Please feel free to move this topic to a more appropriate forum.
I’ve been reading many of the threads regarding aspects of Islam (especialy “Ask the Muslim Guy”), and I’m curious if other dopers had heard of a book entitled “Why I Am Not a Muslim” by Ibn Warraq (here’s a [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ibn_al-rawandi/review.html]link]( [url) for a review of the text.
The reason for bringing this book to the attention of others is the many comments by others stating that Islam is not an inherently violent religion. Likewise, the many comments that the Islam esposued by the Taliban and other radical groups is a misinterpretation of “true” Islam. What the book attempts to demonstrate is that Islam, by its very nature, is not a peaceful religion and that the so called radical groups interpretation of Islam is consistent within the framework of historical Islam (as Islam has been practiced, not preached, so to speak).
If others have read the book (or are at least aquainted with aspects of the author’s criticism of Islam), I would be interested in hearing their views. Partly, because I think it has some relevance to this [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=90732]thread]( [url), but also to whether or not the author’s views have some merit.
Sorry, here’s the thread with the links corrected.
I’ve been reading many of the threads regarding aspects of Islam (especialy “Ask the Muslim Guy”), and I’m curious if other dopers had heard of a book entitled “Why I Am Not a Muslim” by Ibn Warraq (here’s a link for a review of the text.
The reason for bringing this book to the attention of others is the many comments by others stating that Islam is not an inherently violent religion. Likewise, the many comments that the Islam esposued by the Taliban and other radical groups is a misinterpretation of “true” Islam. What the book attempts to demonstrate is that Islam, by its very nature, is not a peaceful religion and that the so called radical groups interpretation of Islam is consistent within the framework of historical Islam (as Islam has been practiced, not preached, so to speak).
If others have read the book (or are at least aquainted with aspects of the author’s criticism of Islam), I would be interested in hearing their views. Partly, because I think it has some relevance to this thread, but also to whether or not the author’s views have some merit.
I think it’s an example of the old adage, “You find what you look for”. Lets be honest, there have been periods of violence and intolerance in Muslim history. There have also been periods of violence and intolerance in both Jewish history and Christian history. All three religions also have violent passages in their sacred texts. However, all three religions also have another tradition; one that stresses tolerance, the universality of man, and the development of ethical and moral behavior. Critics of each religion are prone to focus on the first tradition, of hatred, and proponents, on the second tradition, of love.
Islam, as a religion, has gotten a great deal of attention since September 11. Unfortunately, however, a good deal of false information is being spread. Equally dangerous, though (and in some ways more) is partial truth. While I know Ibn Warraq isn’t doing so, I have recently heard claims that “Islam is a violent religion” being made by those who belong to religious traditions which are themselves violent. There is a tendency to condemn others for those things you would forgive or rationalize away for yourself.
First of all, I want Captain Amazing to be right about this. And even if he isn’t, it still wouldn’t change the fact that all Muslims ought to be treated with compassion and dignity by non-Muslims. All of the time. No matter what. However…
What the linked article seems to indicate is that there is something FUNDAMENTALLY anti-non-Muslim about the KORAN.
And that the history of Islamic evangelism is NECESSARILY one of conquest, because that is what the KORAN mandates.
And that there is NO KORANIC TRADITION compatible with religious or intellectual pluralism of any sort.
As I understand it from the linked article, there is no notion of progressive revelation within Islam. If that’s true, then the words on the pages of the Koran have to be understood as the absolute, self-evident, infallible last word about what Islam does or doesn’t say.
The suggestion here seems to be that Islam is actually a totally different breed of cat. It’s true that lots of other religions have engaged in all kinds of chauvinism and wickedness while hiding behind the cover of God’s word. But the actual holy books of those religions DO allow for some idea of progressive revelation, and DO reflect substantial traditions advocating tolerance and lawfulness and human decency for others. Unlike – I gather – Islam.
If that is the suggestion that’s being made, then it denies the premise of Captain Amazing’s post, right from the gitgo. Is that the jist of the thing, Eponymous?
One hates to state what is patently obvious, but the best solution here may be to head for the Barnes & Noble, pull up a comfy chair and a decafdoubleswissmochalatte, or whatever, and give the Koran an actual in-person read-through.
