Tiassa
03-10-03, 08:44 PM
On the "savage" Muslims
It has occurred to me that a simple question has generally been overlooked. I had occasion last night to take a nostalgic tour of some old posts related to the War on Terror and the coming Iraqi Bush War and then a story at BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2837105.stm) has caught my eye today:More than 120 Iranian MPs have signed an open letter demanding an end to the expulsion and suspension of students involved in November's demonstrations.
The student protests were triggered by the sentencing to death of the reformist university lecturer, Hashem Aghajari, over remarks questioning the role of clerics in Iran/Think about it: we are often very critical of Islamic societies for being oppressive and as the actions of two Washington state legislators last week show--specifically, the patriotic justification offered by one of them--that many people cannot distinguish between Islam and fundamentalist violence despite numerous analogies floating around the culture to make the point clear: We do not attribute the murderous spirit that slays a doctor to all Christians; we do not attribute child molestation to all Christians; we do not attribute the anti-government hatred motivating the Oklahoma City bombing to all Americans.
And so I thought, What better opportunity to point out the enlightened side of Islamic culture?
So here we have a University professor sentenced to death. This is, most would agree, a bad condition.
But we have student protests against the sentence. This, most would agree, is good. There is that faction, though that would expect the students to be happy for the privilege of a University education and thus demand that they shut up. I tend toward supporting the protests, as they are against the death penalty and against lethal oversight of religion.
And now 120 members of the Iranian Parliament have openly objected to the punishment of the student protesters.
So on the one hand we have an authority structure that would beat the protesters publicly, deny them education, and threaten them with prison, and sentence a professor to death. On the other we have students standing against injustice and parliamentarians standing behind the students.
But oh, those horrible Muslims, right? A death sentence? Public whippings? Nudge-nudge! Those horrible savage Muslims ....
- Chronology of the Aghajari Crisis (IranExpert) (http://www.iranexpert.com/2002/chronologyofcrisis17november.htm)
- Hashem Aghajari defends Moderated Socialism (NetIran) (http://www.netiran.com/Htdocs/Clippings/DPolitics/020512XXDP01.html)
- Translation of Aghajari's speech (The Iranian) (http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2002/December/Aghajari/)
I'm unsure of what to excerpt from Aghajari's speech, or how to go about it. Every version of it I've come across in English is either a rough translation (e.g. The Iranian) or incomplete, such as this, which I will go ahead and excerpt (http://www.glennfrazier.com/articles/2002/12/08/113756.php):(Excerpts)
- Historic Islam is a culmination of what the spiritual thinkers [clergy] have experienced and considered through the ages and centuries past. Over time, the accumulated traditions become holy and are adorned in religious garb.
- Consider changes over the last century: Replacing traditional public baths with showers and modern water works was initially considered against the sharia [Islamic law]. Only bathing in traditional public pools was considered sufficient for meeting the Islamic cleansing requirements. Similarly, around the time of our constitutional revolution [in the early 20th century] one of the spiritual gentlemen issued an article condemning chemistry, physics and modern sciences, stating that, "Chemistry declares there is no god." Today, however, these same gentlemen do not oppose sciences, as they ride in late-model automobiles and have developed a taste for such things.
- For years the youth were discouraged from reading the Koran. They were told that understanding the Koran requires 101 levels of thinking not available to commoners. [Islamic scholar Ali] Shariati, however, told his students to read the Koran themselves and to develop scientific methods for the study and scholarly interpretations. These methods can lead to deeper and better understanding of many topics. The clergy carrying tons of ancient baggage cannot compete in this arena. Therefore, students engaging in discovery and developing their own understanding are committing major crimes, as their activities may be bad for the gentlemen's business. . . . The whole Spiritual class would be out of work. In Islam there is no such class. The clergy and many of the titles and the hierarchy are new -- In many cases no more than 50 to 60 years since their invention. . . . The spiritual clergy relates to historical Islam. In essential Islam, there is no such entity.
- Today religion controls the government and the spiritual clergy occupies the seat of power. . . . The Islam we encounter is not the traditional Islam, but a fundamentalist one.
- Compared with traditional religions, the fundamentalists are prone to harsh violations of human rights. Relying on their fundamentals, it is easy for them to declare, "Anyone who is not with us is our enemy.". . .
- Islamic Protestantism is an ongoing project, as we have a constant need to adapt. If our understanding and religious thinking become inflexible and spurious, we are subject to decline. As our needs and circumstances change, we must constantly critique and adjust the framework of our religious thinking. Oh, the savage Muslims .... ;)
Part of what confuses me about the rush to war is that the war-hawks would generally like to pretend that Islamic culture is a backward heathenism that needs to be saved from itself. Islam is violent, say the critics, though without any consideration of the nature of violence in history, which considerations show that Islam is as human as the next identification.
