AHRAM (EGYPT), AL JAZEERAH, DAWN (PAKISTAN), JAKARTA POST, JORDAN TIMES, MANILA TIMES, OUTLOOK INDIA, PALESTINE TIMES, CALGARY HERALD, THE DAILY TELEGRAM (MI), SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, DETROIT FREE PRESS, DETROIT NEWS, WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS, MUSLIM DEMOCRAT, Iviews.com, THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY, ISLAMIC HORIZONS, THE MESSAGE, ptimes.com, Progressive.org, Theglobalist.com, fpif.org, Freerepublic.com, MiddleEast Online, Beliefnet.com, ARABIES TRENDS, AL-MUSTAQBAL, SAUDI GAZETTE, and many other periodicals worldwide. Dr. Daniel Pipes Daniel Pipes is Director of the Middle East Forum and a prize-winning columnist for the NEW YORK POST and the JERUSALEM POST. His latest book is MILITANT ISLAM REACHES AMERICA, published by W. W. Norton in late 2002. His Web site, DanielPipes.org, offers an archive and a chance to sign up to receive his new materials as they appear. He received his A.B. (1971) and Ph.D. (1978) from Harvard University, both in history. He spent six years studying abroad, including three years in Egypt. Mr. Pipes speaks French and reads Arabic and German. He has taught at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the U.S. Naval War College. He has served in various capacities at the Departments of State and Defense, including vice chairman of the presidentially appointed Fulbright Board of Foreign Scholarships. Mr. Pipes frequently discusses current issues on television, appearing on such U.S. programs as ABC WORLD NEWS, CBS REPORTS, CROSSFIRE, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, NEWSHOUR WITH JIM LEHRER, NIGHTLINE, O'REILLY FACTOR, and THE TODAY SHOW. He has appeared on leading television networks around the globe, including the BBC and Al-Jazeera. Mr. Pipes has published in such magazines as the ATLANTIC MONTHLY, COMMENTARY, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HARPER'S, NATIONAL REVIEW, NEW REPUBLIC, and THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Many newspapers carry his articles, including the LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL,WASHINGTON POST, and another 90 dailies, plus hundreds of Web sites. His writings have been translated into 18 languages, and he has lectured in 25 countries. Islam and Democracy The lack of democracy in many Muslim nations around the world gained greater public attention in the West following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As a result, some individuals have come to the conclusion that Islam and democracy are essentially incompatible. What is your view? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: The debate about the compatibility of Islam and democracy is much older. We established the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy in 1998 for the explicit purpose of showing the compatibility of Islam and democracy. According to recent Pew Research studies and a survey by Pippa Norris (Harvard) and Ron Inglehart (University of Michigan), an overwhelming majority of Muslims everywhere would like to have democracy. Today, many Muslim countries are in various stages of democratization, for example, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan. Nearly 800 million out of 1.4 billion Muslims live in democracies, and unlike the U.S., four Muslim nations have or had women heads of government. Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan have elected women to power, and Iran has a woman vice president. I am convinced that it is just a matter of time before the entire Muslim world democratizes. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: Unfortunately, Professor Khan has ducked the question, which is whether Islam and democracy are essentially incompatible, not whether Muslims prefer democracy. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: History is full of surprises. As late as 1892, the German was described as an "obscure and impractical dreamer." As late as the 1960s, it was said that "Jews do not fight." Confucianism was long thought to be inimical to economic growth. In other words, just because something seems obvious today does not mean it will be true tomorrow. Muslims today groan under dictatorships, but one day could be model democrats. Further, Islam can be interpreted many ways, and there is nothing about it that immutably contradicts democracy. That said, deep and extensive changes will have to precede such changes. Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: I agree there will have to be deep and extensive changes within the Muslim world and in U.S. relations with the Muslim world. What we can do to hasten this process is to ensure that our government stops supporting, financing, and legitimizing dictatorships and monarchies in the Muslim world. We will also have to recognize that democracy in the Muslim world will mean that we will have to contend with Muslim public opinion more seriously. Democracratization will probably mean that Muslim governments will be more interested in advancing the wishes of their own people (as in the case of Turkey and its reluctance to support the U.S. in the war against Iraq), but we should be ready to accept this as a necessary consequence of democracy. As we know, the alternative is extremely undesirable to all. Sharia Law In Muslim nations advocates for the implementation of Sharia (Islamic) law believe it will establish a more just society, where crime would be nonexistent given the harsh punishments that the law imposes, including flogging, amputation, and stoning. Is it possible to give primacy to Sharia law and still have a democratic society? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: Most non-Muslim critics and often ignorant Muslim advocates of the Sharia (the Islamic Way) equate the Sharia to Hudud laws, the stringent punishments for fornication (flogging), theft (amputation), and adultery (stoning). The maqasid (objectives) of the Sharia is to establish social justice, equality, tolerance, and freedom of religion in societies. The Hudud laws are a tiny part of the Sharia. Some of these laws are not even Qur'anic; they are taken from the Old Testament, such as stoning the adulterer (Deuteronomy 22:24). Yes, I believe that when the Sharia is interpreted and implemented by educated, enlightened, and compassionate people it will establish social justice and coexist harmoniously with a democratic polity. But if uneducated, angry, and bigoted people take the law in their hands and presume to speak on behalf of God, then tyranny is the most likely outcome. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: Professor Khan confidently tells us that the Sharia as he understands it will "establish social justice and coexist harmoniously with a democratic polity." But this is argument by assertion. He has not provided any basis for this optimism. So far, the record in countries where the Sharia is applied -- Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan -- is less than encouraging. In this and several other answers, Professor Khan forwards the reformist interpretation of Islam that once was ascendant but now [is] little heard from. I wrote at length about this and the other two main interpretations (secularist, Islamist) in my book, IN THE PATH OF GOD: ISLAM AND POLITICAL POWER. Here is a brief description of reformist Islam, from a 2000 article of mine: "Whereas secularism forthrightly calls for learning from the West, reformism selectively appropriates from it. The reformist says, 'Look, Islam is basically compatible with Western ways. It's just that we lost track of our own achievements, which the West exploited. We must now go back to our own ways by adopting those of the West.' To reach this conclusion, reformers reread the Islamic scriptures in a Western light. ... "In case after case, and with varying degrees of credibility, reformists appropriate Western ways under the guise of drawing on their own heritage. The aim of the reformists, then, is to imitate the West without acknowledging as much. Though intellectually bankrupt, reformism functions well as a political strategy." Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: No: the Sharia harks back to a decidedly antidemocratic sensibility in everything from its emphasis on God's will (not popular sovereignty) to its privileging of Muslims over non-Muslims. For Muslims to develop functioning democracies requires that they put aside the Sharia or transmute it into something quite different from what it is understood to be today. Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: Dr. Pipes seems to contradict himself. First he says that there is nothing in Islam that contradicts democracy and then insists that Sharia is antidemocratic. Sharia is the essence of Islam. The Sharia is decidedly democratic. The reason for Islam's great record of tolerance and pluralism in the past is the correct understanding and application of the Sharia. Unfortunately, the recent examples set by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, and others are against the letter and the spirit of the Sharia and have given it a bad name. The Sharia is elicited from the Qur'an and the Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Qur'an advocates consultative governance and the practice of the Prophet, as enshrined in the Compact of Medina, treats minorities equally, and he governed by consent and consultation. Unfortunately, the underdevelopment of the Muslim world also includes a widespread ignorance of Islam -- even among those who claim to speak for it -- and this severing of Muslims from Islam is partially a result of colonialism. The key really is who, the ignorant or the knowledgeable, defines and interprets the Sharia. Secular or Religious State? In the United States the separation of church and state is one of the nation's founding principles set forth in the Constitution. Can democracy only succeed in a nation where there is a separation of religion and state? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: Secularism may be a desirable, but not a necessary precondition in order to foster state neutrality in a multireligious society. Consider the U.K., which is formally a theocratic democracy. The monarch is head of the church as well as head of the government. Changes in the doctrines of the Church of England are a matter for the British Parliament. While England is a theocratic democracy, India is a secular democracy; in England the government remains neutral, whereas in India government takes sides in communal violence. Recently, in Gujarat in March 2002, the Hindu ruling party, BJP [bharatiya Janata Party], was implicated in the massacre of Muslims. According to Human Rights Watch, the Gujarat government had ordered the police not to protect minorities. The key issue is whether states realize religious freedom and religious equality and not constitutional secularity. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: We generally agree on this one. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: The United States is the most secular and the most democratic society, suggesting a correlation between the two; but there are plenty of examples of countries with established religions, starting with the United Kingdom and ending with Israel, that also have fully functioning democracies. So, no, secularism is not a prerequisite. Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: I am not sure whether the U.S. is more secular than, say, France and Canada or even Iraq under Saddam; after all, we have a president who believes in "faith-based initiatives" and has Bible sessions in the White House. We have also had Christian mullahs running for president (Jesse Jackson and Pat Robertson). The federal government employs thousands of chaplains and actually provides religious services. America is a very religious state, and the Christian Right is a major political force and Christian values (on, say, abortion, gay unions) do shape the political landscape. American politics is not entirely secular. But yes, there are constitutional limits imposed by a Jeffersonian reading of the First Amendment on the fraternity of state and religion. Having said that, I agree with Dr. Pipes that secularism is not a necessary condition for democracy. Individual Rights In a western democracy such as the United States, government is instituted in order to protect individual rights. Does Islam support values and structures that are incompatible with safeguarding individual rights? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: Islamic legal systems were articulated in the Middle Ages before the advent of the all-powerful centralized state, which necessitates constitutional protection of rights from state power. Modern Islamic law can derive individual rights (see the Universal Declaration of Islamic Human Rights) from Islamic sources. For example, the Qur'anic verse "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) can function as the Islamic equivalent of the American First Amendment. M. H. Kamali, in two brilliant books, FREEDOM, EQUALITY AND JUSTICE IN ISLAM (ITS, 2002) and THE DIGNITY OF MAN: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE (ITS, 2002) demonstrates how individual rights inhere in Islamic sources. The focus of the Sharia is on social justice, and Muslim thinkers need to advance contemporary understanding of social justice that includes individual rights and guarantees equality, including gender parity. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: Professor Khan says that the Universal Declaration of Islamic Human Rights can be derived from Islamic sources, but in fact they deeply and extensively contradict each other -- for details, see Ann Elizabeth Mayer, ISLAM AND HUMAN RIGHTS: TRADITION AND POLITICS (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1991). The Qur'anic verse "there is no compulsion in religion" has nothing in common with the First Amendment: to take just one point, the Qur'an imposes the death penalty on apostates from Islam, something, last I checked, the U.S. Constitution does not do. This is the reformist apologetic for Islam (saying that it's just the same as what the West believes in) and it is unconvincing as it is intellectually fraudulent. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: The question assumes that Islam is an unchanging entity; but it has been evolving for fourteen centuries and will continue to do so. Islam as understood today tends not to be compatible with safeguarding individual rights, but that can change if Muslims are willing and able to rethink some premises of their religion. Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: I agree. It is problematic to treat Islam as a nondynamic concept and also to treat its civilizational manifestations as monolithic. Islamic law itself is very diverse and Islamic practices are kaleidoscopic. Nothing, including the understanding of what constitutes the Sharia, is frozen or static. Today, the Muslim world suffers from a deep sense of insecurity, largely from the West, which it rightly or wrongly sees as a force determined to separate Muslims from Islam. We have seen how insecurity can immediately undermine the protection of rights. Even the U.S., when insecure, severely limits individual rights. The passage of the Patriot Act in the U.S. -- the most powerful and the most democratic state -- undermines many rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. When Muslim societies will feel safer and will be assured that the West is not seeking to recolonize them or destroy their faith, I am confident they too will become more democratic and protective of individual rights. Recent Pew studies confirm that Muslims deeply fear the U.S., and this fear is heightened by the Bush doctrine of preemptive strike. When more secure, Muslim understanding of their faith becomes more liberal, as in Islamic Spain, and when insecure, Muslim interpretation of their faith becomes more conservative, as in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Promoting Democracy Although the government of the United States helps to promote democracy throughout the world, it has also continued to support repressive and undemocratic regimes in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Has this support hindered democracy from taking root in these Muslim nations? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: There are internal as well as external barriers to democracy in some parts of the Muslim world. Much of the Muslim world was under colonial occupation. It has yet to recover from the debilitating impact of exploitative foreign occupation. However, a large part of the Muslim world is democratizing now except for most of the Middle East. This region has become politically authoritarian and will need systematic reforms to trigger democratization. Muslim democrats must work towards reform and elimination of internal barriers. Until now the U.S. was a major external barrier to democracy in the Middle East. For example, in 1953 a CIA coup transformed a democratic Iran into an oppressive monarchy that resulted in the revolution of 1979. The U.S. has also supported monarchs and dictators, including Saddam Hussein, in the name of stability and freedom of access to oil. Yes, the U.S. has obstructed the flowering of freedom in the Muslim world. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: Ah, the familiar colonialism-made-me-do-it gambit. Professor Khan states that the Muslim world has "yet to recover from the debilitating impact of exploitative foreign occupation," but Nigeria won its independence 43 years ago, Morocco 47 years ago, Egypt 51 years ago, Pakistan 56 years ago, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia never experienced imperial control from Europe. For how much longer will the colonialism excuse be played? And then there's the Saddam Hussein canard: perhaps the good professor confuses the United States with France, Germany, and Russia? Their governments, not the American one, sold weapons to Baghdad. Professor Khan's reply, in brief, is laced with apologetics and inaccuracy. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: This raises the matter of so-called Middle Eastern exceptionalism. I believe the key difference here is an American one. Unlike other regions of the world -- Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, East Asia come to mind -- successive U.S. governments have been leery about promoting democracy in the Middle East, fearful of a hostile vox populi. The deposing of Saddam Hussein could initiate a new era in which Washington approaches the Middle East more in synchrony with its policies elsewhere. Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: Dr. Pipes is completely correct, and I appreciate his candor in acknowledging partial U.S. responsibility for the absence of democracy in the Muslim world. I am also hopeful that if Iraq were to be reconstructed, and if Iraq quickly established an indigenous and democratic government, even an Islamic democracy, it would trigger a strong impulse for democratization in the region. Already countries like Qatar and Bahrain are moving towards political liberalization, and even key members of the House of Saud have made appropriate noises about reform. Washington must not fail Iraq. A failure in Iraq will jeopardize the prospects of democracy and will increase anti-Americanism and further radicalize and destabilize the region. An Islamic democracy in Iraq will signal to the Muslim world that the U.S. is pro-democracy without being anti-Islam. Islam and Modernity Some scholars have argued that Christianity and Judaism have essentially come to terms with modernity, as represented by western pluralistic societies such as the United States, and don't view modernity as a threat. Is Islam opposed to modernity? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: This is a dubious claim. Do these scholars include Orthodox Jewish practices in Israel and the role of religion in Israeli laws such as citizenship when they make this claim? Do these scholars also show how the beliefs of the coming Armageddon and creationism are compatible with modernity? Modernity had repressed Christianity and to some extent Judaism through reformation, but Christianity is experiencing resurgence in the Americas and Africa. Modernity helped Europe colonize the Muslim world, but it did not defeat or repress Islam, and therein lies the difference. I believe that Islam is incompatible with modernity, inasmuch as modernity is opposed to religion. However, Islam has a built-in tradition of Ijtihad (independent thinking), which facilitates reform and reinterpretation. If encouraged, Ijtihad can help modernize and revitalize Islamic societies. Let us not assume that everything about modernity is good; the Holocaust, the two world wars, nuclear weapons, and environmental degradation are some of the consequences of modernity. Terrorism too is a modern phenomenon. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: That Professor Khan denies that Christianity and Judaism have come to terms with modernity, while Islam has not, again bespeaks that reformist apologetic. One striking difference in the religions concerns the "higher criticism" that Christianity and Judaism had to contend with in the late 19th century; this was a no-holds-barred scholarly inquiry into their origins, history, and sacred texts. As I have written elsewhere, "those two faiths survived the experience -- though they changed profoundly in the process"; in contrast, as a similar inquiry into Islam gains steam, the main Muslim strategy until now has been "one of neglect -- hoping that revisionism, like a toothache, will just go away." It won't. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: No, Islam is not opposed to modernity. Rather, it has not yet (with rare exceptions, such as the Daudi Bohras) begun the process of modernization. Here's how I put it in a recent article: "Five hundred years ago, Jews, Christians and Muslims agreed that owning slaves was acceptable but paying interest on money was not. After bitter, protracted debates, Jews and Christians changed their minds. Today, no Jewish or Christian body endorses slavery or has religious qualms about paying reasonable interest. Muslims, in contrast, still think the old way. Slavery still exists in a host of majority-Muslim countries (especially Sudan and Mauritania, also Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) and it is a taboo subject. To enable pious Muslims to avoid interest, an Islamic financial industry worth an estimated $150 billion has developed. The challenge ahead is clear: Muslims must emulate their fellow monotheists by modernizing their religion with regard to slavery, interest and much else. No more fighting jihad to impose Muslim rule. No more endorsement of suicide terrorism. No more second-class citizenship for non-Muslims. No more death penalty for adultery or 'honor' killings of women. No more death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy." Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: I think Dr. Pipes's conception of what "modernity" means is a bit unusual. First of all, slavery, as was practiced in America as an industry and as an economic strategy, was a modern phenomenon. Sweatshops and sex slavery, both are modern forms of slavery, and still benefit western consumers. Yes, slavery is terrible, but it is not just a traditional institution, it is also a modern one. Also, the allegation that slavery is practiced in many Muslim countries is an overgeneralization of a vestigial practice in remote and backward regions of the world. Most Muslims do recognize that the Muslim world has not fully modernized. As far as interest is concerned, many western economists also maintain that interest-free economies can be extremely salutary. Interest-free banking is an experiment in Islamic modernization and not antimodernism. The fact that Islamic banks are now worth $150 billion attests to their modern viability. I do not think that just because some Jews and Christians are abandoning their faith for material gains, so should Muslims. The use of terrorism by some is abhorrent, but struggling for freedom in Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, and fighting against genocide in Bosnia is, I think, a good thing. Dr. Pipes seems to suggest that Muslims should give up the struggle for justice and the Wilsonian ideals of self-determination. Modern Islamic Society In a discussion about Islam presented on the PBS series NOW WITH BILL MOYERS, author Fareed Zakaria noted that religious texts cannot be used as "blueprints for organizing modern society." Would you agree or disagree? Within a modern Islamic society, can religious texts be used selectively? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: I agree with Fareed Zakaria. Religious texts are not blueprints for any society; they are essentially answers to existential questions and articulate general universal principles of ethics. Unlike some contemporary Islamists who insist that the Qur'an is the constitution of the Islamic state, the Prophet Muhammad himself governed Medina by a social contract called the Compact of Medina. The compact did reflect Islamic as well as Judeo-Christian principles. Indeed, Islam is itself a Judeo-Christian tradition. The U.S. Constitution is an embodiment of Judeo-Christian values and the U.S. has eventually evolved into a secular, multicultural, and pluralistic society in 220 years, without doing much violence to that tradition. Can we have an Islamic society where barbaric punishments are not enforced? Most certainly. Stable and secure Muslim societies will not feel the need for identity politics -- demands for Hudud implementation is an exercise in identity manifestation -- and will work towards public good, and for that we need democracy in the Muslim world as soon as possible. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: I am impressed with this answer and especially with the statement that "Islam is itself a Judeo-Christian tradition," which is quite at variance with the Qur'anic assertion that Islam preceded all other religions, and that Judaism and Christianity are distorted versions of that ur-religion. I also endorse the condemnation of hudud punishments and the appreciation of the United States. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: I agree with Zakaria that religious texts can inspire, counsel, and guide on a personal level, but they cannot provide the specifics for figuring out how to modernize. Further, those texts that reduce the rights of women and non-Muslims can be reinterpreted. For example, as I explained in 1983, one group, the Republican Brothers of the Sudan, "distinguished between those passages of the Qur'an that Muhammad received before he became a political leader (the Meccan verses) and those that followed his ascent to power (the Medinan verses). In this group's view, the former defined the eternally valid principles of Islam whereas the latter were intended only for Muhammad's own instruction and therefore do not serve as a model for subsequent Muslim life. As nearly all the Qur'an's precepts are contained in the Medinan verses, this reasoning virtually eliminates the Qur'an as a source of commands." Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: While I agree that religious texts are not blueprints for building societies, they are the fountainheads of values and principles and not structures and processes. Before we start doctoring texts, we must understand what we are talking about. The Qur'an, for Muslims, is the revealed word of God. If we believe that the entire Qur'an is a revelation, one cannot follow it piecemeal. Islam is a profound form of worship through submission of the human self to the will of God. Submission by definition is not selective or conditional. Islam brought equality and dignity to all, including women, and that is undisputed. The problems are the current postcolonial hodgepodge of Muslim practices guided by widespread ignorance of Islamic principles in an environment of insecurity. The solution is Islamic educational reform, not deformation of Islam. Nevertheless, American Muslims have shown that Islam and modernity, Islam and democracy, Islam and pluralism are completely compatible. Yes, Muslims need to reform their understanding of their faith, but out of fidelity to Islam and not because Islam itself is anachronistic. Status of Women In the West, the image of the veiled Muslim woman has come to symbolize Islam's oppression of women. Do women hold an inferior position in Muslim society? Can equality for women only be fostered in societies governed by secular laws as opposed to Islamic law? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: In some Muslim societies, women's liberation is associated with sexual promiscuity and hence rejected. These societies have used the veil, specially the chador in Iran after the revolution, to reject modernity, assert Islam, and defend the traditional notion of family and family values. In the process, Muslim women have been deprived of the opportunities that women enjoy in most places. Islam came as a liberating force and women in early Islam had more rights than ever before. But evolving patriarchic structures have eroded the influence of Islam, and today women in many Muslim societies suffer as a result. But we must be careful not to generalize; Muslim women are indeed playing a prominent role in Pakistan, in the West, in Iran and Turkey, and in South and East Asia. Women continue to fight glass ceilings even in secular societies, and in that sense, the struggle for women's emancipation is a universal project. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Rebuttal: Whether or not women's liberation is desirable; whether or not Islam liberated women in 17th-century Arabia; the symbolic role of the chador in Iran -- however interesting these topics, they are unrelated to the question at hand, which is whether or not women hold an inferior position vis-à-vis men in Muslim society. Professor Khan would seem to lard his answer with such irrelevancies as a tactic to avoid having to acknowledge what is only too plain to see, namely that women do hold an inferior position in Muslim society. Dr. Daniel Pipes's Response: Of course, women hold an inferior position in Muslim society, as indicated by their lesser legal status, the power of males to make key decisions in their lives (whom to marry, permission to travel, etc.), their humiliating wearing of face and body covers, and much else. Two reflections: as with the democracy and individual rights questions, this can change. And there is a fascinating sort of Stockholm syndrome at work here, whereby Islamist women against all evidence insist that their religion empowers them more than their western counterparts. Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Rebuttal: Yes, women in Muslim societies are suffering from the patriarchic structures of traditional cultures. But it might be erroneous to blame Islam for this sorry state. Patriarchy is a universal phenomenon; millions of Hindu women in India live under similar conditions as Muslim women do. Until a few years ago, women in the West too were living under similar conditions. The present backward state of Muslim women is commensurate with the general underdevelopment of Muslim societies. Where Muslims live in a developed environment -- Malaysia, India, Europe, and America -- Muslim women do much better than their sisters in the Muslim heartland. Democracy in the Muslim world will ensure that along with political tyrants, theological tyrants too will not have the power to impose their narrow views on Muslim men and women. From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/1167 Quote
Hasan Ali Tokuqin Posted December 14, 2005 Author Report Posted December 14, 2005 When Islam Meets West By M. A. Muqtedar Khan, Foreign Policy in Focus Posted on February 17, 2004, Printed on December 14, 2005 http://www.alternet.org/story/17869/ After attending two back-to-back "international dialogues of civilizations," one in Doha, Qatar (Jan. 9-12) organized by Brookings Institution and the Emir of Qatar, and another at UNESCO in Paris (Jan. 17-19) hosted by UNESCO, Euro Mediterranean, and President Jacques Chirac, I cannot help but reflect on the promise and the politics of dialogues. In response to Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington's now infamous argument predicting a future full of clashes between civilizations, the world's liberals responded with a call for a civilizational dialogue. After 9/11, this call for a dialogue between Islam and the West has become even more urgent. The philosophical assumptions behind these dialogues are not too difficult to discern. Islam and the modern West share a common Abrahamic tradition and their foundational sources; Islamic law and philosophy and Western enlightenment philosophy have common roots--Hellenistic reason and Biblical revelation. The two civilizations have a common past and a common future, particularly in the light of strong economic relations between the West and the Muslim world and the growing presence of Islam in nearly every Western society. Because the future of the two civilizations is inseparable, any clash will be devastating to both, regardless of the asymmetry of power. A clash between Islam and the modern West would be like a collision between the present and the future for both. Islam is integral to the future of the West and Islamic civilization's reticence toward modernity is untenable. Eventually, the Muslim world will have to modernize, democratize, and recognize that its future, too, is interdependent. Neither the West nor the Muslim world can imagine a mutually exclusive future. Clearly, the long-term benefits of cooperation and co-existence are apparent to all except those who are quite obtuse and whose reason and good will is blunted either by their hatred for the other or by the intoxication that comes from power. For them, the clash is not only inevitable but also desirable, as they seek a future for the one without the other. Dialogues between the two civilizations help convince the undecided on both sides that there is hope and conflict is not inevitable. In the dialogue itself, one can convince the other that not all interests are sacred and not all positions are etched in stone. With a little more understanding, patience, and a willingness to recognize the legitimate concerns of the other, along with some compromise and much restraint, dialogues can bridge even the widest of divides. For those who believe in the common humanity of all and dream of a world where all can live in dignity and security, dialogues are necessary and the only means to resolve disagreements and disputes. Needless to say, I went to both international forums with hope, excitement, and anticipation. But I discovered that the promise of a dialogue can be so easily compromised, even subverted by the politics that underpin these dialogues or by those political entrepreneurs who seek to exploit them to score political points at the expense of advancing understanding. Bashing the U.S. and Islam The forum in Paris was entitled "The Clash of Civilizations Will Not Happen." Both President Jacques Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin argued that the clash of civilizations must not be allowed to happen. They expressed fear that the growth of terrorism and the undermining of multilateralism in the world was threatening peace and enhancing the prospects of a clash. The forum was apparently designed to underscore the common traditions between Islam and the West, but it actually ended up as a forum that rejected Islamic resurgence in the Muslim world and America as a neocolonial power. Some topics were clearly provocative and in keeping with the French attempt to position themselves as the primary balancer of American unilateralism. One panel was titled "U.S.: Common Enemy or Shared Ally?" But there was no panel designed to examine how groups such as al Qaeda might be contributing to realizing the Huntingtonian prophesy. Another panel on which I was a speaker was titled, "Is the Arab World Undergoing Another Colonization?" I have been a very vocal critic of George Bush's foreign policy, which I agree is often contrary to international law, international norms, and common morality, but the Paris forum was seeking to bring secular forces in the Arab world closer to Europe by positioning the U.S. as a new-colonial power seeking to dominate the oil resources of the region by force. Clearly, the objective was to paint the U.S. as an international villain and France as the international hero that is defending international norms, the multilateral order, and a champion of third world rights. As a result, I found myself as the only defender of America, pointing out to the audience that compared to Europe's history, American colonial ambitions are insignificant. As far as democracy and freedom of religion was concerned, I noted, the U.S. is streets ahead of the French, who even legislate what Muslim women can wear and not wear. I reminded attendees that the U.S. was, as former Secretary of State Madeline Albright pointed out, the "indispensable nation," and it was the U.S. that acted to prevent genocides in Europe (Bosnia, Kosovo) and not France. Finally, I had to remind Europeans that in spite of their pro-Palestine rhetoric, they had done little for Palestinians. Even the Palestinians recognized that if they were to get their independence, it would have to be through a transformed U.S. role. On the panels that discussed Islam, only those Muslims were invited who saw no role for Islam in the public sphere. As one of the voices advocating Islamic democracy, I was surprised to find myself in the audience as people who had done little or nothing on the subject discussed how secular Muslims alone--not any interpretation of Islam--were ready for democracy. The general mood at the conference was that there could be no peace or dialogue with Islamists. The occasional voice that advocated Islamic democracy was booed. The radical secular fundamentalism of France, in my opinion, will enhance rather than diminish the prospects of a clash of civilizations. Secular westernized Muslims have little influence in the Muslim world. Islam has become the dominant idiom of the Muslim world and the West must find a way to cooperate and co-exist with moderate/liberal Islamists who believe in democracy, tolerance, and pluralism, but within the Islamic rubric. French-style secularism is neither welcome in the Muslim world, nor in America, nor by a majority of French Muslims who now constitute about one-fifth of the French population. Between Rhetoric and Reality The Doha dialogue was orchestrated by the Saban Center for Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution. Unlike Paris, where the main players--Americans and Islamists--were conspicuously absent, the Doha dialogue focused on bringing in all key players in the ongoing struggle between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Academics, policymakers, former government officials, media, former military personnel, and a strong contingent of American Muslims represented the U.S.. The American delegation included former President Bill Clinton, Ambassadors Richard Holbrooke, Martin Indyk, and Edward Djerejian. The Muslim world was represented by former government officials, scholars, journalists, politicians, and key Islamists such as Professor Qazi Hussain, leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami and also leader of the opposition in the Pakistani Parliament, and Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, an important leader in the Muslim Brotherhood and easily the most prominent opinion-maker and cleric of the Arab world. The dialogue included open plenary sessions and several closed-door, three-hour workshops. The different formats revealed the extent to which political considerations on the part of all parties undermines the promise of dialogues. In open sessions, Muslim representatives focused on U.S.-Israeli relations as the crux of the crisis in U.S.-Muslim relations and sought to underscore the injustices that Muslims suffer at the hands of the U.S. and Israel. In closed-door sessions, representatives from the Muslim world acknowledged that political and even cultural reform was necessary in the Muslim world. Many were willing to concede that the Israeli-Palestinian issue could be settled peacefully. Above all, even the most stringent public critics of the U.S. were more cooperative and willing to discuss things openly in private. The American delegates tended to waffle publicly on most issues. They were often unwilling to discuss key complaints that Muslims had regarding U.S. foreign policy. While there was a plenary session dedicated to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the American delegations' discomfort on the topic was palpable. But in private, not only were many Americans willing to admit the insanity of the Bush administration's policies, but they also acknowledged the policy logjam that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute constituted. Many prominent Americans even acknowledged that perhaps it was time to rethink U.S. positions vis-à-vis the Middle East crisis. But the only public statement that everyone remembers is Ambassador Holbrooke's. At first, he refused to discuss the issue and then finally made one statement: "The U.S. will never turn its back on Israel." Many Islamists interpreted this as "no matter what happens, no matter what Israel does, the U.S. will continue to finance, support, and arm Israel." Until Bill Clinton came to the rescue, Holbrooke's commitment to Israel had subverted the dialogue. Some cynics concluded from Holbrooke's comment that perhaps he might become the U.S. Secretary of State if Democrats should win in November 2004, now that he had sworn his allegiance to Israel in public. On many issues, it appeared as if Americans and Muslims were public enemies but private allies. When not posturing for the consumption of respective constituencies, both arrogant Americans and intransigent Islamists were actually willing to negotiate, share their fears and aspirations, and really open up to one another. In public dialogues, the sources of divergence dominated. In private conversations, areas that constituted common ground were explored. One important development at the Doha dialogue was the realization by all parties of the potential of American Muslims as a catalyst for better communications and better relations between America and the Muslim world. Muslims from Malaysia to Morocco made it clear that they were looking toward American Muslims for guidance, support and initiative while dealing with the American establishment. Americans also began to realize that through American Muslims, America had an inside track to the Muslim world. The conference ended with an eloquent and thoughtful talk by Former President Clinton. Unlike some Americans who showed both ignorance and insensitivity to Muslim concerns, Clinton demonstrated not only a clear understanding of the underlying problems, but also great respect and familiarity with Islam, the Quran and Muslim issues. He was willing to acknowledge past mistakes, admit American limitations on key policy issues, and did not shy away from criticizing the Arabs, the Israelis and Americans for failing to resolve the Middle East crisis by now. Former President Clinton would make an excellent "Dialogue Czar," and the White House should perhaps take notice of this and appoint him an Ambassador-at-large to deal particularly with intractable conflicts such as Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, and North Korea. On the Virtues of Dialogue Sept.11 and its aftermath has exposed the underbelly of U.S--Muslim relations. The existing differences have been highlighted and exacerbated, while new ones have emerged as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Everyone understands that while security issues are involved, so are identity, cultural, religious and economic issues. Therefore, military solutions have limited purchase. The tensions between the two can only be resolved through economic development, political reform and cultural dialogue. The lesser the use of force, the better the prospects for a more amicable resolution to Muslim grievances and American insecurities. Dialogues such as those discussed must happen more often, and include more and more perspectives. They serve several useful purposes. Wars of words can sometimes help delay or even render unnecessary wars of guns. Familiarity with the other's fears and aspirations will help modulate one's own positions. While dialogues are most productive in an atmosphere of mutual trust and mutual willingness to compromise, they also can help understand and identify core political issues. In an era when misunderstanding and faulty intelligence can have devastating effects, dialogues can go a long way. Muqtedar Khan is a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, the Director of International Studies at Adrian College, and a regular contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus. Quote
Hasan Ali Tokuqin Posted December 14, 2005 Author Report Posted December 14, 2005 From Holy Quran: Men are superior to women (surah 2:228). Women have half the rights of men: in court witness (surah 2:282) and in inheritance (surah 4:11). A man may punish his wife by beating her (surah 4:34). A man may marry up to four wives at the same time (surah 4:3). A wife is a sex object for her husband (surah 2:223). Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to Islam (surah 9:29). A Muslim must not take a Jew or a a Christian for a friend (surah 5:51). A Muslim apostate must be killed (surah 9:12). Stealing is punished by the amputation of the hands (surah 5:38). Adultery is punished by public flogging (surah 24:2). Resisting Islam is punished by death, crucifixion or the cutting off of the hands and feet (surah 5:33). Fate decides everyone's eternal destination (surah 17:13). Every Muslim will pass through Hell (surah 19:71). Heaven in Islam is the place where a Muslim will be reclining, eating meats and delicious fruits, drinking exquisite wines, and engaging in sex with virgins (surah 55:54- 56) & (surah 52:17,19). Quote
Argus Posted December 14, 2005 Report Posted December 14, 2005 If you track back to my first message in this thread, I did not say "the church needs to STFU." What I said was "Progress, in the west, has come only when the church has been made to STFU and MYOB in spheres of science and politics and commerce." Talk about virtues and families and morals, but don't talk about astronomy or quantum mechanics or assassinating Hugo Chavez. There are fields of human endeavor that don't need input from the church. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would tend to agree with that. On the other hand, I am somewhat cynical when the Catholic Bishops decry the lack of spending on this or that poverty-aleviating program or project, as well. I can't think of any instances where the Christian Church really interferes or bothers itself overmuch about Science et al, except that idiotic Kansas situation where fundies and seculars fight it out over control of the school board every few years. There are specific instances, as well, where in the US some of the churches interfere with the use of embryos in science, but that is a clearly moral issue. Personally, I have nothing against it, or against cloning, for that matter, but others have different moral concepts (obviously mistaken as they disagree with mine) Overall, though, despite my discomfort with the very religious, and the fact I often find their nagging on social issues tiresome, I'd say the churches tend to be a positive factor in western society. At least today. I cannot say the same about the influence of Islam on the Muslim world. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