Well, just sitting down with an e-copy of the Koran, I get:
Surah 2:62-Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
Surah 2:213-(All) people are a single nation; so Allah raised prophets as bearers of good news and as warners, and He revealed with them the Book with truth, that it might judge between people in that in which they differed; and none but the very people who were given it differed about it after clear arguments had come to them, revolting among themselves; so Allah has guided by His will those who believe to the truth about which they differed and Allah guides whom He pleases to the right path.
That’s just one Surah. I’m sure there are more. I mean, if you read the Christian bible, for example, there’s something fundimentally anti non-Christian about it. Jesus says something like, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father except through me.” and other passages like that that suggest that, if you’re not Christian, that’s bad. Judaism says that one of the fundimental laws G-d gave mankind was to worship Him, and that people who don’t, or who worship some other god have done one of the worst things imaginable.
I’m really not familiar with the Qur’an myself, but I have to echo andros: you could argue there isn’t really any Biblical tradition “compatible with religious or intellectual pluralism of any sort”.
The Bible calls for death without mercy for worshippers of false Gods, proclaims the Christian God to be the sole source of truth or salvation, and calls on Christians to remake all human thought in the image of their religion. You would be hard pressed to find any statement anywhere in the Bible which directly supports the idea of religious pluralism or freedom of religion. For much of its history–from the 4th Century C.E. to the 18th Century C.E.–Christendom was pretty much united (even when it wasn’t united on many other things) in believing that the One True Faith ought to be the Established Faith, and that heretics and infidels and blasphemers ought ultimately to be restrained by the power of the sword.
And yet, the vast majority of Christians today no longer hold that view, and would reject an interpretation of the Bible (including those passages) which supports it. So I guess the moral is, whatever else the Qur’an may say, there is at least Qur’an 2:256–“There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.”–frankly, I can’t really think of any Bible verse off the top of my head which explicitly says such a thing. Religion (IMO) is a human institution, and human institutions can change and evolve.
And specifically in the case at hand, I’ve read the Ibn Warraq articles (and those of Anwar Shaikh, another Muslim-apostate).
I find them not that much different from writings I sometimes spot in the SDMB, or over in alt.fan.cecil-adams, or in any of dozens of skeptic/atheist/“recovering-religious” fora, wherein some former Christian who has looked critically into it and come to the conclusion it’s all bogus will tear into the Bible and the Church with an intensity equal-and-opposite to anything Evangelical Fundamentalism can muster.
As to the alleged inevitability of fundamentalism in Islam, leading to the inevitable implementation of the more hardline chapters and verses – hard to tell. I’m sure Jerry Falwell would tell us that fundamentalism is inevitable in Christianity. I do worry, though, at the apparent invisibility (I don’t dare say lack) of a tradition of truly critical examination of the Koran and of the person of the Prophet and his Companions.
Just given the book’s title, I wonder how many parallels there are to Bertrand Russell’s collection of essays entitled Why I Am Not a Christian (which Russell collected over the course of a half-century).
I’ve read the book several times, and have just gone through it again, in fact. If you want to see interesting book debates on this, look up the reviews of it at Amazon.com.
My feelings: I got the book because you really need to read the strong “anti-” views on anything. They’ll tell you about the warts that others gloss over. There are things in this book that the other dozen books on Islam on my bookshelf don’t even approach.
Ibn Warraq’s premise is that Islam is inherently intolerant and essentially programmed to spread itself over the world. There may be verses preaching peace and tolerance, but these are abrogated by other verses in the Koran. Whether or not this is what was originally intended I have no idea, but I suspect that most people are not of this bent, and that for most people, Islam is a peaceful, tolerant religion. The terrorosts can, however, make their case by selecting their own verses from the Koran and its interpreters. I believe that you could justify an extreme case of Christianity or Judaism in the same way.
If you want another potentially incendiary book on Islam, look up Islam Unvailed.
Apparently Islam Unvailed is out of print. I know it used to be listed – I’ll check my copy to be sure I’ve got the title correct.
“Why I am Not a Muslim” is not at all like Bertrand Russell’s book “Why I am Noit a Christian”, by the way. Warraq took the title, but not the structure, of Russell’s book. It makes sense, too. Russell was explaining his objections to readers who are, themselcves, familiar with Christianity. Warraq realizes that he has to explain Islam as well as his objections to his audience.
I am glad to see that Captain Amazing has uncovered some magnanimous statements from the Koran. It’s very reassuring. I’m not a koranic scholar (nor do I want to be) but based on this evidence, I am happy to stipulate that Islam is not fundamentally pro-terorism.
I did want to respond to one thing has been said, though: Christ’s words are not freighted with anti-non-Christian bigotry.
To be sure, Christ makes exclusive truth claims (“I am the way, the truth, etc.”). But that’s the nature of monotheistic religion. If there is only one God, then that God is perfectly well within his rights to call the eschatological shots. The pertinent question is: What directives do monotheistic religions infer from their exclusivity? On that matter, Christ specifically, and the NT generally, are blameless.
What Christ commanded his followers to do was simply to proclaim the gospel to all people. He never said – or even implied – that the proclaimation of the gospel entailed violence or conquest. Moreover, what Paul made clear later was the fact that Christ’s finished work represents the extension of God’s OT covenants to all of humanity, also, without the suggestion that anyone ought to be compelled by Christians to believe.
So, whatever subsequent Christian people may have done in Christ’s name, Christianity itself is pretty clearly a big tent sort of religion; not necessarily in the sense that everyone will escape judgment (which is, in any case, exclusively the puview of God, and not the proper function of Christians at all), but certainly in the sense that salvation is available for anyone, without the threat of violence.
If we are going to distinguish between scriptural directives and human actions in the case of Islam, then we have to do the same for Christianity.
A more parallel case for the notion that Islam’s anti-non-Muslim rhetoric is not necessarily a sanction for wholesale violence might be made from the Hebrew Bible. There’s a great deal of smiting non-Jews in the Hebrew Bible, alongside an awful lot of stuff about how to fairly treat ‘the sojourner in your midst,’ etc. I guess the trick would be to determine the extent to which each religion views the smiting as tied directly to specific transgressions of the nations, and how much it views the smiting as a positive good in its own right. I don’t know. I haven’t given that one much serious thought yet.
It occurs to me that this is not necessarily the most democratic thing in the world to say, since the thrust of it seems to be that the objective truth of Islam has been made self-evident, and that there is a proper reponse to that state of affairs. As I have said, monotheism is like that, and there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with it.
But if what you’re focusing on is the lack of (human) compulsion in inter-religious dialogue, then John 13:34,35 seems like it might comfort you:
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
I suppose it could be argued that this represents only a narrow exhortation to love other Christians, and that it says nothing about the treatment of non-believers. Nevertheless, the implication does seem to be that the establishment of Christ’s kingdom has primarily to do with love. And that the appeal of love, rather than the self-evident-ness of general revealtion, or the threat of violence, represents the primary appropriate expression of Christian experience to non-believers. Compellingly un-compelling, I think.
You are assuming that for either Christianity or Islam, we can distinguish between the “human interpretations” and “what God really said”. The fact is that centuries of Christians from diverse theological backgrounds who wholeheartedly believed in religious compulsion or persecution to one degree or another also wholeheartedly believed their doctrines were in harmony with the Bible. None of them said “Oh, well, the New Testament clearly says we shouldn’t do this, but we’re gonna do it anyway 'cause we’re EEE-VIL!” They all firmly believed that what Paul made clear later and what Christianity itself pretty clearly entails is that they should do exactly what they were doing. Any verse which seemed to say otherwise–these are known as “apparent contradictions” in the trade–was just not being interpreted correctly. (For example, turning back to the Qur’an–that verse about “there is no complusion in religion” is “interpreted” by this Shi’ite author to mean that, of course you can’t force people to convert, but if they do convert through peaceful persuasion, they have no right to discard the True Faith, and so apostates, including those converted by peaceful persuasion, must be put to death if they persist.)
Now of course the majority of Christians believe it’s the “slay the idolaters” verses which need to be “correctly interpreted”. And they are just as convinced that God never said anything about killing heretics, as other Christians were (and a few still are) convinced that God never said anything about letting heretics live.
Is it a kind or loving thing to do to allow the heretic to fall into gross error and thus face eternal damnation? Is it not more loving to rebuke and correct him in this life, so that, whatever incidental and transitory distress he might experience thereby, he will nontheless be assured of eternal salvation and not eternal damnation in the life beyond the grave? (which is after all, of far more importance than our fleeting existence in this vale of tears). And even if that heretic is too stubborn to be saved, surely it is a loving thing to do to prevent his heresies from infecting others, more weak-willed, and leading to their damnation.
“He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” – Proverbs 13:24
Even a loving father must sometimes correct and discipline the errant child.
Got any other verses you want me to run through the Torquemada-izer? Remember–Anything you can de-Torquemada-ize, he can Torquemada-ize.