And yet in addition to the internal cultural problems someone like Aghajari might face is also the heaping helping of crap coming over from the West. When the leading edge of modernity seems fulsome or even loathsome, how can modernization seem inviting?
In our efforts to contain the Soviet Union, Donald Rumsfeld and others recruited the military option; the US backed such groups as the Taliban while playing politics for petrol throughout the Arabic world. American backing of Israel stains our view of the situation in the Middle East. We tend to focus again on the militant aspect of Islam. Yet there is a peaceful culture struggling to thrive, and a modern culture scrabbling for legitimacy. We do not in the US invest our dollars or our attentions to either the intellectual nor modernist revolutions attempting to take wing. Something I did not know about specifically, as the events had gotten lost in the Middle-Eastern killing fields: It has often been noted that Nasser's prisons in the 1960s were the incubators for the Egyptian terrorists of the 1970s. This is a reminder that while repressive regimes may appear (as did Nasser's) to have "succeeded" in containing terrorists, there is a long term price to pay unless the repressive regimes also provide alternatives to the deprivations that help to inspire people to consider the terrorist option. In this regard, it is important to note, for example, that Assad in Syria did not only destroy most of the city of Hamas, he also promoted Islamic associations, like the major Sufi brotherhoods, as an alternative to fundamentalist and terrorist organizations. ("Is Democracy in the Middle East Possible?" - FrontPage (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3373))- Another interesting article, though Pat Buchanan's presence really serves to drag down the discussion: Iran, a coming revolution? (FrontPage) (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3158)
(Okay, Buchanan does have a good line or two ... it's always scary when I find myself agreeing with the man on anything aside from the fact that those Jews in Florida didn't really intend to vote for him.)The Islamic world is well into its version of our 16th and 17th century religious wars. Iran, the first into the cauldron, seems to be on the way out after almost a quarter of a century. How did we succeed in Iran? By staying out of Iran for two decades and letting Iranians come to appreciate what life is like under the mullahs who hate America. The mullahs fouled their own nest without any help from the Great Satan. I am opposed to war in Mesopotamia because we will give Arab radicals and Islamic extremists an outside enemy, an imperial power, a "Great Satan" on whom they can blame all their failures and against whom they can all rally and unite.
I disagree with Jim here. I think that while the Arab street admires much about us, we are despised for our arrogance, our hegemonism, out bias against Arabs, and our perceived cowardice in standing up to Ariel Sharon and telling him to start shutting down settlements and getting off the West Bank. I've pointed out before in various discussions that Islam is almost seven centuries younger than Christianity. If I look back to Western civilization in the fourteenth century (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~hanly/chaucer/coursematerials/14thcent.html), what do I see (http://www.tlwinslow.com/timeline/time137x.html#1374)? But Buchanan's note of the 16th and 17th centuries is fair. The question is what to do about it. At present, we are focusing on, and unnecessarily nurturing the part of Islam that has to do with fighting.
We can do far more by openly supporting the intellectual, cultural, and accompaniment spiritual revolutions attempting to unfold in the Islamic world. Since we're beating the drums of war, Bush ought to remind Iran that it was named in the Axis of Evil ... tolerance of dissent would do much to ease our "concerns" about Iran, so to speak.
Thus we find a peripheral consideration against warfare: The Bush Doctrine (http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/bush-intro.html) essentially goes out looking for a fight. Gone from its vision is the possibility of revolution, nurturing, and reconciliation. Gone is a vision of diverse harmony--only a single note is acceptable. We see throughout the Muslim world efforts to move past conflict, to modernize, to evolve. Why do we not recognize these efforts when we consider the dangers of the Muslim world? Why do we not recognize a struggle toward freedom when making patriotism an excuse for disrespect?
- Amnesty International: Dr. Seyyed Hashem Aghajari (http://www.amnesty.no/web.nsf/(pages)/B40A4E4548E81AD1C1256C6E0041A787)
Perhaps Dr Aghajari's case can serve as an example: there is a redeeming side of the Islamic culture that we in the West often forget about. Here we have a "Protestant" Muslim under threat from conservative church institutions with students protesting the threat and the parliament supporting the students. It's a pretty impressive microdrama when you get right down to it.
Of course, in the US, when you upset your church (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/103898_cmurphy13.shtml), you merely risk excommunication, not execution. Imagine what will happen when someone scientifically undermines (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/103898_cmurphy13.shtml) the Koran.