kimmy Posted December 16, 2005 Report Posted December 16, 2005 From Holy Quran:(...) Stealing is punished by the amputation of the hands (surah 5:38). (...) Hello, Hasan. You've posted a list of a lot of the things that tend to create a negative image when westerners think of Islam. I can only assume you were trying to spark a reaction or provoke some debate on the issue. What is the "Surah" section of the Quran? The interviews you posted (very interesting, by the way) says that the amputation as a punishment for theft was part of "Hudud" and seems to say that Hudud is not an important part of Islamic law. Can that be said of all of the "Surah" statements you posted? Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Response: Most non-Muslim critics and often ignorant Muslim advocates of the Sharia (the Islamic Way) equate the Sharia to Hudud laws, the stringent punishments for fornication (flogging), theft (amputation), and adultery (stoning). The maqasid (objectives) of the Sharia is to establish social justice, equality, tolerance, and freedom of religion in societies. The Hudud laws are a tiny part of the Sharia. Some of these laws are not even Qur'anic; they are taken from the Old Testament, such as stoning the adulterer (Deuteronomy 22:24). Yes, I believe that when the Sharia is interpreted and implemented by educated, enlightened, and compassionate people it will establish social justice and coexist harmoniously with a democratic polity. But if uneducated, angry, and bigoted people take the law in their hands and presume to speak on behalf of God, then tyranny is the most likely outcome. One can go through the Old Testament and find statements that cast Jewish and Christian scripture in a bad light as well, so I know not to judge the whole religion based on a few statements taken out of context. So, if you could, please provide us some context for the "Surah" statements that you posted earlier. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Argus Posted December 17, 2005 Report Posted December 17, 2005 US Archbishop Candid About Islamic Persecution of Christians By Gudrun Schultz WASHINGTON, DC, United States, December 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Archbishop Charles Chaput, of the diocese of Denver, broke free from politically correct restrictions to speak openly about growing Moslem persecution of Christians, in an address to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, of which he is a member. “Anti-Christian discrimination and violence seem to be growing throughout the Islamic world,” said Archbishop Chaput. “In the past several years, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and even Moslem-controlled areas of the heavily Catholic Philippines have all seen extraordinary acts of bloodshed against Christians.” The Archbishop expressed his concern over consistent lack of media attention given to acts of violence against Christians. “Three things distinguish anti-Christian persecution and discrimination around the world. First, it’s ugly. Second, it’s growing. And third, the mass media generally ignore or downplay its gravity.” Archbishop Chaput referred to media coverage of recent bloody persecution in Indonesia of the Christian minority, by Moslem extremists, as an example of media inaccuracy and neglect. “News reports tend to describe Indonesia’s violence as generically “sectarian,” as if Moslem and Christian extremists were mutually responsible. This is troubling and flatly false,” said Archbishop Chaput. “The bloodshed is overwhelmingly provoked and carried out by Islamic militants against the Christian minority. Over the past decade, hundreds of thousands of persons have been displaced and thousands killed in this anti-Christian campaign of violence.” The attacks referred to by the Archbishop included the beheading of three Christian teen-age girls in late October by Moslem extremists, on the island of Sulawesi, Indonesia. The Archbishop ended his address with a warning that localized acts of violence against Christians by extremists threaten relationships between Christians and Muslims worldwide, “something neither community of faith can afford.” Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Hasan Ali Tokuqin Posted December 17, 2005 Author Report Posted December 17, 2005 Surahs are articles of Holy Quran.They suppose to be revelations of God.The punishment forms belongs nacent years of Islam.They are old and out dated.I found this surahs-articles on internet, but you can check authenicty of them from traslations of Quran. Quote
YankAbroad Posted January 16, 2006 Report Posted January 16, 2006 Yes, but it also regards Christians as in error,So does the Jewish faith, with both of those religions deriding Christians as 'idol-worshippers'. You get back to me when Jews start blowing us up. Yes, as does Christianity. However, homosexuals are not arrested and killed in Christian nations.Some US states still have sodomy laws on the books, but the death penalty isn't applicable...like Saudi Arabia. In China,(not sure how they still view it)it is not admitted to exist, and criminal charges would fall under 'offensive behaviour'. There are a few such laws still on the books because no politician wants to be the one to propose they be taken off, not in the south anyway, but just about any time one is charged under one of them the law gets struck down. Nope, those laws are ALL invalid (in the USA at least) due to the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas. I find most organized religion to be less spiritual and more political. The obsession with gays being a prime example -- most Islamic clerics and Christian clerics will spend hundreds of hours and millions of dollars in alms campaigning against homosexuality (a fact of nature), yet spend zero time and money on most of the other things their faith condemns. Such a pick-and-choose approach makes organized religion less of a "creed to live by" and more of a sandbox to poke one's head in, to confirm and justify bigotries and beliefs which otherwise would have no rational basis. If one was to have the same beliefs a-priori, rather than with a "faith," he'd be viewed as dumb. . . it's the mystical aspect of "faith" which adds a veneer to what otherwise is patently irrational. Quote
arif Posted January 22, 2006 Report Posted January 22, 2006 Hasan, your dialogue is excellent, you didn't promote Islam as better than other faiths, merely pointed out its beautiful aspects. I believe Turkey has done well under secular government with religious freedom, I think other Muslim nations could learn from that. It's too bad some want to turn things into some sort of faith competition to the bottom. Someone said "Muslims regard Christians as in error." I don't, I'm a Muslim. We are aware of the problems of Islam, after 2000 years of interpreting scriptures in Christianity and 1500 of interpreting Islam, we should know by now that both revelation traditions can be turned into ugly things, do we want to go down the path of comparing all of the bad things to see whose faith is worse? Hasan sees the potential for Islam's movement away from fundamentalism, and toward a more enlightened expression and understanding of our faith. This enlightened perspective is not new, it has been there all along, as in Rumi below from the 12th century in Turkey. Jellaludin Rumi is an Islamic Sufi poet, who is now regarded as one of the most widely read poets in America, consider his beautiful interpretation. What is to be done, O Moslems? for I do not recognize myself. I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Gabr [Magian], nor Moslem. I am not of the East, nor of the West, nor of the land, nor of the sea; I am not of Nature's mint, nor of the circling heavens. I am not of earth, nor of water, nor of air, nor of fire; I am not of the empyrean, nor of the dust, nor of existence, nor of entity. I am not of India, nor of China, nor of Bulghar, nor of Saqsin; I am not of the kingdom of 'Iraqain, nor of the country of Khurasan. I am not of this world, nor of the next, nor of Paradise, nor of Hell; I am not of Adam, nor of Eve, nor of Eden and Rizwan. My place is the Placeless, my trace is the Traceless; 'Tis neither body nor soul, for I belong to the soul of the Beloved. I have put duality away, I have seen that the two worlds are one; One I seek, One I know, One I see, One I call. He is the first, He is the lest, He is the outward, He is the inward; I know none other except "Ya Hu" [Yahweh] and "Ya man Hu" ["O He who is"]. I am intoxicated with Love's cup, the two worlds have passed out of my ken; I have no business save carouse and revelry. If once in my life I spent a moment without you, From that time and from that hour I repent of my life. If once in this world I win a moment with you, I will trample on both worlds, I will dance in triumph for ever. O Shamsi Tabriz, I am so drunken in this world, That except of drunkenness and revelry I have no tale to tell. Jelludin Rumi The psalms, like my favorite Psalm 23 is also beautiful poetry from Christianity, and the great spanish Jewish poet Ibn Garibol, who incidentally lived in spain under muslim rule and enjoyed religious freedom and friendship muslims and people of other faiths. - words start wars, use them beautifully and we'll start peace. Arif this love is an ocean and there are no islands no land in sight (my little poem) ps Perhaps no single medieval thinker so represented the interweaving of the three Abrahamic faiths, as did Solomon Ibn Gabirol (1020-105 . A Jewish mystic who was a follower of the great Sufi Muhammad Ibn Masarra (883-931), he was scorned by his own contemporary co-religionists, though Ibn Gabirol’s works gained traction long after his death, and many of his works have recently been translated into English (on seven different occasions over the past couple of hundred years), German, French, Italian, Dutch, Yiddish, Latin, Persian and Arabic. Additionally, medieval Christian thinkers assiduously read him. His importance to this religion grew so strong that Guillaume d’Auvergne, the 13th-century Bishop of Paris, declared that the author of Fons Vitae (who was Solomon Ibn Gabirol, though this was unknown at the time) was “the most exalted of all philosophers.” http://p220.ezboard.com/frenseradioforumfr...opicID=48.topic Quote
Hasan Ali Tokuqin Posted February 4, 2006 Author Report Posted February 4, 2006 Ourselves And Islam By John Tyndall, Founder of British National Front www.spearhead.com At a time when almost the entire national focus is on terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists and the Western response to it, we make no apologies for devoting a large part of Spearhead this month to that topic. In a way, this issue has much broader ramifications than just those involving national security; it informs our attitude to a whole range of political, social and moral questions. The killing of thousands of innocent people in the attacks in the United States using hijacked aircraft was an outrage of monstrous proportions - in our eyes. That is to say, it was monstrous by all ethical standards known to Western, Christian peoples. But in the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists it was seen as a necessary and justified act. We say this, not to excuse or mitigate such an attitude, only to state it as a fact. It is a fact with which we have to live in this very complex world, however much we may deplore it. Liberals have great difficulty in coming to terms with this; believers in realpolitik, on the other hand, recognise it while not liking it any the more. There is of course a certain underlying hypocrisy in the liberal attitude. Liberals will repeatedly condemn the slaughter of innocent people in the attacks in New York and Washington, but they are ready to look the other way when it comes to the innocents now being killed in the raids on Afghanistan, just as they did when innocents were wiped out in the raids on Yugoslavia a short time ago - and as their predecessors did when German cities were fire-bombed in World War II and hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, were fried to death. Liberals are just as prepared as anyone to embrace realpolitik - when it suits them and when it does not go against "fashionable" opinion. Then liberals will protest that such killing is necessary and justified - a principle they would abhor when Islamic fundamentalists invoke it. Why they