Hi Irfan
Thank you for taking the to respond promptly, and to review my questions in due course. I will check the links you provide. I take your point about variations of expression within the same faith group, often they appear to be based upon culture and interpretation of the various holy books.
Yes, this is true within the Christian faith as it is within Islam.
I guess the underlying reason for my email and the issue at the core of my questions is to really understand the 'heart' of Islam.
Men (typically) have performed acts of torture, murder and violence in the name of both the Christian and Islamic faiths. (and also in the name of Atheism as well!)
When I look at the person of Jesus, as the founder of the Christian faith, he never carried a weapon, he submitted to the violence of those who opposed him, and offered words of forgiveness for those who killed him in his dying breath. It would be reasonable to conclude therefore, that those people who took up the sword and killed innocent people in Christ's name were not acting in accord with either his teaching or his life example.
When I consider the Prophet Mohammed, from what I read I understand that he led an army in unprovoked attacks against neighboring peoples, he is reported to have killed prisoners, and approved of assassinations. When I see Islamists performing terror attacks today, if what I have read about Mohammed is true, then they are behaving in a way that is consistent with his example, and I guess his teaching?
I ask these questions not to be provocative, but to understand how as a Muslim you rationalize these things about Islam and the Prophet if indeed they are true.As I said, we have helped resettle Muslim refugees and I employ an Egyptian Muslim as part of our small business. As his employer I don't feel I can ask him these questions.Thank you for your time.
Kind regards,
Brad
19/08/08
****
Hi Irfan
I have read both of the articles in the links provided.
The first one essentially proposes that our religious, cultural and political expression is made up from a mixture of influences, and that you cannot provide a 'one size fits all' label of 'Muslim' or 'Catholic' on any group of people and be sure to have clearly defined them.
Implicit in this approach is the notion that you cannot 'blame' all Muslims for the behaviour of (say) a radical minority.
To some extent this is true. I believe we all have a 'world view' that is shaped by all of these influences. To the extent that someone's world view is shaped by Islam, the teaching of the Prophet and the Hadith, then they would tend to be 'Muslim'. I think what we are seeing with the renewed world wide cultural confidence of Islam, is that increasingly more Muslims, including those in the west, define themselves by their Islamic faith first and foremost, possibly their land of birth secondly, and their adopted home country features a distant third in their sense of personal identity.
So while there are cultural differences in how Muslims express their faith, as is also true with Christians, there appears to be a growing sense of pan-national Islamic identity which is visible in the West today which was not visible even a decade or more ago.
There is also a sense that there is a reasonably militant minority within this grouping. Rather than integrate, this minority prefers to highlight their Islamic difference, either by means of dress code, or instance on prayer rooms at so called secular State schools, or closed sessions at public pools so Muslim women may swim apart from the general population.
Your second article seeks to address the same question using the book as a basis for discussion.
In it you say:
"The irony is that when extremist groups set out to harm the “infidel”, they include in this category ordinary Muslims who refuse to join their pseudo-jihad. It’s little wonder the survey confirms results from other studies of Muslim opinion – that many Muslims may sympathise with the causes cited by terrorist groups (Palestine , Kashmir etc) but they strongly oppose the methods used by these groups."
Most of us observing the situation in Palestine for example would wonder at what 'strongly oppose' looks like for those Muslims in the West who disagree with the methods (presumably suicide bombing etc) used by Islamists in those geographies?
Does 'strongly oppose' manifest itself in street marches by "Moderate Muslims against violence in Palestine?" or similar public condemnations every time a suicide bomber kills innocent civilians in Israel? I saw a TV interview on youtube recently where the head of the Canadian Islamic Council stated on public television that every Israeli citizen over 18 years of age was a legitimate military target. I assume this gentleman gets voted into this position by all the local Canadian Muslim community, which one assumes is predominantly moderate?
While I have no doubt moderate Muslims exist, and hopefully my employee is one, it appears that for the most part, their alignment with the cause (if not the methods) of their fellow (Islamist) Muslims ensures that for the most part their 'strong opposition' is a silent protest.
As a result, like it or not, it is the radical minority of the Muslim community is driving the agenda for all Muslims.
I can understand why moderate Muslims remain silent. To speak up in opposition brands you as an Infidel, and with that a possible death sentence. It is no doubt doubly hard to speak up if you agree with the underlying cause supported by the militant Islamists.