:m:,
Tiassa :cool:
It has occurred to me that a simple question has generally been overlooked. I had occasion last night to take a nostalgic tour of some old posts related to the War on Terror and the coming Iraqi Bush War and then a story at BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2837105.stm) has caught my eye today:More than 120 Iranian MPs have signed an open letter demanding an end to the expulsion and suspension of students involved in November's demonstrations.
The student protests were triggered by the sentencing to death of the reformist university lecturer, Hashem Aghajari, over remarks questioning the role of clerics in Iran/Think about it: we are often very critical of Islamic societies for being oppressive and as the actions of two Washington state legislators last week show--specifically, the patriotic justification offered by one of them--that many people cannot distinguish between Islam and fundamentalist violence despite numerous analogies floating around the culture to make the point clear: We do not attribute the murderous spirit that slays a doctor to all Christians; we do not attribute child molestation to all Christians; we do not attribute the anti-government hatred motivating the Oklahoma City bombing to all Americans.
And so I thought, What better opportunity to point out the enlightened side of Islamic culture?
So here we have a University professor sentenced to death. This is, most would agree, a bad condition.
But we have student protests against the sentence. This, most would agree, is good. There is that faction, though that would expect the students to be happy for the privilege of a University education and thus demand that they shut up. I tend toward supporting the protests, as they are against the death penalty and against lethal oversight of religion.
And now 120 members of the Iranian Parliament have openly objected to the punishment of the student protesters.
So on the one hand we have an authority structure that would beat the protesters publicly, deny them education, and threaten them with prison, and sentence a professor to death. On the other we have students standing against injustice and parliamentarians standing behind the students.
But oh, those horrible Muslims, right? A death sentence? Public whippings? Nudge-nudge! Those horrible savage Muslims ....
- Chronology of the Aghajari Crisis (IranExpert) (http://www.iranexpert.com/2002/chronologyofcrisis17november.htm)
- Hashem Aghajari defends Moderated Socialism (NetIran) (http://www.netiran.com/Htdocs/Clippings/DPolitics/020512XXDP01.html)
- Translation of Aghajari's speech (The Iranian) (http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2002/December/Aghajari/)
I'm unsure of what to excerpt from Aghajari's speech, or how to go about it. Every version of it I've come across in English is either a rough translation (e.g. The Iranian) or incomplete, such as this, which I will go ahead and excerpt (http://www.glennfrazier.com/articles/2002/12/08/113756.php):(Excerpts)
- Historic Islam is a culmination of what the spiritual thinkers [clergy] have experienced and considered through the ages and centuries past. Over time, the accumulated traditions become holy and are adorned in religious garb.
- Consider changes over the last century: Replacing traditional public baths with showers and modern water works was initially considered against the sharia [Islamic law]. Only bathing in traditional public pools was considered sufficient for meeting the Islamic cleansing requirements. Similarly, around the time of our constitutional revolution [in the early 20th century] one of the spiritual gentlemen issued an article condemning chemistry, physics and modern sciences, stating that, "Chemistry declares there is no god." Today, however, these same gentlemen do not oppose sciences, as they ride in late-model automobiles and have developed a taste for such things.
- For years the youth were discouraged from reading the Koran. They were told that understanding the Koran requires 101 levels of thinking not available to commoners. [Islamic scholar Ali] Shariati, however, told his students to read the Koran themselves and to develop scientific methods for the study and scholarly interpretations. These methods can lead to deeper and better understanding of many topics. The clergy carrying tons of ancient baggage cannot compete in this arena. Therefore, students engaging in discovery and developing their own understanding are committing major crimes, as their activities may be bad for the gentlemen's business. . . . The whole Spiritual class would be out of work. In Islam there is no such class. The clergy and many of the titles and the hierarchy are new -- In many cases no more than 50 to 60 years since their invention. . . . The spiritual clergy relates to historical Islam. In essential Islam, there is no such entity.
- Today religion controls the government and the spiritual clergy occupies the seat of power. . . . The Islam we encounter is not the traditional Islam, but a fundamentalist one.
- Compared with traditional religions, the fundamentalists are prone to harsh violations of human rights. Relying on their fundamentals, it is easy for them to declare, "Anyone who is not with us is our enemy.". . .
- Islamic Protestantism is an ongoing project, as we have a constant need to adapt. If our understanding and religious thinking become inflexible and spurious, we are subject to decline. As our needs and circumstances change, we must constantly critique and adjust the framework of our religious thinking. Oh, the savage Muslims .... ;)
Part of what confuses me about the rush to war is that the war-hawks would generally like to pretend that Islamic culture is a backward heathenism that needs to be saved from itself. Islam is violent, say the critics, though without any consideration of the nature of violence in history, which considerations show that Islam is as human as the next identification.
