Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses freedom of speech and its importance:
Free speech is not absolute. It never was. Not to John Adams, who approved of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Not to Abraham Lincoln. Not to Holmes or Brandeis. Not to those who crafted the Brandenburg Test. Whether or not that test which requires incitement to "imminent lawless action" needs to be revised given that anti-Infidel propaganda almost never results in the "imminent" action that is feared, but rather helps, through the steady stillicide of Islamic propaganda, in the recruitment of Muslims and mentally unstable non-Muslims Looking for a Community and a Reason for Living, needs to be examined.And so too does what is to be defined as a "speech act." Choking an adversary, or raping someone, may be a way of "expressing" one's hatred of, let's say, an Infidel who disparages Muhammad, or of an Infidel girl who has chosen to wear dress deemed provocative while walking near a mosque. But no non-Muslims would define these as "speech acts" requiring protection. Training for terrorist acts cannot be protected even if they have been disguised as something else -- such as mere innocuous "paintball" play.
The Brandenburg Test needs to be reexamined and revised in the light of how Muslim terrorists recruit, and then work on those they recruit, to proceed from ideology to deed. It is not the greatest leap, and does not require a misquoting of the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira. It requires, in fact, far more ingenuity on the part of Muslims to make the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira seem unthreatening to Infidels -- something all these busy "reformers" with their new organizations, and their grand grant-getting plans, have carefully refrained from discussing.
But the Brandenburg Test does not need revising because of the cartoons. In seizing issues of a student publication containing those cartoons, Wade MacLauchlan, President of the University of Prince Edward Island, explained: "We see it [the publication of the cartoons] as a reckless invitation to public disorder and humiliation." Wade MacLauchlan needs a refresher course in freedom of speech. He needs to read Milton's Areopagitica. He needs to learn about John Peter Zenger. He needs to read "Freedom of the Mind in Human History." He needs to understand that a recognized right which can no longer be exercised out of fear of a violent response by those who not only claim to be offended, but do not recognize such a general right in their own, quite different world -- a world where the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no place -- is a right that no longer exists. This was understood, clearly, by the editors of Jyllands-Posten and by Prime Minister Rasmussen, and by those editors, the un-pusillanimous ones, who in 40 countries so far have chosen to reprint those anodyne cartoons. Wade MacLauchlan needs to understand that the right of free speech not only includes the right to offend, but is defined precisely by its protection of the very possibility. That is the point. The point is not to protect that which offends no one (for who would object?) but that which offends someone. Of course, the deliberate incitement to murder, or the denial of historical facts, have been banned in certain Western countries: in Germany, for example, Nazi publications either denying past mass-murders, or justifying future ones -- which apparently Mr. Ahmadinejad and many Muslims are unable to distinguish from mockery of religious symbols or figures – has been banned. But this is not remotely analogous.In placid Charlottetown, in 1864, distinguished representatives of various parts of Canada came together for a Conference that led to the establishment of the Dominion of Canada. They would almost certainly all have been familiar with the work of the celebrated English political thinker, John Stuart Mill, and with his essay "On Liberty" that remains a staple, and should, of college curricula in the English-speaking world. And perhaps there needs to be engraved, not only on one of those stately college buildings at the University of Prince Edward Island, but in the mind of its current president, Ward MacLauchlan, these words from that essay:
Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being “pushed to an extreme”; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.Usually one complains of the students: of their shallowness, of their illiteracy, of their inability to appreciate something now called, as if it were merely a course title, "Western Civ." But in this case, at least, it is the student editors of a student publication who have put at least one of their elders to shame -- not to mention the complacent, uncomprehending editors of The New Duranty Times, and so many others in the Western world, who have failed the test.
Still, there may be the possibility of a make-up exam for those who want to take that test in Western Civ over again.
And this time, they promise that they will study for it just a bit harder.
I would suggest inserting a slight addition (as parenthetical):
"...and mentally unstable non-Muslims Looking for a Community and a Reason for Living (and Dying)...,
Bravo Hugh.
I knew this was coming when the ficticious Koran flush flap hit us. We needed to shake the handle then and we need to remain just as vigilant today as the founders of our nation were in their day as the core principles of our civilization are assailed by a very clever enemy (1300 years of practice) who is never to be underestimated, and by the useful idiots who are too stupid to know when their liberty is being extinguished before their very eyes.
Here are some choice items from the "Jihad" section of Sahih Bukhari. Sahih Bukhari, according to one of the intro webpages at the University of Southern California-Muslim Students Association website, is
"recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah [life] of the Prophet".
From the same website:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 73:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abi Aufa:
Allah's Apostle [Muhammed] said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."
Here's another:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 46:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah's Apostle [Muhammed] saying, "The example of a Mujahid [fighter] in Allah's Cause-- and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause----is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid [fighter] in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty."
Another:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 115:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle [Muhammed] fixed two shares for the horse and one share for its rider (from the war booty).
One more for now:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."
(Text above made bold, was made bold by me.)
Religion of peace? See Sahih Bukhari for yourself at
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/
eduardo,
These ones also deal with jihad policy and that rationale for jihad. You can see from the first and the last ones listed here, fighting for a purely religious imperialist purposes is commendable according to Mohammad. The important point is that these are in keeping with the Koran's imperialistic goals (9:33, 48:28, 61:9) and the means to achieve them (2:193, 8:39).
The middle two are in accordance with 9:5 (fight you until you pay the zakat) and 9:29 (fight you until you pay the jizya).
You can see tafsir of the above Koranic verses here (by Ibn Kathir)
http://www.tafsir.com/
(there are other sites with other expert tafsir, if that site is down)...and you will note that the relevant hadith reports are gathered for each verse. You will also see, from his tafsir, that those verses from the Koran which I've cited above really as as bad as they look, despite what Muslim apologists say.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 125: Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What kind of fighting is in Allah's cause? (I ask this), for some of us fight because of being enraged and angry and some for the sake of his pride and haughtiness." The Prophet raised his head (as the questioner was standing) and said, "He who fights so that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah's cause."
This next ahadith confirm and elaborate Mohammad's policy, which conforms with the Koran's Sura 9 (see Sahih Muslim, book 1, numbers 29-35):
Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 33: It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:
"'Umar sent the Muslims to [invade] the great countries to fight the pagans... "Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you [pagans] till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master..."
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."
Mr. Fitzgerald:
Thank you. Again.
Some folks on various threads have accused you of being long-winded, obtuse, or overly literate on occasion.
I disagree, and would gladly purchase and distribute a collection of your essays, which I know are often produced in a very short amount of time. Keep doing what you're doing. You really nailed it this time.
I have never been the bumper sticker type of person, but I recently placed two small stickers on the back of my Honda--the American and Danish flags standing side by side. Believe it or not, even here in the Nation's Capital, there are some who don't get the message, and have politely inquired whether I am of Danish extraction. This is unbelievable to me.
I am ashamed of our so-called free press, our State Department, and so many others with regard to this issue, which, above all the other absurdities and atrocities, should be the true "line in the sand" in this obvious conflict. This should be the Kristallnacht of our times, and yet the powers that be continue to bend over and grab their ankles. It is truly appalling.
To those who continue to misapply the doctrine of shouting fire in a crowded theater, I would only suggest that perhaps the "theater" here is too crowded with too many of "them." If freedom of speech can be slowly eviscerated because of the presence of this death cult, then we know what political correctness has wrought. Disgusting. Shame. Shame.
APPEASEMENT WILL NOT WORK WITH THESE PEOPLE!
My hope is that this will be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back, but my hopes have been consistently dashed before. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I fear it's going to take something far worse than 9/11 to awaken the slumbering Western giant.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8267
thats the far left in the UK. read it. it gives you an insight into how the far left justifies itself in supporting the Islamists.
with the Soviet Union gone, it appears that the far left have latched onto Islamism, as Islamism is the last remaining anti-Western, anti-captalist, and anti-freedom ideology left on the planet.
quite frankly, i find it nauseating and sickening in the extreme.
About the demo in London today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4700482.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4697086.stm
"Among them was Hanifa Brka, a 29-year-old student from Birmingham, who said: "This is the
heart of our faith - we believe it is wrong to talk badly about the prophet."
Why,why,why Hanifa? Surely a pedophile,a rapist,a murderer,a robber cannot be talked badly about.
"Ken Livingstone said: "Unlike some of the BBC's coverage, it will allow the views of the
mainstream Muslim community to be properly heard."
I suggest we grant Red Ken the dhimmi of the world title which cannot be taken away from him
until he dies! Well George Galloway might compete, but psychiatric cases should be excluded from running.