It seems to me that the entire premise of this thread is that it is possible to distinguish between interpretations and what a text actually says. I’m only suggesting that if we’re going to extend Muslims the benefit of the doubt – and we should – then we shouldn’t be following it up with some version of “…and anyway, Christianity is way more violent and bigoted that Islam…”
**
Simply believing one thing or another about a particular passage of scripture does not necessarily make it so. Again, I have understood precisely that to be the conclusion of most posters to this thread, where Islam is concerned. You’re right – of course – that appeals to misinterpretation can’t serve as a secret escape hatch for every exegetical difficulty. But that doesn’t mean that misinterpretation never takes place.
Beyond that, though, my point is that the people you’re talking about generally didn’t (don’t) even bother to base their justifications for religious persecution on any of the teachings of Christ. Rather, they based them on later theological additions to the tradition, political expediency and herd mentality.
**
Which “slay the idolaters” passages do you mean? I don’t have the entire NT memorized, so I could be wrong, but I don’t ever remember Christ saying anything about slaying anybody. As I said in an earlier post, there are passages throughout the Hebrew Bible that could be taken as “slay the idolaters” rhetoric. But, in view of the clear teaching – also evident in the Hebrew Bible – that ‘the sojourner in your midst’, etc. is to be treated justly and with compassion, it seems likely that those “slay the idolaters” passages in the Hebrew Bible are best interpreted as judgments against the nations for specific transgressions of God’s law, rather than an endorsement of violence for its own sake.
Isn’t it amazing that any and every discussion initiated about Islam invariably turns into a discussion about Christianity.
By the way, if anyone can find any indication of a call to arms in the New Testament for believers, or any indication of violence by Christians before Constantine in the 4th century and the corruption of Christianity by secular powers thereafter, I’d like to hear about it. MEBuckner and his minions fails to acknowledge the atrocities committed by unbelievers/atheists in the past two millenia, ascribing a Christian label to the power structures of western societies, including Hitler, in order to demonize the Christian message. Yet when anyone claims the founding fathers were Christian,he is the first to dispute the claim.
Well, the New Testament isn’t the entire Christian Bible, and it never has been.
There are two different sorts of “slay the idolaters” passages in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible: there are calls for extermination of entire nations, and there are calls for God’s people to adopt theocratic laws forbidding the worship of other gods.
The first type (e.g., Deuteronomy 20:17) are generally quite specific–certain groups, identified by name, are to be wiped off the face of the Earth. To the Deuteronomic list we could add the Amalekites (see 1 Samuel 15:3). Whatever we may think of them, there is nothing in any of these passages which gives blanket approval of genocide of “heathen” peoples, although it would certainly not surprise me if some group of Christians somewhere had used these passages to justify exterminating some group of American Indians or Bantus or something.
The second type of “slay the idolaters” passage is found in such verses as Deuteronomy 17:2-5 or pretty much the entire 13th chapter of Deuteronomy. These weren’t so much directed at the “heathens” as they were at the faithful, telling them they needed to stay theologically pure, by the use of the death penalty if necessary.
Now, the relationship of Christians to the Old Testament law is complicated. Pretty much all Christians agree that Christians don’t just follow the law–Christians can eat “unclean” foods, and they don’t generally slaughter oxen in their churches. But, what are Christians to make of laws like Deuteronomy 13 or 17:2-5? Are those laws still binding on Christians? Are the laws unable to bring salvation (that being through Jesus Christ), but should be followed in order to maintain order and provide for Godly justice? Are the laws not binding but, being ordained by God himself, would obviously make a good model legal code for Christians to consult when drafting their own laws? Or would attempting to use that legal code in any way be blasphemous, that legal code having been intended only for God’s Chosen People before the incarnation of Jesus Christ? Are Christian believers now the new “chosen people”, who inherit the old laws in some sense? Or are the original “chosen people” and the new Christian church two completely different things, with the original “chosen people” and their covenant still valid? If Christians are the new “chosen people”, and ought to follow the old law, insofar as it provided for justice by God’s rules, has the method of application of the law changed entirely? For example, where Old Testament Israel said “execute”, perhaps the New Testament Church should say “excommunicate”.
Some Christian somewhere has probably answered “yes” to pretty much all of those questions. There is no clear answer. Trying to fit together the various pieces of the Christian Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, has produced an amazing variety of branches, denominations, sects, and schools of thought, which differ about a bunch of different things, including the proper relationship between religion and government.