hate and despise us It is held in the mainstream media that Islamic fundamentalists hate the West, resent its prosperity and despise its values of "democracy", "freedom" and "human rights". All this is to a great extent true, but we should be careful about doing battle over these things. Resentment over other people's wealth and high living standards is an ignoble sentiment in itself; but when those who enjoy such wealth and standards are seen to be obsessed with them to the extent that most modern Westerners - particularly Americans - now are, and when there is evidence that such people are woefully lacking in any moral or spiritual dimension to their lives, it is easy to despise them for that. And so they should be thus despised. As for "democracy", "freedom" and "human rights", we have to understand, again, that the vast majority of Muslims belong to cultures that see things very differently, just as they see differently questions of life and death which determine attitudes to terrorism. To most Muslims, not just the most "extreme" or "fanatical", the Western Christian obsession with such things as the "right to life" is a strange and alien concept - just as the obsession with the "rights" of the individual as against the needs of the community. Muslims practise comparatively little birth control because they regard it as an obligation to posterity to breed children and continue the race, though of course "race" is not a concept they would accept in terms we understand - perhaps an indication that hypocrisy is not a Western liberal monopoly. To Muslims, at least, there are greater things than the right of the individual to do as he or she likes. Is their attitude to these things superior or is ours? There is no moral yardstick by which such matters can be judged because they and we live in wholly different moral worlds. Ultimately, human evolution will decide these questions by the verdict of who survives and who does not. At the moment, Westerners' prospects in the survival stakes do not look too rosy - not that most Westerners care; to them, survival is a purely personal thing - an individual thing, devoid of any national, racial or evolutionary obligation. Kipling knew Kipling understood these things, as best expressed in his lines saying that "East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." But today's liberals think they know better than Kipling. To them, the world is a gigantic parish and they its parish priests. People not benefiting from the glories of "democracy" must be force fed such things until they understand what is good for them. Women who believe it necessary to posterity that they give birth to children must be liberated from such out-of-date superstitions. This is the mission that the United States has taken upon itself, with Britain, as ever in the post-war world, scuttling along like an obedient poodle in its wake and at its bidding. We are constantly told by our lords and masters that, now that the menace of global communism is no more, it is militant Islam that threatens us, and that is why we must be ready to wage war against it. But does militant Islam threaten us because the Islamic militants seriously imagine that they can invade and occupy the whole West and impose their way of life on its peoples? Their leaders (if not all their multitudes)are much too intelligent for that. Men who can organise operations like the recent attacks on the targets in the US are not likely to suffer from such delusions. Or is current Islamic hostility towards us essentially a defensive response, that is to say a response based on a strategy that is defensive even if it employs tactics that are offensive, as often happens in war? We touched a moment ago just fleetingly on race, but it is at our peril that we leave the racial factor out of the equation. Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi caused a furore recently when he said that the world of Islam was "inferior" to the West. What Signor Berlusconi did not say - perhaps because he preferred for diplomatic reasons not to say it - was that it is primarily racial differences between the Islamic and Western worlds that account for those contrasts in standards that prompt such arguments about superiority and inferiority. In other words, if Western standards are superior it is not because liberalism, democracy and Christianity are superior, but because the peoples comprising the West have the greater racial aptitudes in the way of achieving the standards that they - that is to say we - deem important. Which leads us to the bottom line of this message: that the twain should not meet, that we should keep out of their world and keep them out of ours. Quote
Hasan Ali Tokuqin Posted February 8, 2006 Author Report Posted February 8, 2006 It's the Demography, Stupid The real reason the West is in danger of extinction. BY MARK STEYN Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:01 a.m. Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There'll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands--probably--just as in Istanbul there's still a building called St. Sophia's Cathedral. But it's not a cathedral; it's merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West. One obstacle to doing that is that, in the typical election campaign in your advanced industrial democracy, the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much all parties in the rest of the West are largely about what one would call the secondary impulses of society--government health care, government day care (which Canada's thinking of introducing), government paternity leave (which Britain's just introduced). We've prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones: national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity--"Go forth and multiply," because if you don't you won't be able to afford all those secondary-impulse issues, like cradle-to-grave welfare. Americans sometimes don't understand how far gone most of the rest of the developed world is down this path: In the Canadian and most Continental cabinets, the defense ministry is somewhere an ambitious politician passes through on his way up to important jobs like the health department. I don't think Don Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health and Human Services. The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths--or, at any rate, virtues--and that's why they're proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam. Speaking of which, if we are at war--and half the American people and significantly higher percentages in Britain, Canada and Europe don't accept that proposition--then what exactly is the war about? We know it's not really a "war on terror." Nor is it, at heart, a war against Islam, or even "radical Islam." The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us. There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it's easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in "Palestine," Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally. Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it's not what this thing's about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose--as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly. Which the smarter Islamists have figured out. They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there's an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default. That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism--is collectively the real suicide bomb. Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures--the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It's fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don't want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It's a quintessential piece of progressive humbug. Then September 11 happened. And bizarrely the reaction of just about every prominent Western leader was to visit a mosque: President Bush did, the prince of Wales did, the prime minister of the United Kingdom did, the prime minister of Canada did . . . The premier of Ontario didn't, and so 20 Muslim community leaders had a big summit to denounce him for failing to visit a mosque. I don't know why he didn't. Maybe there was a big backlog, it was mosque drive time, prime ministers in gridlock up and down the freeway trying to get to the Sword of the Infidel-Slayer Mosque on Elm Street. But for whatever reason he couldn't fit it into his hectic schedule. Ontario's citizenship minister did show up at a mosque, but the imams took that as a great insult, like the Queen sending Fergie to open the Commonwealth Games. So the premier of Ontario had to hold a big meeting with the aggrieved imams to apologize for not going to a mosque and, as the Toronto Star's reported it, "to provide them with reassurance that the provincial government does not see them as the enemy." Anyway, the get-me-to-the-mosque-on-time fever died down, but it set the tone for our general approach to these atrocities. The old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between the traffic light changing in New York and the first honk from a car behind. The new definition is the gap between a terrorist bombing and the press release from an Islamic lobby group warning of a backlash against Muslims. In most circumstances, it would be considered appallingly bad taste to deflect attention from an actual "hate crime" by scaremongering about a purely hypothetical one. Needless to say, there is no campaign of Islamophobic hate crimes. If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes. A commenter on Tim Blair's Web site in Australia summed it up in a note-perfect parody of a Guardian headline: "Muslim Community Leaders Warn of Backlash from Tomorrow Morning's Terrorist Attack." Those community leaders have the measure of us. Radical Islam is what multiculturalism has been waiting for all along. In "The Survival of Culture," I quoted the eminent British barrister Helena Kennedy, Queen's Counsel. Shortly after September 11, Baroness Kennedy argued on a BBC show that it was too easy to disparage "Islamic fundamentalists." "We as Western liberals too often are fundamentalist ourselves," she complained. "We don't look at our own fundamentalisms." Well, said the interviewer, what exactly would those Western liberal fundamentalisms be? "One of the things that we are too ready to insist upon is that we are the tolerant people and that the intolerance is something that belongs to other countries like Islam. And I'm not sure that's true." Hmm. Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people's intolerance, which is intolerable. And, unlikely as it sounds, this has now become the highest, most rarefied form of multiculturalism. So you're nice to gays and the Inuit? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of fellows like that, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti masochists. In other words, just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda, so 9/11 is greatly facilitating our surrender to the most extreme aspects of the multicultural agenda. For example, one day in 2004, a couple of Canadians returned home, to Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto. They were the son and widow of a fellow called Ahmed Said Khadr, who back on the Pakistani-Afghan frontier was known as "al-Kanadi." Why? Because he was the highest-ranking Canadian in al Qaeda--plenty of other Canucks in al Qaeda, but he was the Numero Uno. In fact, one could argue that the Khadr family is Canada's principal contribution to the war on terror. Granted they're on the wrong side (if you'll forgive my being judgmental) but no one can argue that they aren't in the thick of things. One of Mr. Khadr's sons was captured in Afghanistan after killing a U.S. Special Forces medic. Another was captured and held at Guantanamo. A third blew himself up while killing a Canadian soldier in Kabul. Pa Khadr himself died in an al Qaeda shootout with Pakistani forces in early 2004. And they say we Canadians aren't doing our bit in this war! In the course of the fatal shootout of al-Kanadi, his youngest son was paralyzed. And, not unreasonably, Junior didn't fancy a prison hospital in Peshawar. So Mrs. Khadr and her boy returned to Toronto so he could enjoy the benefits of Ontario government health care. "I'm Canadian, and I'm not begging for my rights," declared the widow Khadr. "I'm demanding my rights." As they always say, treason's hard to prove in court, but given the circumstances of Mr. Khadr's death it seems clear that not only was he providing "aid and comfort to the Queen's enemies" but that he was, in fact, the Queen's enemy. The Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal 22nd Regiment and other Canucks have been participating in Afghanistan, on one side of the conflict, and the Khadr family had been over there participating on the other side. Nonetheless, the prime minister of Canada thought Boy Khadr's claims on the public health system was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his own deep personal commitment to "diversity." Asked about the Khadrs' return to Toronto, he said, "I believe that once you are a Canadian citizen, you have the right to your own views and to disagree." That's the wonderful thing about multiculturalism: You can choose which side of the war you want to fight on. When the draft card arrives, just tick "home team" or "enemy," according to taste. The Canadian prime minister is a typical late-stage Western politician: He could have said, well, these are contemptible people and I know many of us are disgusted at the idea of our tax dollars being used to provide health care for a man whose Canadian citizenship is no more than a flag of convenience, but unfortunately that's the law and, while we can try to tighten it, it looks like this lowlife's got away with it. Instead, his reflex instinct was to proclaim this as a wholehearted demonstration of the virtues of the multicultural state. Like many enlightened Western leaders, the Canadian prime minister will be congratulating himself on his boundless tolerance even as the forces of intolerance consume him. That, by the way, is the one point of similarity between the jihad and conventional terrorist movements like the IRA or ETA. Terror groups persist because of a lack of confidence on the part of their targets: The IRA, for example, calculated correctly that the British had the capability to smash them totally but not the will. So they knew that while they could never win militarily, they also could never be defeated. The Islamists have figured similarly. The only difference is that most terrorist wars are highly localized. We now have the first truly global terrorist insurgency because the Islamists view the whole world the way the IRA view the bogs of Fermanagh: They want it, and they've calculated that our entire civilization lacks the will to see them off. We spend a lot of time at The New Criterion attacking the elites, and we're right to do so. The commanding heights of the culture have behaved disgracefully for the last several decades. But if it were just a problem with the elites, it wouldn't be that serious: The mob could rise up and hang 'em from lampposts--a scenario that's not unlikely in certain Continental countries. But the problem now goes way beyond the ruling establishment. The annexation by government of most of the key responsibilities of life--child-raising, taking care of your elderly parents--has profoundly changed the relationship between the citizen and the state. At some point--I would say socialized health care is a good marker--you cross a line, and it's very hard then to persuade a citizenry enjoying that much government largesse to cross back. In National Review recently, I took issue with that line Gerald Ford always uses to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." Actually, you run into trouble long before that point: A government big enough to give you everything you want still isn't big enough to get you to give anything back. That's what the French and German political classes are discovering. Go back to that list of local conflicts I mentioned. The jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you're not shy about taking on the Israelis, the Russians, the Indians and the Nigerians, why wouldn't you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Danes and New Zealanders? So the jihadists are for the most part doing no more than giving us a prod in the rear as we sleepwalk to the cliff. When I say "sleepwalk," it's not because we're a blasé culture. On the contrary, one of the clearest signs of our decline is the way we expend so much energy worrying about the wrong things. If you've read Jared Diamond's bestselling book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," you'll know it goes into a lot of detail about Easter Island going belly up because they chopped down all their trees. Apparently that's why they're not a G-8 member or on the U.N. Security Council. Same with the Greenlanders and the Mayans and Diamond's other curious choices of "societies." Indeed, as the author sees it, pretty much every society collapses because it chops down its trees. Poor old Diamond can't see the forest because of his obsession with the trees. (Russia's collapsing even as it's undergoing reforestation.) One way "societies choose to fail or succeed" is by choosing what to worry about. The Western world has delivered more wealth and more comfort to more of its citizens than any other civilization in history, and in return we've developed a great cult of worrying. You know the classics of the genre: In 1968, in his bestselling book "The Population Bomb," the eminent scientist Paul Ehrlich declared: "In the 1970s the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." In 1972, in their landmark study "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and gas by 1993. None of these things happened. In fact, quite the opposite is happening. We're pretty much awash in resources, but we're running out of people--the one truly indispensable resource, without which none of the others matter. Russia's the most obvious example: it's the largest country on earth, it's full of natural resources, and yet it's dying--its population is falling calamitously. The default mode of our elites is that anything that happens--from terrorism to tsunamis--can be understood only as deriving from the perniciousness of Western civilization. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." And even though none of the prognostications of the eco-doom blockbusters of the 1970s came to pass, all that means is that 30 years on, the end of the world has to be rescheduled. The amended estimated time of arrival is now 2032. That's to say, in 2002, the United Nations Global Environmental Outlook predicted "the destruction of 70 percent of the natural world in thirty years, mass extinction of species. . . . More than half the world will be afflicted by water shortages, with 95 percent of people in the Middle East with severe problems . . . 25 percent of all species of mammals and 10 percent of birds will be extinct . . ." Etc., etc., for 450 pages. Or to cut to the chase, as the Guardian headlined it, "Unless We Change Our Ways, The World Faces Disaster." Well, here's my prediction for 2032: unless we change our ways the world faces a future . . . where the environment will look pretty darn good. If you're a tree or a rock, you'll be living in clover. It's the Italians and the Swedes who'll be facing extinction and the loss of their natural habitat. There will be no environmental doomsday. Oil, carbon dioxide emissions, deforestation: none of these things is worth worrying about. What's worrying is that we spend so much time worrying about things that aren't worth worrying about that we don't worry about the things we should be worrying about. For 30 years, we've had endless wake-up calls for things that aren't worth waking up for. But for the very real, remorseless shifts in our society--the ones truly jeopardizing our future--we're sound asleep. The world is changing dramatically right now, and hysterical experts twitter about a hypothetical decrease in the Antarctic krill that might conceivably possibly happen so far down the road there are unlikely to be any Italian or Japanese enviro-worriers left alive to be devastated by it. In a globalized economy, the environmentalists want us to worry about First World capitalism imposing its ways on bucolic, pastoral, primitive Third World backwaters. Yet, insofar as "globalization" is a threat, the real danger is precisely the opposite--that the peculiarities of the backwaters can leap instantly to the First World. Pigs are valued assets and sleep in the living room in rural China--and next thing you know an unknown respiratory disease is killing people in Toronto, just because someone got on a plane. That's the way to look at Islamism: We fret about McDonald's and Disney, but the big globalization success story is the way the Saudis have taken what was 80 years ago a severe but obscure and unimportant strain of Islam practiced by Bedouins of no fixed abode and successfully exported it to the heart of Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Manchester, Buffalo . . . What's the better bet? A globalization that exports cheeseburgers and pop songs or a globalization that exports the fiercest aspects of its culture? When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is. "Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common? Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans. As fertility shrivels, societies get older--and Japan and much of Europe are set to get older than any functioning societies have ever been. And we know what comes after old age. These countries are going out of business--unless they can find the will to change their ways. Is that likely? I don't think so. If you look at European election results--most recently in Germany--it's hard not to conclude that, while voters are unhappy with their political establishments, they're unhappy mainly because they resent being asked to reconsider their government benefits and, no matter how unaffordable they may be a generation down the road, they have no intention of seriously reconsidering them. The Scottish executive recently backed down from a proposal to raise the retirement age of Scottish public workers. It's presently 60, which is nice but unaffordable. But the reaction of the average Scots worker is that that's somebody else's problem. The average German worker now puts in 22% fewer hours per year than his American counterpart, and no politician who wishes to remain electorally viable will propose closing the gap in any meaningful way. This isn't a deep-rooted cultural difference between the Old World and the New. It dates back all the way to, oh, the 1970s. If one wanted to allocate blame, one could argue that it's a product of the U.S. military presence, the American security guarantee that liberated European budgets: instead of having to spend money on guns, they could concentrate on butter, and buttering up the voters. If Washington's problem with Europe is that these are not serious allies, well, whose fault is that? Who, in the years after the Second World War, created NATO as a postmodern military alliance? The "free world," as the Americans called it, was a free ride for everyone else. And having been absolved from the primal responsibilities of nationhood, it's hardly surprising that European nations have little wish to reshoulder them. In essence, the lavish levels of public health care on the Continent are subsidized by the American taxpayer. And this long-term softening of large sections of the West makes them ill-suited to resisting a primal force like Islam. There is no "population bomb." There never was. Birthrates are declining all over the world--eventually every couple on the planet may decide to opt for the Western yuppie model of one designer baby at the age of 39. But demographics is a game of last man standing. The groups that succumb to demographic apathy last will have a huge advantage. Even in 1968 Paul Ehrlich and his ilk should have understood that their so-called population explosion was really a massive population adjustment. Of the increase in global population between 1970 and 2000, the developed world accounted for under 9% of it, while the Muslim world accounted for 26%. Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30% of the world's population to just over 20%, the Muslim nations increased from about 15% to 20%. Nineteen seventy doesn't seem that long ago. If you're the age many of the chaps running the Western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair's less groovy, but the landscape of your life--the look of your house, the layout of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge--isn't significantly different. Aside from the Internet and the cell phone and the CD, everything in your world seems pretty much the same but slightly modified. And yet the world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%. And by 2020? So the world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western." Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)--or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week. Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world. What will Europe be like at the end of this process? Who knows? On the one hand, there's something to be said for the notion that America will find an Islamified Europe more straightforward to deal with than M. Chirac, Herr Schroeder & Co. On the other hand, given Europe's track record, getting there could be very bloody. But either way this is the real battlefield. The al Qaeda nutters can never find enough suicidal pilots to fly enough planes into enough skyscrapers to topple America. But unlike us, the Islamists think long-term, and, given their demographic advantage in Europe and the tone of the emerging Muslim lobby groups there, much of what they're flying planes into buildings for they're likely to wind up with just by waiting a few more years. The skyscrapers will be theirs; why knock 'em over? The latter half of the decline and fall of great civilizations follows a familiar pattern: affluence, softness, decadence, extinction. You don't notice yourself slipping through those stages because usually there's a seductive pol on hand to provide the age with a sly, self-deluding slogan--like Bill Clinton's "It's about the future of all our children." We on the right spent the 1990s gleefully mocking Mr. Clinton's tedious invocation, drizzled like syrup over everything from the Kosovo war to highway appropriations. But most of the rest of the West can't even steal his lame bromides: A society that has no children has no future. Permanence is the illusion of every age. In 1913, no one thought the Russian, Austrian, German and Turkish empires would be gone within half a decade. Seventy years on, all those fellows who dismissed Reagan as an "amiable dunce" (in Clark Clifford's phrase) assured us the Soviet Union was likewise here to stay. The CIA analysts' position was that East Germany was the ninth biggest economic power in the world. In 1987 there was no rash of experts predicting the imminent fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself. Yet, even by the minimal standards of these wretched precedents, so-called post-Christian civilizations--as a prominent EU official described his continent to me--are more prone than traditional societies to mistake the present tense for a permanent feature. Religious cultures have a much greater sense of both past and future, as we did a century ago, when we spoke of death as joining "the great majority" in "the unseen world." But if secularism's starting point is that this is all there is, it's no surprise that, consciously or not, they invest the here and now with far greater powers of endurance than it's ever had. The idea that progressive Euro-welfarism is the permanent resting place of human development was always foolish; we now know that it's suicidally so. To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted. The CIA is predicting the EU will collapse by 2020. Given that the CIA's got pretty much everything wrong for half a century, that would suggest the EU is a shoo-in to be the colossus of the new millennium. But even a flop spook is right twice a generation. If anything, the date of EU collapse is rather a cautious estimate. It seems more likely that within the next couple of European election cycles, the internal contradictions of the EU will manifest themselves in the usual way, and that by 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on American network news every night. Even if they avoid that, the idea of a childless Europe ever rivaling America militarily or economically is laughable. Sometime this century there will be 500 million Americans, and what's left in Europe will either be very old or very Muslim. Japan faces the same problem: Its population is already in absolute decline, the first gentle slope of a death spiral it will be unlikely ever to climb out of. Will Japan be an economic powerhouse if it's populated by Koreans and Filipinos? Very possibly. Will Germany if it's populated by Algerians? That's a trickier proposition. Best-case scenario? The Continent winds up as Vienna with Swedish tax rates. Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner--and we're already seeing a drift in that direction. In July 2003, speaking to the U.S. Congress, Tony Blair remarked: "As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?" Excellent question. Britannia will never again wield the unrivalled power she enjoyed at her imperial apogee, but the Britannic inheritance endures, to one degree or another, in many of the key regional players in the world today--Australia, India, South Africa--and in dozens of island statelets from the Caribbean to the Pacific. If China ever takes its place as an advanced nation, it will be because the People's Republic learns more from British Hong Kong than Hong Kong learns from the Little Red Book. And of course the dominant power of our time derives its political character from 18th-century British subjects who took English ideas a little further than the mother country was willing to go. A decade and a half after victory in the Cold War and end-of-history triumphalism, the "what do you leave behind?" question is more urgent than most of us expected. "The West," as a concept, is dead, and the West, as a matter of demographic fact, is dying. What will London--or Paris, or Amsterdam--be like in the mid-'30s? If European politicians make no serious attempt this decade to wean the populace off their unsustainable 35-hour weeks, retirement at 60, etc., then to keep the present level of pensions and health benefits the EU will need to import so many workers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way to majority Muslim by 2035. As things stand, Muslims are already the primary source of population growth in English cities. Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character? This ought to be the left's issue. I'm a conservative--I'm not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I'm with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant? Who, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West's collapsed birthrates? Even if one were to take the optimistic view that Europe will be able to resist the creeping imposition of Sharia currently engulfing Nigeria, it remains the case that the Muslim world is not notable for setting much store by "a woman's right to choose," in any sense. I watched that big abortion rally in Washington in 2004, where Ashley Judd and Gloria Steinem were cheered by women waving "Keep your Bush off my bush" placards, and I thought it was the equivalent of a White Russian tea party in 1917. By prioritizing a "woman's right to choose," Western women are delivering their societies into the hands of fellows far more patriarchal than a 1950s sitcom dad. If any of those women marching for their "reproductive rights" still have babies, they might like to ponder demographic realities: A little girl born today will be unlikely, at the age of 40, to be free to prance around demonstrations in Eurabian Paris or Amsterdam chanting "Hands off my bush!" Just before the 2004 election, that eminent political analyst Cameron Diaz appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show to explain what was at stake: "Women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. . . . If you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body," she advised Oprah's viewers, "then you should vote." Poor Cameron. A couple of weeks later, the scary people won. She lost all rights to her body. Unlike Alec Baldwin, she couldn't even move to France. Her body was grounded in Terminal D. But, after framing the 2004 presidential election as a referendum on the right to rape, Miss Diaz might be interested to know that men enjoy that right under many Islamic legal codes around the world. In his book "The Empty Cradle," Philip Longman asks: "So where will the children of the future come from? Increasingly they will come from people who are at odds with the modern world. Such a trend, if sustained, could drive human culture off its current market-driven, individualistic, modernist course, gradually creating an anti-market culture dominated by fundamentalism--a new Dark Ages." Bottom line for Cameron Diaz: There are worse things than John Ashcroft out there. Mr. Longman's point is well taken. The refined antennae of Western liberals mean that whenever one raises the question of whether there will be any Italians living in the geographical zone marked as Italy a generation or three hence, they cry, "Racism!" To fret about what proportion of the population is "white" is grotesque and inappropriate. But it's not about race, it's about culture. If 100% of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy, it doesn't matter whether 70% of them are "white" or only 5% are. But if one part of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy and the other doesn't, then it becomes a matter of great importance whether the part that does is 90% of the population or only 60%, 50%, 45%. Since the president unveiled the so-called Bush Doctrine--the plan to promote liberty throughout the Arab world--innumerable "progressives" have routinely asserted that there's no evidence Muslims want liberty and, indeed, that Islam is incompatible with democracy. If that's true, it's a problem not for the Middle East today but for Europe the day after tomorrow. According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah--in the United Kingdom. If a population "at odds with the modern world" is the fastest-breeding group on the planet--if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions--how safe a bet is the survival of the "modern world"? Not good. "What do you leave behind?" asked Tony Blair. There will only be very few and very old ethnic Germans and French and Italians by the midpoint of this century. What will they leave behind? Territories that happen to bear their names and keep up some of the old buildings? Or will the dying European races understand that the only legacy that matters is whether the peoples who will live in those lands after them are reconciled to pluralist, liberal democracy? It's the demography, stupid. And, if they can't muster the will to change course, then "What do you leave behind?" is the only question that matters. Mr. Steyn is a syndicated columnist and theater critic for The New Criterion, in whose January issue this article appears. Quote
piercj2 Posted March 8, 2006 Report Posted March 8, 2006 It is hard to respect Islam even as a religion now days. I know there are some moderate beleivers out there who have relatively rationabl beleifs. But when you have entire countries that are predomanitly Islamic constantly fighting, and blowing themselves and others up, it is just ridiculous. A whole nation of people become outraged by a simple cartoon, and think it is ok to kill people of different faiths, and eachother. Utterly ridiculous. If the doctrine (Koran) was truly sound, it would not have brainwashed people this bad all the way into the 21st century Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.