"The rally, 'United against Incitement and Islamophobia', has been organised by the Muslim
Council of Britain, the Muslim Association of Britain and a number of Christian organisations."
Dear God! Which ones were they??? I am asking just in case I inadverently support one!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4704396.stm
Yes, dear!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4704396.stm
Just like we can see in the picture showing women's lib!
If anybody wondered why the police could not provide protection to the journalist from The
Liberal when they shyly considered flicking the cartoons on their web site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4704396.stm
Quo vadis Europa?
I cannot blame the Brits for their dhimmitude - the Polish goverment (please any associations with Jan III Sobieski are coincidental)
What's the picture in the background's gallery? The Battle of Lepanto?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4704396.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4705342.stm
"One can only hope the extremist element can be marginalised and we can move on."
Move on? Over my dead body!
Here is a selection of Have Your Say comments that have earned my praise:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1077&edition=1&ttl=20060211195
806&#paginator
Added: Saturday, 11 February, 2006, 12:43 GMT 12:43 UK
Ive heard the guy leading todays protests saying he wants an official apology from denmark
and laws to prevent this in the future. I would be the first out on the streets if either
happened, we do not live under Islamic law and we have a perfect right to rip anyones
religion to pieces if we wish.
Jean Bertrand, Tooting
Recommended by 117 people
Added: Saturday, 11 February, 2006, 11:22 GMT 11:22 UK
Islamaphobia? I thought the rally was about cartoons. Could it be the word Islamaphobia will
so frighten our Government they will bend even further over backwards to fascilitate the
Muslim community? I'd be more inclined to sympathise had these same marchers been out on the
streets after 7/7 proclaiming "not in my name".
Marilyn Kendall, Plymouth, United Kingdom
Recommended by 110 people
Added: Saturday, 11 February, 2006, 12:57 GMT 12:57 UK
This is a march that is protesting against one of the most fundamental rights we enjoy in
this country - freedom of speech. So what if muslims are 'hurt' by these cartoons? As a
Christian, I too am 'hurt' by the proliferation of the Koran which denies my and every other
Christian's beliefs.
Dave, Cardiff
Recommended by 106 people
Sign in to recommend comments.
Added: Saturday, 11 February, 2006, 14:08 GMT 14:08 UK
The protest will further alienate non-Muslims. I believe that there is a rising tide of
resentment towards Islam in the UK, and I fear that unless it is addressed, people like the
BNP will take advantage. Of course Muslims have a right to peaceful protest, but it
perpetuates the image of Muslims as a paranoid minority obsessed with perceived insults. If
Muslims want to be accepted, they should hold a rally celebrating Britain, multiculturalism,
women's rights and religious freedom.
Greg Starkowzki, London, United Kingdom
Recommended by 50 people
Sign in to recommend comments.
Complain about this comment.
Added: Saturday, 11 February, 2006, 17:51 GMT 17:51 UK
A series of speakers gathered to support the Muslim community, including MP Jeremy Corbyn.
In his speech, which was met with cheers from the crowd, he said:
"We demand that people show respect for each other's community, each other's faith and each
other's religion."
Anyone who DEMANDS respect will not get it from me.
Clive, Darlington
Recommended by 39 people
Added: Saturday, 11 February, 2006, 13:04 GMT 13:04 UK
Staging a peaceful demonstration to protest a policy or concept is a right of any citizen in
any free country, and I understand and support this rally wholeheartedly. It will not,
however, change anyone's mind about publishing satirical cartoons of religious figures. I
trust the protestors understand this, too.
E Mily, NYC, United States
Recommended by 30 people
Added: Saturday, 11 February, 2006, 19:03 GMT 19:03 UK
I would like to see the cartoon published in Brit newspapers.Free speach and Freedom is what
my father WWII and Korea 1951 my great grandfather {Died 1915} his name is on Le Tourett
memorial,Fought for.Dont let it be taken away through the back doar.
Harry, Dundee
Recommended by 22 people
Sign in to recommend comments.
Complain about this comment.
Matt, if your folks do not get the message try something for under 7-year-old, but literate:
http://www.cafepress.com/silentrunning/1177933
I have ordered the sticker, but in the meantime I cellotaped a printout to the back widow of my car. No attacks yet.
I have not completed this sentence so once more:
I cannot blame the Brits for their dhimmitude - the Polish goverment (please any associations with Jan III Sobieski are coincidental) swiftly apologised for "Rzeczpospolita" printing 2 of the cartoons. Sobieski, Zolkiewski are turning in their graves!