And yet in addition to the internal cultural problems someone like Aghajari might face is also the heaping helping of crap coming over from the West. When the leading edge of modernity seems fulsome or even loathsome, how can modernization seem inviting?
In our efforts to contain the Soviet Union, Donald Rumsfeld and others recruited the military option; the US backed such groups as the Taliban while playing politics for petrol throughout the Arabic world. American backing of Israel stains our view of the situation in the Middle East. We tend to focus again on the militant aspect of Islam. Yet there is a peaceful culture struggling to thrive, and a modern culture scrabbling for legitimacy. We do not in the US invest our dollars or our attentions to either the intellectual nor modernist revolutions attempting to take wing. Something I did not know about specifically, as the events had gotten lost in the Middle-Eastern killing fields: It has often been noted that Nasser's prisons in the 1960s were the incubators for the Egyptian terrorists of the 1970s. This is a reminder that while repressive regimes may appear (as did Nasser's) to have "succeeded" in containing terrorists, there is a long term price to pay unless the repressive regimes also provide alternatives to the deprivations that help to inspire people to consider the terrorist option. In this regard, it is important to note, for example, that Assad in Syria did not only destroy most of the city of Hamas, he also promoted Islamic associations, like the major Sufi brotherhoods, as an alternative to fundamentalist and terrorist organizations. ("Is Democracy in the Middle East Possible?" - FrontPage (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3373))- Another interesting article, though Pat Buchanan's presence really serves to drag down the discussion: Iran, a coming revolution? (FrontPage) (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3158)
(Okay, Buchanan does have a good line or two ... it's always scary when I find myself agreeing with the man on anything aside from the fact that those Jews in Florida didn't really intend to vote for him.)The Islamic world is well into its version of our 16th and 17th century religious wars. Iran, the first into the cauldron, seems to be on the way out after almost a quarter of a century. How did we succeed in Iran? By staying out of Iran for two decades and letting Iranians come to appreciate what life is like under the mullahs who hate America. The mullahs fouled their own nest without any help from the Great Satan. I am opposed to war in Mesopotamia because we will give Arab radicals and Islamic extremists an outside enemy, an imperial power, a "Great Satan" on whom they can blame all their failures and against whom they can all rally and unite.
I disagree with Jim here. I think that while the Arab street admires much about us, we are despised for our arrogance, our hegemonism, out bias against Arabs, and our perceived cowardice in standing up to Ariel Sharon and telling him to start shutting down settlements and getting off the West Bank. I've pointed out before in various discussions that Islam is almost seven centuries younger than Christianity. If I look back to Western civilization in the fourteenth century (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~hanly/chaucer/coursematerials/14thcent.html), what do I see (http://www.tlwinslow.com/timeline/time137x.html#1374)? But Buchanan's note of the 16th and 17th centuries is fair. The question is what to do about it. At present, we are focusing on, and unnecessarily nurturing the part of Islam that has to do with fighting.
We can do far more by openly supporting the intellectual, cultural, and accompaniment spiritual revolutions attempting to unfold in the Islamic world. Since we're beating the drums of war, Bush ought to remind Iran that it was named in the Axis of Evil ... tolerance of dissent would do much to ease our "concerns" about Iran, so to speak.
Thus we find a peripheral consideration against warfare: The Bush Doctrine (http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/bush-intro.html) essentially goes out looking for a fight. Gone from its vision is the possibility of revolution, nurturing, and reconciliation. Gone is a vision of diverse harmony--only a single note is acceptable. We see throughout the Muslim world efforts to move past conflict, to modernize, to evolve. Why do we not recognize these efforts when we consider the dangers of the Muslim world? Why do we not recognize a struggle toward freedom when making patriotism an excuse for disrespect?
- Amnesty International: Dr. Seyyed Hashem Aghajari (http://www.amnesty.no/web.nsf/(pages)/B40A4E4548E81AD1C1256C6E0041A787)
Perhaps Dr Aghajari's case can serve as an example: there is a redeeming side of the Islamic culture that we in the West often forget about. Here we have a "Protestant" Muslim under threat from conservative church institutions with students protesting the threat and the parliament supporting the students. It's a pretty impressive microdrama when you get right down to it.
Of course, in the US, when you upset your church (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/103898_cmurphy13.shtml), you merely risk excommunication, not execution. Imagine what will happen when someone scientifically undermines (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/103898_cmurphy13.shtml) the Koran.
:m:,
Tiassa :cool: