Brown Pundits

I posted this as a comment on the thread about the Fort Hood massacre (in reply to a comment about spontaneous Jihad syndrome) and I thought it may deserve a discussion of its own.

My take on spontaneous jihad syndrome in general:
1. Its not that sudden. I think there are usually warning signs. It seems like there were some signs here too.
2. MOST Muslims are not at some special risk of exploding all of a sudden. But loners and misfits who have joined a conservative/orthodox Islamic center or group and turned more religious ARE a high risk group. Those who are deeply religious but otherwise well adjusted are NOT a high risk group. But a turn towards orthodoxy could be a warning signal (sensitive, but not specific) because there IS a subtext of solidarity and religious conflict in the medieval theology of Islam (as there may have been in other medieval ideologies or even modern ones, the difference is that this “extremism” is still part of mainstream Muslim theology whereas it has already been pushed to the fringe in many other religious traditions…the saving grace is, the theology is not known to most mainstream muslims in any detail. sounds confusing, but its true).
3. But these signals may be ignored out of a concern not to appear “islamophobic”.
4. The real “islamophobes” like Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer are correct in saying that literal adhesion to orthodox Islamic theology (not “extremist”, just orthodox) is likely to include a mixture of Islamic solidarity, dislike for infidels, desire to fight in the way of Allah, etc. They are incorrect in assuming that all Muslims adhere to medieval injunctions about Jihad and fighting the infidels or that all Muslims are capable of ignoring more immediate secular interests and taking up the banner of jihad at a moment’s notice. I suspect they are biased by their own agenda (usually pro-zionist, in some cases extremist Christian) and would like to advance particular foreign policy goals (like making the Israeli occupation permanent). but the bottom line is that while they are not unbiased messengers (who is?), they are closer to the truth when it comes to medieval Islamic theology than the Karen Armstrong types.
5. I guess what I am pushing is the idea that common sense CAN actually be a guide here. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and equally there is no need to be willfully blind to warning signs. And that biased agenda pushers on BOTH sides of this debate have obscured common sense options. Islamists operating out of Saudi supported Islamic centers are NOT a majority of American Muslims, but they have disproportionate share of media exposure as “muslim spokesmen”. At the same time, people like Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer have a definite foreign policy agenda and it suits them to malign all Muslims (no matter how “secular”) as long as they suspect them of Palestinian sympathies. Their warnings need to be heard keeping this in view.
6. I am still hopeful that common sense will prevail.
7. All nutcases cannot be stopped beforehand. Some surprises will always happen. There is no risk-free society, with or without muslims.
omarali50 is offline  Report Post  
Old 11-08-2009  #2
Tukhachevskii
Council Member

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 589
Default
Sir, though I am in no way a blind follower or supporter of Daniel Pipes I feel a few comments are in order especially when I agree with a great many of your conclusions while disagreeing with many of your premises. I think it all boils down to a difference in thin versus thick description (a la Geertz).

1) I would agree in principle with your first point although we can, and I believe must, differ on the meaning of “sudden” as denoting a temporally imprecise period. “Sudden” does not, I do not think, refer to an “augenblick” type moment (and I think Pipes is clear in his article, if not explicitly so, that he is aware of that). Time within this context is very relative and as you rightly point out warning indicators are usually present. However, in terms of “signal strength” warning indicators regarding individuals such as Hasan at Ft. Hood are immeasurably “weaker” than those of organised groups whose signal strength, if only from the volume and density of their communications alone and the number of active nodes involved, is very much greater and thus appears with greater relief on our screens (as it were). Similarly, the build-up or mobilisation phase of organised groups may involve a period of months during which such mobilisation can indicate intentions; individuals on the other hand may need only a few hours. Such individuals, unless suffering from extreme psychological dissonance, must have something, some background set of habits or conditioned responses which facilitate their “triggering” in the absence of group induced motivation. The individual’s actions, however, must still be seen a part of a wider and more normatively permissive background. When you say MOST Muslims are unlikely to suffer from SJS in the future I wonder how you know who they are and how you can be so certain they won’t; no doubt similar questions are being asked about the former pro-American, naturalised, and culturally assimilated Hasan by his superiors in the US Army.

2) I find your second point a confusing combination of assertions, many of which are contradictory. Despite you professed intentions I take your point to be that Islam may not be a sufficient cause but it is most certainly a necessary one (in this I agree). On the one hand you claim that it is misfits or loners who are seduced into ultra-piety and then over-emphasise certain doctrines (perhaps out of ignorance of contexts, though this is debateable) and there thereby led to violence. But then OTOH you claim that the ‘turn towards orthodoxy’, i.e., the adherence to Islam, is by itself a warning indicator given Islam’s “subtext” of conflict against non-believers (which I believe is the central leitmotiv of the Religion of Submission rather than a subtext). Thirdly, I see a conflation between what you describe as differences between medieval and modern Islamic theology and the “mainstream” who have brought conflict to the centre of Islam rather than the fringe as in other unspecified religions. Yet conflict is at the centre of Islam; the phrase oqatiloo fee sabili alehi (Kill in the path of Allah) appears ad nauseam in the Quran. The centrality of warfare to Islam is attested by even a cursory reading of the majority of Mohammed’s hadeeth. Furthermore, I don’t quite see how a totalistic worldview that entitles itself Islam or, Subit! in literal English translation, can be anything other than conflict prone at its heart. We may quibble over just what Submit! means but ultimately, like Frank Zappa, I hold grave fears about any system that seeks to put men on their knees (if that’s what you mean by Islamophobe then you can count me as phobic). Neither do I see the injunction regarding Jihad as medieval only. They are part and parcel of Islam. The Sharia, the Quran and the Hadeeth are, Islamically speaking, universal timeless Truths. The injunctions are thereby not applicable to one historical circumstance but for all time. See also the comments to the end of the artile on the Kings of War website (here though in a different context) (http://kingsofwar.wordpress.com/2009…cky-not-stuck/).

3) I totally agree. Multiculturalism, political correctness and value plurality have most certainly hindered rather than facilitated proper dialogue on this issue. One only needs to look at the Gert Wilder’s case in the UK

4) I would not describe Daniel Pipes as an Islamophobe but you are correct in pointing out the veracity of his analyses. When it comes to his supposed “pro-zionism” (his pro-Israel position is actually much more subtle) all I have to say is that it doesn’t detract from his comments regarding Islam. When Churchill allied himself with Stalin against Hitler it was not because he was pro-communist. I don’t personally feel that (pro-Israeli sentiment) to be a sin either; in today’s climate Israel could do with all the friends she gets in the balance of (moral) power. As for the Israeli-Palestinian issue it’s not my problem and neither is it anyone else’s but theirs (too many cooks and all that). However, again in reference to 2) above, I am confused with regards to the distinction you make between medieval and modern Islam. A few years ago one of the Imams at Al-Azhar in Egypt issued a fatwa requiring women to breast feed their male colleagues! In doing so working women would become nursing mothers to their male colleagues and thereby (supposedly) eliminate the risk of zinna (unlawful sexual intercourse). How’s that for a modern resolution of Islam’s take of women in the workplace?

5) I agree that common sense is a valuable guide to action (see Edmund Burke on prejudice) but I cannot understand the point made about Saudi spokesmen. IMO it is not the messenger but the message that constitutes the COG here. The Saudis, or bin Laden for that matter, would never be able to mobilise Muslims if there were not already pre-existing norms or habits or predispositions which they could use for that purpose. Wahhabi’s, deobandis or whatever sect may be flavour of the month are not innovating ideologists (to borrow a phrase from Quentin Skinner), they are not subverting a set of ideas and turning them inside out into something new, they are merely quoting scripture, they are merely taking medieval/mainstream/modern Islam at its word. And therein lies the rub. On a different note what exactly is a “secular” Muslim? Did Hasan qualify (prior to the other day’s events)?

6) It is precisely because common sense has failed that we are in the mess we are.

7). Agreed, Nutcases cannot be stopped beforehand but only when they act alone. A nutcase is an individual who, like the chap (Jason Rodrigez?) who shot people in Orlando (after the Ft. Hood incident), provide virtually no warning indicators (then again, in a country where firearms are freely available that would be tough). OTOH the risk/threat to society is qualitatively different with or without Muslims. Why? Because as you rightly point out nutcases are nutcases. Their grievance is personal, local and idiosyncratic. Muslim individuals (something of a semantic oxymoron) are the reverse. Their issues are social (“Muslim vs Kafir”), global (the Muslim as member of the Ummah/Dar al-Islam) and cultural (“the universal laws of Muslim conduct vs local temporal/secular laws”). That said, being a Muslim isn’t a sufficient cause (for alarm) but it most definitely is a necessary one when it comes to preparing for, countering and negating Islamic violence. After all when profiling threats we must ask who is most susceptible to violence of that kind…the individual with a local grievance or a Muslim whose value-system is normatively permissive (if not encouraging/glorifying) in its advocating of violence against the Kafir? The question we must ask is would Hasan (without pre-empting the official inquiry), or for that matter John Muhammed (Beltway sniper), Hasan Abujihad (USS Benfold espionage case), Asan Akbar (101st Airborne Div, Kuwait grenade incident) , done what they did had they not been Muslims?
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 11-08-2009 at 01:01 PM.
Tukhachevskii is offline  Report Post  
Old 11-09-2009  #3
tequila
Council Member

tequila’s Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,665
Default
Quote:
Such individuals, unless suffering from extreme psychological dissonance, must have something, some background set of habits or conditioned responses which facilitate their “triggering” in the absence of group induced motivation. The individual’s actions, however, must still be seen a part of a wider and more normatively permissive background. When you say MOST Muslims are unlikely to suffer from SJS in the future I wonder how you know who they are and how you can be so certain they won’t; no doubt similar questions are being asked about the former pro-American, naturalised, and culturally assimilated Hasan by his superiors in the US Army.
These background habits and responses are part of all of us. What triggers anyone to mass murder is of necessity both deeply individual and part of their social milieu. That Islam was part of Hasan’s is undoubted. That Christianity and right-wing politics was part of that of someone like Tim McVeigh, OTOH, is also undoubted. You ask how can one be sure that MOST Muslims won’t go out and shoot everyone in the immediate vicinity in the near future. How can you be sure that any white male who holds right wing views won’t do the same? Or any alienated white suburban youth, etc. etc.

Quote:
Furthermore, I don’t quite see how a totalistic worldview that entitles itself Islam or, Subit! in literal English translation, can be anything other than conflict prone at its heart.
Have you ever been to a Christian church in your life? Are you at all familiar with the history of Christian European expansion in North and South America, Africa, or Asia?

Quote:
Neither do I see the injunction regarding Jihad as medieval only. They are part and parcel of Islam. The Sharia, the Quran and the Hadeeth are, Islamically speaking, universal timeless Truths. The injunctions are thereby not applicable to one historical circumstance but for all time.
There are also several different legal schools of sharia, and a quite significant population of Muslims do not accept the hadith at all. To say that there is debate over the validity of certain hadith and the varied interpretations of such within mainstream Sunni theology is quite an underestimation.

Quote:
A few years ago one of the Imams at Al-Azhar in Egypt issued a fatwa requiring women to breast feed their male colleagues! In doing so working women would become nursing mothers to their male colleagues and thereby (supposedly) eliminate the risk of zinna (unlawful sexual intercourse). How’s that for a modern resolution of Islam’s take of women in the workplace?
Are you aware how many scholars work at al-Azhar, and how many fatwas are issued every day? Fatwas being legal opinions, of course. As for the breast-feeding fatwa, this was mocked throughout the region, condemned in Egypt, and quickly retracted by the scholar in question.

A Saudi imam recently issued a fatwa banning cell phones. I’m sure thousands of fatwas have been issued in favor of cell phones. If you’ve ever been to the Middle East, which fatwa do you think will actually be obeyed?
tequila is offline  Report Post  
Old 11-09-2009  #4
omarali50
Council Member

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 786
Default
Tukhachevskii,

I will have to reply in more detail as soon as I get some time, but I will try some general points:

1. I dont really accept the view that Islam is a uniquely self-contained religion. It developed and grew and many different individuals added to it and used what had been added before in creatively new ways (a lot of its is borrowed from earlier religions). And its theology is just one aspect of society. Basic biology, psychology, money, sex and a thousand other things are still operating after some population becomes Muslim. That obviously puts me at some distance from a particular version of Islamic orthodoxy, but interestingly enough, it also puts me at some distance from some of the most determined critics of Islamic orthodoxy. But I can only say whatever seems to make sense to me…I dont see most conflict in the world as religious. I dont even see the world through primarily religious eyes.

2. I do agree with you that there is nothing inherently peaceful about Islamic history and ideology. In fact, it developed as a warlike ideology, suited for a fairly warlike expanding empire. But even Sparta must have had its peaceniks and hippies (keeping a discreetly low profile?) and the bigger the group grows, the more diverse it is bound to become. At some point, the distinction between the expansive, warlike and proselytizing Arab empire and the expansive, warlike and Proselytizing empire of Charlemagne can become harder and harder to define on “Christian vs Islamic” grounds. And there is always the fact that history may be mostly about the emperors and armies, but there were always other things going on. Seeing that Karen Armstrong is a hopelessly naive observer does not guarantee that someone else’s apparently clear-eyed unsentimental vision is not subject to its own errors and omissions.