Hugh Fitzgerald's article is right on the mark! l hope to copy it and send it to several people. Mr.Fitzerald you may have written articles quite long in the past, l have enjoyed reading every word of this one! this one should be sent to every paper in the country! l know l have not agreed with some of your earlier points, but l do see the logic behind this thread, and know it should unite both left and right sides of the aisle against our common enemy !!!
Today's march in London was effectively a pro-censorship demonstration.
The modus operandi of today's protest was different to that used by Islamist poseurs we saw in London last week, but the aim of both marches is the same: hands off our religion, Infidels.
On a more positive note, today's march, though it was clearly stage-managed and created for the consumption of the world's media more than anyone else, was dignified and peaceful.
The fact that only 4,000-or-so people took to the streets is also reassuring: this tends to lend weight to the theory that most of the UK's Muslims have 'got over it' or were never too bothered about the cartoons in the first place.
The usual suspects were invited - including Ridley and Galloway, both of whom are now beyond parody - but even these fine individuals didn't manage to get the Ummah out in force.
To Archimedes:
Good stuff. Thanks.
Only two more days then the Muslims can complain about Valentine"s day then the biggie complain about hot cross buns and Easter,the complaint season is apon us.
OT, but great articles to share:
Friends at JD/DW, I found a truly shockingly dhimmi author today. Please direct your attention to this article:
"It's not brave to degrade Islam"
http://www.cleveland.com/living/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/living/1139650474144110.xml&coll=2&thispage=1
Perhaps we could illuminate him on the "beleaguered" religion that has suffered so much.
Please read it!
A second amazing article entitled, why I did not become a Moslem is a must read!
(this is the second part of the reasons why the person did nto convert)
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5237
PLEASE READ THIS!!!
Norwegians have dimmer view of Islam following cartoongate.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/10848
Britain's tolerance going going gone...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2036203,00.html
Dhimmi Jew author: Islam bashing is only part of "racist" war for Empire!
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/islam-0216/
STUNNING
A MUST READ!
Irshad Manji claims that although she is a lesbian, unlike her friend Hirsi Ali, she is NOT an apostate. Is this woman nuts?
The lesbian author of "The trouble with Islam" is smoking something funny at yale with her Islamic contortions. Does she fancy herself as a lesiabn reformer of the the ROP?
Since she does not even acknowledge Islam's desire for militant conquest, she is far from the "reformer" she portrays herself to be.
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2006/02/an_islam_of_one.php
Robert, you yourself are mentioned in this article.
I would only add the couplet:
TRUE FREE SPEECH IS NEVER FREE-
ITS PRICE IS CONSTANT BRAVERY.
Dedicated to Hirsi Ali. Natuurlijk/
Translation dropped off at the end, it should be:
"Natuurlijk/Naturally."
An excellent article by Stephen Schwartz:
Muhammad Caricatured
Journalists and Wahhabis alike are distorting the Islamic tradition.
http://tinyurl.com/carmg
The article by Schwartz not surprisingly diverts all attention onto the Wahhabists whom he has no trouble attacking, and indeed welcomes every chance, so as to divert attention from the larger problem. World-wide protests have come from all sorts of Muslims, few of them Wahhabists or necessarily subject to them. What should one say, for example, of the rage expressed by Al-Qaradawi, the most influential writer for a mass Musulim audience today? An Egyptian given shelter in Qatar, he is not and never has been a "Wahhabist." And what of the fury demonstrated in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the mortal enemy of these "Wahhabists" in Saudi Arabia whom, we are led to believe in this article, are the real problem.
And then there is the little matter of pretending that the fact that the Qur'an, which is silent on the subject of images, is what matters, and while there is a fleeting allusion to the Hadith, as if these were some kind of minor thing -- they may be minor to Schwartz, and Mustafa Akyol may think they can be jettisoned -- but the Hadith are not minor. They are, for some Muslims, even more imoprtant as a guide to life than the Qur'an.
Anyone who doubts this has only to go to any of the Muslim websites full of specific advice. They base their answers on various Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim, and rarely on the Qur'an. The Hadith (and the example of Muhammad in the Sira) flesh out the Qur'an, make it comprehensible, give the rules by which Muslims live, the attitudes they adopt. The fact that outside the world of Arab Islam (the fiercest, the most wedded to Islam wihtout any softening nuance, there have been depictions of Muhammad is no consolation, and no reason for denying the main thing the Western world has been observing and should now be comprehending: the alacrity with which the primitive recourse to violence, to conspiracy and rumor, to murderous hatred so easily aroused, the result of the habits of mental submission, and of seeing the source of all evil in the Infidel, that characterize Islam.
Perhaps not "my own private Islam" of Schwartz, but the other Islam, the real Islam with which we all must deal.
The cowardice and hypocrisy of the American mass media in the cartoon controversy was prefigured 30 years ago by Jean Raspail in "The Camp of the Saints". A helicopter gets a closeup photo of the lead ship of an armada from India about to leave 1 million refugees on the beaches of Europe:
"that bloodcurdling photo, realistic beyond endurance, was published a mere six times in all. And then only by papers of piddling circulation and infamous political stripe ... Are we, perhaps to think that a few of the beast's devotees, in high places, guessed how devastating such a photo would be, and pulled the plug before it could make all the rounds? Or that somehow, the editors in chief of the major Western papers decided against it on their own? Be that as it may, the fact remains that puiblic opinion, for the most part didn't even know it existed."
Kafir, thanks for those links--I especially like Arlandson's approach.
Hugh, thanks for those comments on the Schwartz article link, above, from tipper. I will add a couple of points.
Schwartz, some may recall from 2 or 3 weeks back, claimed that the Koran never calls Christians and Jews "disbelievers." But we cited at least a few verses that clearly showed Schwartz to be wrong. Given that he writes on Islam and is responsible for knowing the material, it is likely that he was lying. If even moderates like Schwartz are lying, or are at least erring consistently in presenting Islam as more peaceful and tolerant than it really is, why the heck should anyone have confidence in what they say?
Schwartz says that it is only the Wahhabis destroying the physical manifestations of non-Muslim cultures, but this too is nonsense. The radical Shia regime in Iran has permitted the flooding of Persian archeological sites. (this issue has been dealt with at the faithfreedom website). And of course, there all the pre-Wahhab historical examples of Islamic destruction and conversion of Hindu temples, churches, and so on.
Schwartz says "But the Koran itself is silent on the matter of images,”
Not quite. The Koran does not say anything specifically about representing Mohammad, but it does reiterate some of the Old Testament injunctions regarding physical representations that might lead people to idolatry.
What is it about so many Muslim moderates which makes them think that, because they are Muslim, they can say whatever the heck they want about Islam? Maybe they're so overconfident due, in part, to the relative scarcity of challenges from other journalists. The "free pass" has got to stop. Journalists need to start checking the statements against facts in order to expose these Islamic apologists and keep them in check.
...the responsibility that goes with freedom of expression, last time I checked, included a responsibility to be honest! Our MSM journalists and writers need to be reminded of that in particular, it seems, in their coverage of all matters Islamic.
Archimedes,
"What is it about so many Muslim moderates which makes them think that, because they are Muslim, they can say whatever the heck they want about Islam? Maybe they're so overconfident due, in part, to the relative scarcity of challenges from other journalists."
There's no "maybe" about it. The West in the last half century has been overwhelmingly naive and opaque about the history of Islam. A professor of comparative religions at a major non-Ivy-League university from which I took several courses -- a brilliant intellectual knowledgeable about European history and philosophy (reader of French, German, Italian and Latin) could write the following about the former "openness in Islam":
When Americans look at the Islamic world today, especially when they see pictures of people dancing in the streets to celebrate our suffering or burning our president in effigy, they cannot help but wonder where this hatred comes from or whether there is something inherently aggressive about Islam.
Before rushing to this assumption, we should pause to seek a deeper understanding of what is really at issue for those we need to try to understand. The comparatively small band of terrorists and financial and political supporters associated with Osama bin Laden represent only a minute portion of the larger Islamic world of today.
It is true they may be giving expression to a distress, and even sometimes rage, that many Muslims have been feeling in response to such things as America's perceived favoritism toward Israel or the presence of American military forces on the soil of the nation that houses their holiest shrines. But I would like to suggest we look beyond the current flashpoints to try to understand a deeper level of stress in the Islamic world that was there before today's immediate causes of friction and will persist, perhaps not only for decades but even for centuries.