Right now, western governments seem determined to pursue a corse (publicly at least) of promoting the "Islam is a religion of peace" line to their people, in the face of the many obvious contradictions, in the hope that the silent moderate Muslim voice will ultimately prevail, while behind the scenes they are increasing surveillance and improving security .
In your view, do we have cause for optimism? Or, are the very obvious demographic and immigration changes that are taking place in Europe and other parts of the world, going to provide a resurgent Islam with the encouragement it needs to keep pressing its claims upon the (so called) secular liberal west?
I would be interested in your thoughts on this.
Kind regards,
Brad
20/08/08
****
G'day, Brad,
The issues you have raised are interesting, and I'd like to place our discussions on my blog Madhab Irfy. Naturally, I won't identify you by full name or e-mail address.
I'll try and address each of these issues ...
The first one essentially proposes that our religious, cultural and political expression is made up from a mixture of influences, and that you cannot provide a 'one size fits all' label of 'Muslim' or 'Catholic' on any group of people and be sure to have clearly defined them.
Especially when followers of each faith come from a variety of different ethnic and sectarian backgrounds and define their faiths in different ways.
Implicit in this approach is the notion that you cannot 'blame' all Muslims for the behaviour of (say) a radical minority.
To some extent this is true.
To some extent? I'd have thought this would be self-evident. Do we blame all Christians for the foreign policy disasters of the Bush administration? Do we judge the attitudes of all Catholics to child sexual abuse by the appalling record of the Catholic church? Are all Jews as racist as the inhabitants of Jewish settlements like Kiryat Arba in Hebron?
I believe we all have a 'world view' that is shaped by all of these influences. To the extent that someone's world view is shaped by Islam, the teaching of the Prophet and the Hadith, then they would tend to be 'Muslim'.
Their worldview may have only an incidental relationship to scriptures. Different aspects of the same scripture may leave different influences on different cultures.
I think what we are seeing with the renewed world wide cultural confidence of Islam, is that increasingly more Muslims, including those in the west, define themselves by their Islamic faith first and foremost, possibly their land of birth secondly, and their adopted home country features a distant third in their sense of personal identity.
Do you have any empirical evidence to support this view?
So while there are cultural differences in how Muslims express their faith, as is also true with Christians, there appears to be a growing sense of pan-national Islamic identity which is visible in the West today which was not visible even a decade or more ago.
Again, where is your empirical evidence?
There is also a sense that there is a reasonably militant minority within this grouping. Rather than integrate, this minority prefers to highlight their Islamic difference, either by means of dress code, or instance on prayer rooms at so called secular State schools, or closed sessions at public pools so Muslim women may swim apart from the general population.
How is asking for a prayer room to be used for a maximum of once a day (at lunch time) in a state school evidence of militancy or a lack of integration?
And what are they integrating into? What is the dominant culture in New Zealand? Is NZ culture a static or dynamic phenomenon? Is it still developing?
Further, what example have non-Muslim European settlers provided of integration? What evidence is there that non-Muslim settlers in Australia displayed the kind of respect of indigenous Australian cultures as shown by Indonesian fishermen or Afghan cameleers? What example did non-Muslim European settlers show of integration with Maori culture?
I'd have to say that non-Muslim Europeans showed a far greater degree of militancy and lack of integration in our region. Show me Muslim migrants who fought the Maori tribes or who stole Aboriginal children from their families.
Your second article seeks to address the same question using the book as a basis for discussion.
In it you say:
"The irony is that when extremist groups set out to harm the “infidel”, they include in this category ordinary Muslims who refuse to join their pseudo-jihad. It’s little wonder the survey confirms results from other studies of Muslim opinion – that many Muslims may sympathise with the causes cited by terrorist groups (Palestine , Kashmir etc) but they strongly oppose the methods used by these groups."
Most of us observing the situation in Palestine for example would wonder at what 'strongly oppose' looks like for those Muslims in the West who disagree with the methods (presumably suicide bombing etc) used by Islamists in those geographies?
My quote was not limited to Muslims living in Western countries. In fact, you might notice that the article refers to substantial loss of support of Islamist parties as evidenced by election results in places like Pakistan and Indonesia.
What evidence do you have that NZ Muslim migrants as a whole support suicide bombings?
