| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"Give peace a chance," by James Carroll in the Boston Globe, recounts a Jewish/Christian/Muslim meeting in Jerusalem to stand "against a global holy war."
In Jerusalem this week, Jews, Christians, and Muslims have gathered to examine the ways their own respective theologies -- "I'm saved, and you're not!" -- have sacralized this habit of negation, making it a source of political denigration, even violence. More accurately, we Jews, Christians, and Muslims are searching our traditions for countering sources of affirmation of the "other," precisely as a way of standing against a global holy war.This is the 18th International Theological Conference at the Shalom Hartman Institute, a long-established gathering of distinguished Jewish and Christian theologians (founded by Rabbi David Hartman and Harvard Divinity School Dean Emeritus Krister Stendahl), which, some years ago expanded to include Islamic religious thinkers.
This year several dozen men and women are arrayed around one large block of tables, about evenly divided among the three traditions, and among Europeans, Americans, Israelis, Palestinians, and others from the Middle East. Notre Dame, Duke, and the University of Arkansas are here; so are Lund, Haifa, Al Quds, and Bethlehem universities. A leading Catholic authority on Thomas Aquinas is here, together with a Protestant expert on Roger Williams, and a major scholar of Jewish political thought. A foremost Muslim-American scholar is here.
When this three-way seminar began a few years ago, the discussions were braced by the local war between Israel and Palestine. That remains, but now the new threat of a "civilizational" war between Islam and "the West" underscores the relevance of otherwise abstract discussions. But even before the "dialogue" begins, the presence at the table of Muslims from Europe and the United States requires an opening up of stereotypes: Are there no Muslims in "the West"? And what about the Palestinians who are Christian? As each group reexamines its attitude toward "the other," the titles of the formal presentations indicate the range of the week's moral and political reckoning:
"Catholic Struggles Toward Full Religious Liberty; Appreciating Vatican II."
"The Earliest Concept of an Islamic State with Non-Muslim Citizens."
"Beyond Bi-Polarity: Shared Civic Discourse of Jews and Non-Jews."
"Roger Williams on Civil Rule and the Religiously Other."
"Building an Islamic Theology of Pluralism: Pre-modern Sources."
"Ways of Peace in Rabbinic Literature."
Such topics might once have seemed impossibly arcane, but not here; not now. Justice for Palestinians, authentic security for Israel -- the very peace of the world are all at stake in such questions. For every person at the table, any temptation to devotional piety is preempted by the acknowledged fact of history, put succinctly by a rabbi; "Religion has never been a source of tolerance. Again and again we must ask, 'Why has there been all this killing in the name of God?' " Instead of glibly honoring the Christian tradition as a source of peace, a Jesuit salutes the civic tolerance made possible by the French Revolution. A Muslim declares simply that the self-aggrandizing of much contemporary Islamic thought represents "a new idolatry." Speakers from all three traditions admit the gap between the shared ideals of compassionate love and the failures of the past and present.
There is more than a whiff of what in Islam Unveiled I term "theological equivalence" in all this. "Shared ideals of compassionate love"? I wonder if James Carroll would be so kind as to show where the ideal of compassionate love for non-Muslims can be found in Islam.
Also, Nicolei observes: "Today, Jews and Christian do not kill their apostates or infidels. Neither do their synagogues or churches teach such doctrines. Nor are there secular laws in nations of Judeo-Christian heritage that punish apostates or laws based on a dhimmi system. Jews and Christians can separate religion from the state; Muslims tenets simply do not allow for such separation. The fact is that Muslims are free to practice Islam, proselyte and build their mosques in the West, while such liberties are restricted or non-existent for non-Muslim religions in Muslim nations -- particularly in the Arabian peninsula." Let's see a seminar deal with all that.
Posted by Robert at February 23, 2005 4:15 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
My mind is boggled at the lack of Conspiracy Charges that are most definitley able to be brought down by the feds on these people. It is more transparent on a daily basis that these people have gathered to set an agenda in place to instill their Ideology on us as free loving people.
Mosques should be raided as they are LINKED together to advance their charges. The feds spend more time and money arranging for convictions of bikers than they do to confront the terror that is active.
Posted by: chuck![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 23, 2005 5:34 AM
"The fact is that Muslims are free to practice Islam, ... "
Whenever I bring up this point with some of my coworkers, the most common answer I get is, "But Saudi Arabia is DIFFERENT." Different, meaning "special".
Posted by: jay at February 23, 2005 7:13 AM
Mr. Spencer has reported good-hearted people coming to the absolutely wrong conclusions out of the best of intentions.
Krister Stendahl started his career as a Swedish Lutheran theologian raised on a sociological rather than doctrinal Christianity. He was rightly shocked at the Shoah; but for the most right of reasons, did the utterly wrong thing of relativizing Christian theology. He saw the Protestant churches in Germany stand up to be the first German institution to own up to its responsibility for the Shoah (perhaps as a way of reclaiming a cultural influence they'd lost long before then); and thought it would be good for his fellow Scandinavian Lutherans to join in the wallowing in guilt feelings.
The good dean thus tried to reinterpret Paul as saying Jews and Christians would be two peoples of God down to the end of time. He did not seem to fathom that Paul divided the world not into Jews and Christians, but into Jews and Gentiles (NOT a synonym for "Christian" in the New Testament), with faith in Jesus the Messiah as the means of salvation for both.
A far better tack would be for Christians to re-affirm that their election to salvation comes from the pure grace of God, not of any innate worthiness on the Christians' part; that this election is towards spreading God's blessing in the world to call others as well; and to be ever mindful that God's grace is ever addressed to needy sinners rather than perfected saints.
Further, the target of God's call is a humanity that, while fallen, was nonetheless created after the divine image; hence to be loved and respected for as long as is possible--even when divine grace is not manifested.