Like it or not, we live in interesting times -- and Sept. 11 woke us to this in a new way. America is only now beginning to realize that one of the most important stories of these interesting times is the dramatic encounter between the traditional culture of Islam and the challenges it faces in the modern world. Muslims, on the other hand, have been feeling the effects of this for more than 200 years.
From at least the time Napoleon invaded Egypt, Muslims have been experiencing the pressure of modern ways of thinking and behaving that threaten both to change their traditional world and to erode their confidence in its traditional foundations.
The key word here is "traditional." To live successfully in a modern world requires the development of a modern mentality to deal with it. One of the most important ways of understanding what the Islamic world has been experiencing is to understand the challenges that a traditional mind must experience when it is challenged to become a modern one.
We can get a sense of what this involves by considering just one, very important dimension of the problem: the overwhelming fact of pluralism in modern societies. Focusing on this will also help to make clear that the real issue is not one that distinguishes the Islamic world from the western world.
For many people in modern western societies the transition from a traditional to a modern mentality and the challenge of living in a pluralistic milieu is as difficult as it is for many in the Islamic world or in other traditional cultures.
Pluralism, for a modern mind, involves not only awareness of different ways of thinking and different conceptions of the good but also the belief that such diversity is legitimate. To a traditional mind, in any society, both may appear deeply threatening.
Why?
To approach this, let us first consider the way a traditional "world" holds together. It is grounded in what social scientists call a "world view," or conception of basic reality, of how things add up and make sense. In a traditional culture, ancestral stories and precepts tell people what that world view is, why it is true and how one must live to act in accord with the basic structure of reality.
Most important, the tradition that does this normally has no serious competitors. Every society probably has its village atheist, but unless there are quite a few of those and they group together to constitute a serious competing voice, they are fairly easy to dismiss as simply oddballs.
Most people, respecting the tradition, find in it the answers to their basic questions about the meaning of their lives and their place in the larger scheme of things, and they come to rest in those answers mainly by what might be called a sort of "social gravity." Their basic beliefs will seem true to them because "that is what everybody thinks" or "that is what we have always known."
If someone asks for further grounding of the beliefs, the answer will usually take the form of appeal to a still higher level of authority and finally to Ultimate Reality itself, to God. This system of grounding the sense of reality on authority normally works pretty well unless it is challenged by some unavoidable fact that is inconsistent with the system of explanation (as the devastating Lisbon earthquake in the 18th century was for many Christians in Europe). Or unless it is challenged by the presence of prominent other voices making competing claims.
This is why traditional societies generally strive toward unanimity. It is significant that one of the most important concepts and highest values in the Islamic tradition has been "consensus" (in Arabic, ijma).
But this also shows that the real issue is not as simple as a clash between Islamic and Western cultures. When Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson responded to the tragedy of Sept. 11 by saying God was punishing America because of its tolerance of a set of divergent moral views, they were demonstrating the same resistance to pluralism that the Taliban do when they arrest fellow Afghans suspected of deviating from the straight path as they define it.
The loudest voices in the Islamic world today are those of groups like the Taliban, the Iranian mullahs, or the radical "Islamists" of Egypt, and their numbers are much larger, proportionately, than those of the Falwells and Robertsons here.
But Islam, too, has had and still has its own more careful thinkers, and many of these have been trying to find ways of relating Islam positively to the challenges of modern scientific thought and rational inquiry and the possibilities of pluralism. Ahmed Khan (died 1898), Jamal al Afghani (d.1897), and Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905) are just a few of the better-known names of the past two centuries.
Islam contains rich resources for such development. The Quran itself advocates a religious pluralism that was practiced for centuries in Muslim lands in what was known as the "millet system," the freedom of different religious groups to practice their own faith and govern themselves according to their own traditional laws:
"And to you We [God] have revealed the Book with the truth. It confirms the Scriptures which came before it and stands as a guardian over them. ...We have ordained a law and assigned a path for each of you. Had Allah pleased, He could have made you one nation: but it is His wish to prove you by that which He has bestowed upon you. Vie with each other in good works, for to Allah you shall all return and He will declare to you what you have disagreed about" (Sura 5).
In its early centuries, when the Islamic territory expanded to encompass much of the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern world, including major centers of classical learning, Muslim scholars, such as Avicenna (d. 1037), Averroes (d. 1198), and Ghazali (d. 1111), to name only a few, assimilated this learning and advanced it with major scientific discoveries and new philosophical conceptions. In this respect, the Muslim world in those years was much more "modern" and open than was the contemporary Christian West.