Does 'strongly oppose' manifest itself in street marches by "Moderate Muslims against violence in Palestine?" or similar public condemnations every time a suicide bomber kills innocent civilians in Israel?
Are we to presume that the absence of street marches by Jews after each excess of the Israeli army in the occupied territories or a neighbouring state means that all Jews necessarily support each and every action of the Israeli state? I would regard such an insinuation as anti-Semitic and deeply offensive.
I saw a TV interview on youtube recently where the head of the Canadian Islamic Council stated on public television that every Israeli citizen over 18 years of age was a legitimate military target. I assume this gentleman gets voted into this position by all the local Canadian Muslim community, which one assumes is predominantly moderate?
What evidence do you have that all Canadians of Muslim background or faith or heritage vote in the CIC elections? Can you tell me how CIC elects its executive members?
Can you provide me with the url of the YouTube clip? All I know from your quote is that the "head" of the CIC said that any Israeli aged 19 or over is "a legitimate military target". That in itself doesn't show support for HAMAS or Islamic Jihad or for suicide bombings.
While I have no doubt moderate Muslims exist, and hopefully my employee is one, it appears that for the most part, their alignment with the cause (if not the methods) of their fellow (Islamist) Muslims ensures that for the most part their 'strong opposition' is a silent protest.
I can see why you don't discuss these issues with your employee. Some of the points you have raised, and the manner in which you have raised them, suggest to me a deep underlying mistrust of anyone even remotely linked to Islam. Further, you appear to be applying one set of standards to Muslims and a completely different set to other persons. If you said this kind of stuff to your employee, his lawyers would have a field day.
As a result, like it or not, it is the radical minority of the Muslim community is driving the agenda for all Muslims.
I think you shouldn't believe everything you read in Investigate magazine or on Daniel Pipes' various blog sites. Where is your empirical evidence that ...
a. there is a uniform agenda for all Muslims?
b. there is a uniform radical fringe that has consensus on what this allegedly uniform Muslim agenda should be? and
c. there is such an entity as "the Muslim community", either in New Zealand or elsewhere?
I can understand why moderate Muslims remain silent. To speak up in opposition brands you as an Infidel, and with that a possible death sentence. It is no doubt doubly hard to speak up if you agree with the underlying cause supported by the militant Islamists.
Can you please tell me how you define a "moderate Muslim"? What are the characteristics of a "moderate Muslim"? Can you provide some examples of prominent "moderate Muslims"?
Also, how do you define being "silent"? Would writing articles for newspapers constitute silence? Would issuing press releases constitute being silent? What bare minimum of activity is required before so-called "moderate" Muslims are no longer deemed silent?
Right now, western governments seem determined to pursue a corse (publicly at least) of promoting the "Islam is a religion of peace" line to their people, in the face of the many obvious contradictions, in the hope that the silent moderate Muslim voice will ultimately prevail, while behind the scenes they are increasing surveillance and improving security .
What evidence do you have that Western governments are taking any "corse" of action that involves promoting Islam or indeed any other faith?
In your view, do we have cause for optimism? Or, are the very obvious demographic and immigration changes that are taking place in Europe and other parts of the world, going to provide a resurgent Islam with the encouragement it needs to keep pressing its claims upon the (so called) secular liberal west?
Why do you say "(so called) secular liberal west"? It seems to me you aren't as devoted to liberal democracy as you make out.
The biggest threat to liberal democracy in the West is the rise of religious fanaticism. The Christian Right have hijacked much public discussion about a range of moral and social issues to the extent that US Presidential candidates are openly courting extremists. Thankfully, there are a large number of progressive and sensible voices within Christian communities seeking to counter this stupidity. Amongst them are Australian PM Kevin Rudd and others who argue that Christianity is about social justice.
Similar movements exist within Muslim and Jewish communities. There is Muslim and Jewish extremism. No one can deny this. But the problem extremists face is that their solutions are so simplistic that they can never really resolve anything. Hence we see Islamist parties being voted out of power in places like Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan. In Turkey, meanwhile, former Islamists are being forced to transform themselves into mainstream centre-right coalitions and adopt a liberal free market agenda.
I am optimistic by nature, but I fear that hate-mongers are alive and prospering. The onus is on people of faith and no faith to join forces against those who want to promote civilisational war.
Regards
Irfan
20/08/08
No comments:
Post a Comment