I do not doubt that there are probably a number of Muslims sickened by the craziness that has grabbed their ummah by the (wai luan. My job, though, is not to tell them what their religion ought to say, but be sure that they recognize Jesus the Messiah as the gate for God's sheep; not a club over their heads.
Posted by: Kepha at February 23, 2005 7:21 AM
Carroll writes that there is "now the new threat of a 'civilizational' war between Islam and 'the West'." This fixed phrase is useful in obscuring the real nature of the problem, and is part of the current misapprehension that is part of Muslm apologetics. This misstates the matter: it is Islam against not the West, but all the rest. And it is not new, but naturally and inevitably flows from the canonical texts of Islam.
Carroll should really ask himself what the relentless attacks on non-Muslims, by Muslims, all over the non-Western world -- from genocide in the southern Sudan, to intermittent massacres in Nigeria (what does Carroll think caused the southern Christians to declare Biafran Independence in 1967, or was that too far away and too long ago for him to remember?), killings of Christians in East Timor and the Moluccas, of Hindus in Bangladesh, Kashmir, and unreported for decades, all over Pakistan (15% of its population was Hindi in 1947; it is now down to 1% -- why?), of Buddhists and Confucians here and there whereever they may be foudn in Islamic lands, of the "Bumiputra" or disguised jizya in Malaysia, of the attacks on Christians in the Philippines, the attacks on Thai Buddhist villagers.
Of course, he cannot pay attention to such matters. Because if he did, he would have to inquire a bit more fully into the nature of Islam, its tenets, and its history – in other words, he would have to spend time, non-Armstrong and non-Esposito time, on the theory and practice of Islam. It is so much more fun to sit around a table of like-minded earnest souls (or at least some of them are genuinely like-minded and earnest, others merely faking) in Juerslaem. .
One can be certain that James Carroll, holier-than-thou being his heraldic motto, feels that he has "given at the office" with his "Constantine's Sword," and that, having shown that his heart is in the right place, having defended the Jews, he is permanently absolved from all responsibility of actually learning about Islam, for having defended the Jews, all is now permitted in overlooking the differently based, but still ferocious, anti-Jewish sentiment that Islam -- not a "handful of extremists" -- encourages, and of course, not only anti-Jewish sentiment, but anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, anti-Zoroastrian, anti-Buddhist, anti-Sikh, anti-anything that isn't Islam.
He is wrong. Neither he, nor anyone else who presumes to preach about what Islam is or is not all about, is absolved from the need to study Islam thoroughly, including the work of real scholars and not the rivers of apologetic molasses that, like the Great Molasses Flood in Carroll's own city many decades ago, is stickily impeding our ability to make our way -- in this case, our mental way, to a few hometruths about Islam.
If Carroll could make some time for study in that comfortable Beacon Hill office, he could start with "Islam and Dhimmitude" and "The Decline of Easterrn Christianity Under Islam," by Bat Ye’or, then perhaps read a bit by the ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq (including “Why I Am Not a Muslim”), then perhaps read K. S. Lal and Jahundath Sarkar on what Muslim rule meant Hindustan (60-70 million murdered Hindus might get Carroll's attention), and then he might study Western scholars of Islamic law, including Antoine Fattal (an Arabic-speaking Lebanese Christian) on the legal status of dhimis, and Joseph Schacht on Muhammadan Law. And then, if Carroll would like, he could read Henri Lammens, and Zwember, and St. Clair Tisdall, Snouck Hurgronje, and others whose work does not date (why should it? The subject-matter is at least 1300 years old, and proudly immutable for the last 1000.).
Having your heart in the right place –and evey word Carroll writes is instinct with that warm self-recognition – is not enough. No free passes for hearts of gold. Pious mush is still pious mush, whoever comes up with it. Carroll, who is anti-clerical, and no doubt dislikes the “bomfoggery” -- the word coined long ago to neatly capture the Brotherhood-of-Man, Fatherhood-of-God boilerplate that politicians put into their speeches – remains bomfoggery, whether it comes from a Democrat or a Republican, a cleric or an anti-cleric like Carroll. His treacly bomfoggery about all these people sitting around a table discussing their thoughts and feelings and all the good things in their “respective traditions” puts one in mind Dorothy Parker’s celebrated review of A. A. Milne: “Tonstant weader fwowed up.”
All we are saying is: give intelligence a chance.
at February 23, 2005 9:03 AM
"Bomfoggery"... context clues suggest it may be a nicer way of say "bum f**kery". Is that right?
Treacly... it's been a while since I heard anyone mention "treacle." I had a boss from England that used to fondly recall his Mum's treacle pies.
I love it when I read something and have to THINK about it.
Posted by: kj at February 23, 2005 3:28 PM
I glad the Coptic Christians in Jersey distanced themselves from CAIR and didn't fall for the Muslim scam of showing up at "Unity"
function as if it's the Christians and Jews that are the problem.
Muslims like Ibrahim Hooper burned all of CAIR's bridges long ago when he refused to admit to CAIR's sorted past and workers that condone terrorism. CAIR-Canada is just as absurd,Muslims are only about 1 percent of the population and yet
CAIR usually demands half the air-time in the media to debate "Islamophobia" and "Racism" in Canada,CAIR intinmidates the media with law-suit threats or "Rent-A-Mob" protests outside business
and whinning to the CRTC to revoke a TV or Radio license.
CAIR Canada IS losing their appeal and no longer get used for the source of measuring
the pulse in the Muslim community,the Sharia-law issue and defending arrested terrorists hasn't sat well with non-Muslims and the endless rants
about oppression became laughible.
at February 23, 2005 10:25 PM
ala-sux, it's "sordid" not "sorted" past.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at February 24, 2005 10:06 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)