Islam now needs a revival of this spirit of openness, and there are many Muslims who could contribute to future Islamic intellectual and spiritual development in such an atmosphere. Unfortunately Muslim communities in some parts of the world are dominated by loud, angry and, at root, fearful voices that shun inquiry in favor of an artificially rigid traditional notion of consensus.
What will be needed more than anything else in this and the next few centuries is for the deeper and more thoughtful representatives of the Islamic faith, here in America, in Europe, North Africa, in Indonesia and, where they can, in the Middle East, to draw on their tradition to develop an intellectually and spiritually open Islam that can live in peaceful and fruitful dialogue with others in the modern world.
What we need to do is to understand and encourage this process, and, where possible, to protect it with the civil liberties of the pluralistic world we cherish.
Eugene Webb is professor emeritus of the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington.
_______
Is professor Webb lying? Is he ignorant? I think he is neither lying nor can he possibly be ignorant: his mind is infected, clouded by modern PC. That is the only possible explanation. And it infects and clouds millions of us in the West. That is our biggest problem now as we face an Islam Redivivus.
Pepper,
In the first ("disbeliever") example in question, I think it is very likely that Schwartz was lying. The less likely alternative is possible: That he has not read the Koran carefully.* But it it more likely that he is lying for public-relations purposes. Is this normal run-of-the-mill lying? Probably not. I think he is, in the PC mindset, thinking that as a Muslim he can cruise along and say pleasant-sounding things (e.g., Islam's not bad, it's just those Wahhabi rogues that are causing the trouble), believing that he will not be taken to task by mere non-Muslims. In that much, he may be honestly deluded (i.e., deluding himself). *But on the issue of whether Christians and Jews are ever called "disbeliever" in the Koran, this is an objective fact (the word disbeliever or unbeliever is right there on the pages) and it would be extremely likely that he didn't know it. He cannot weasel out of this by saying "Some of the Christians and Jews are not disbelievers," because what he said was categorical: That Jews and Christians are not called disbelievers in the Koran.
Re: what Webb knows, or doesn't know, about Islamic doctrine and history, I could not give a definitive answer. I'd need to have a good idea of what he knows before concluding that he is lying (on the usual sense of lying). He is definitely clouded by modern PC, as you say (a tell-tale sign are the references to "paradigms" and the ensuing relativism). However, his knowledge of Islam and Islamic history seems very superficial from the above descriptions. I would attribute Webb's web of illusion to a combination of PC absurdities, ignorance, and eager-to-please niceties (again part of PC mentality).
PC and lying are not mutually exclusive but, as I'm sure you'll agree, they are linked inextricably. They are linked in processing information and establishing beliefs within one's own mind (self-deception) and then, when communicating, one must further conform one's words to the informal laws of PC discourse. If people actually believe the falsehoods they tell, are these lies? Not quite. But PC biases communication such that people may indeed lie, knowingly, to avoid offence.
If I may digress slightly, something someone wrote on another thread reminded me again of the similarities between PC and Islam. (This point is in addition to the obvious one: Both Islam and PC are opposed to freedom of expression). Islam replaces morality with halal/haram conceptions. Likewise, PC replaces deeper morality with a superficial set of ad hoc rules about what can and cannot be said, and about which groups may or may not be critiqued by whom, etc. These rules are of course exploited for various social and political purposes. Lying is permitted in Islam for expediency. Ditto in PC.
"Muslim scholars, such as Avicenna (d. 1037), Averroes (d. 1198), and Ghazali (d. 1111), to name only a few, assimilated this learning and advanced it with major scientific discoveries and new philosophical conceptions. In this respect, the Muslim world in those years was much more "modern" and open than was the contemporary Christian West."
-- from a posting above
Same handful of names, same received phrases that do not correspond to historical truth. This business of the world of Islam being much more "modern" and open is based on 1) a misunderstanding of what happened to those few texts of Aristotle that were translated (always by Jews and Christians) and then built upon not in the Islamic world but, rather, when they made their way back to Europe. "Such as" Avicenna, Averroes -- my god, these are the two names that keep coming up, of the handful (always the same dozen) who keep being invoked to show the greatness of something that came to an end a thousand years ago.
Even if it all were true, and it isn't, one would wish to ask the obvious:
But what have you done for us lately?