Understand, I’m not saying texts can mean anything we want them to mean. But it’s not like the Bible flat out says anywhere “thou shalt not kill anyone on account of what god they worship or how they worship him”. Also, in theory, if we could put a specific question to Paul, or Isaiah, or the author of Deuteronomy, or Muhammed, any of them would have a single answer. In principle, if we could interrogate any one of these people about what they thought, they would probably have a reasonably coherent set of beliefs about the world.
But they’re all dead. All we have are some of their writings–and in some cases, we don’t even know if all the stuff that’s attributed to them is really theirs, or what may have been added, and even in the case of what they really wrote, we no longer have the context in which they were writing it, and there’s no way to go back and ask for clarification. There’s no reason to think that Isaiah and Paul and the author of Deuteronomy and all the other writers of the things Christians call “the Bible” would all have agreed or given the same answer to various questions–there is lots of evidence that they wouldn’t have. But, many Christians believe that “the Bible” was all written by or inspired by or dictated by or shaped by the same God, which means that, to varying degrees, they must believe that all those people were preaching the same message, and any “contradictions” must be correctly “interpreted”. This inevitably gives the Bible a certain “inkblot” quality. What does the Bible say? Well, it depends on which parts you read the other parts in light of, and in what ways. grienspace: Wow, I have “minions” now? Are any of them hot babes in tight black leather outfits? And they’ll obey any command I give them, right?
I’m sorry…what was this thread about?
Oh, okay.
First off, I would hardly claim that atheists have never done monstrous and evil things. One point, “atheism” has no specific doctrines (beyond not being theism) to contravene. It would be absurd to say that anything–whether it’s defending religious liberty, or slaying the believers and the fidels–is “contrary to atheism”, except that “believing in God” is “contrary to atheism”. Now, if you want to argue that religious oppression (or eating pork, for that matter) is commanded by, or is compatible with, or is foribben by, or is permitted under some circumstances and forbidden under other circumstances by “secular humanism” or “Marxism-Leninism” or “Objectivism” or the writings of Robert G. Ingersoll, we could discuss it.
Yeah, I guess talking about Christianity is a bit of hijack. My point is, Christians need to be careful not to get too self-righteous about how awful and violent Islam is and how great and tolerant and loving Christianity is. Both religions have things in their foundational documents which preach violence and intolerance. Both religions have historically been repressive in various times and places–arguably both have been pretty unrecognizing of the concept of individual freedom of conscience (as Westerners now understand it) for much of their histories. Both religions have certain features in their theological orthodoxies–a belief in a universal and exclusionary truth, a belief in the need for all people to accept that truth, and a belief in judgement after death and hellfire–which I think can lend themselves well to tyranny. Right now religious freedom and individual liberty and tolerance for other points of view are certainly far healthier in most of Christendom than they are in much of the Ummah Islam. Historically, there have been times when Islam was a better and more enlightened place than the Christendom of that day and age. Personally, I doubt that Islam is any more “inherently” an imperialist and theocratic religion than Christianity is inherently an imperialist and theocratic religion. Christians have mostly changed and have generally abandoned theocracy and religious oppression. Many more Muslims still need to do so.
Oh, and one more time: The New Testament is not the entire Christian Bible. There were some people who wanted it to be that way, but modern Christianity is not descended from them.
Is it your position, then, that Islam is also an inherently violent and bigoted religion, simply because some people may employ Koranic passages to endorse terrorism?
You seem to be suggesting something about communication that – ultimately – makes communication inherently not possible. Namely, that what gets done with an utterance ought to be given interpretive primacy over what was intended by that utterance. If that’s your posistion on communication generally, then I suppose you can have it however you want it.
The fact of the matter is, however, that if I say to you, “My name is Bill.” and you look at me and say, “Your name is Harry.” you haven’t uncovered some additional significance inherent in what I said, you have simply failed to play by the rules of communication. The same goes for what you’re doing with, “Spare the rod…” “Spare the rod…” has nothing to do with killing people – either on its face, or in its context – no matter what kind of good (or mischief) you hope to accomplish by arguing otherwise. But I think you already knew that.
If you are willing to grant that intended meaning comprises the essential component of interpretation, then my point still stands: What’s good for Islam is good for Christianity. Just because people have committed violence in the name of God does not necessarily mean that they are reading scripture rightly.