Maybe I am more optimistic than you are. My problem with some Islamophobes (not you, I dont know you that well) is that they seem to suffer from “fatwa-envy” more than they suffer from “fatwa-phobia”. At times, it seems their main complaint is that Christians are not as intolerant and warlike and bloodthirsty as Muslims! You may not believe me, but keep an open mind, you will see some examples….

3. I agree that some of my arguments seem (are?) contradictory and hard to follow. Some contradictions get resolved after we get further in the discussion. Some are real. Reality, as Paul Feyerabend pointed out, is a rather mysterious substance, of unknown properties, partly yielding and partly resisting our efforts to know it. I am not trying to be fashionably dense. Some of it IS confusing. But we can still agree on many lower order facts. As you go deeper, it gets harder.
omarali50 is offline  Report Post  
Old 11-10-2009  #5
Tukhachevskii
Council Member

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 589
Default Being dense was always a term of derision where I grew up
Quote:
Originally Posted by omarali50  View Post

1. I dont really accept the view that Islam is a uniquely self-contained religion. It developed and grew and many different individuals added to it and used what had been added before in creatively new ways (a lot of its is borrowed from earlier religions). And its theology is just one aspect of society. I dont see most conflict in the world as religious. I dont even see the world through primarily religious eyes.

2. I do agree with you that there is nothing inherently peaceful about Islamic history and ideology. In fact, it developed as a warlike ideology, suited for a fairly warlike expanding empire. But even Sparta must have had its peaceniks and hippies (keeping a discreetly low profile?) and the bigger the group grows, the more diverse it is bound to become. At some point, the distinction between the expansive, warlike and proselytizing Arab empire and the expansive, warlike and Proselytizing empire of Charlemagne can become harder and harder to define on “Christian vs Islamic” grounds.

Maybe I am more optimistic than you are. My problem with some Islamophobes (not you, I dont know you that well) is that they seem to suffer from “fatwa-envy” more than they suffer from “fatwa-phobia”. At times, it seems their main complaint is that Christians are not as intolerant and warlike and bloodthirsty as Muslims! You may not believe me, but keep an open mind, you will see some examples….

3. I agree that some of my arguments seem (are?) contradictory and hard to follow. Some contradictions get resolved after we get further in the discussion. Some are real. Reality, as Paul Feyerabend pointed out, is a rather mysterious substance, of unknown properties, partly yielding and partly resisting our efforts to know it.

I am not trying to be fashionably dense. Some of it IS confusing. But we can still agree on many lower order facts. As you go deeper, it gets harder.
Omarali50, it’s good we are not being fashionably dense but neither are we afraid of actually discussing the issues without become chest beaters.

With regards to 1) I would agree that Islam is not a self-contained monad sealed off from the world. But the generative grammer or deep structure of Islam (i.e., its basic tenets and practices) exert strong homeostatic effects that impart a centripetal force upon its components that prevent rearticulation into novel mutations (as it were). All such formations are IMO open systems but that doesn’t mean they are as amenable or open to change. Systems have hierarchic and system stablising elements that are necessary to their survival. In Islam these are stronger than in most systems. Unlike Christianity, whose central traditions, practices, and even texts are open to criticism and have led to a number of major evolutionary trajectorites (Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, etc). Islam, by its own rules of formation, prevents innovation in its base code (the differing Madhabs/Schools of Thought do not rearticulate Islam but emphasise some areas more than others. No Madhab has ever, to my knowledge, claimed that anything written in the Quran, Shari’a or Hadeeth is wrong or invalid. Interpretation is quite another matter altogether; they all accept the religious duty of Jihad while differing on the circumstances that warrant it). That said, I agree with you that religion is not the grundnorm generating conflict in the entire world but rather where Islam has made its stamp the religion (although it is actually rather more than just a religion) will have a large role to play (just how large will, of course, depend upon numerous factors as you quite rightly point out).

With regards to 2) and following on from my comments above there is nothing inherently warlike in Chrisitianity (given the fluidity of its central tenets this is to be expected) unlike Islam which explicitly turns war-making into a religious virtue. Charlemagne may not be a good example in that he began his emperial project just before being baptised. Furthermore, Charlemagne’s imperial expansion was as much of a result of Islamic conquest, and thus reflexive/defensive (remember the battle of poitiers) as it was determined by his religion. As for the Spartans there political culture was a nationalistic fringe of Helenistic civilisation (i.e., certain of its norms were over-accentuated to fit their particular needs). Greek civilisation, despite what later Europeans may have thought, was never universal in the sense of all encompassing geogrpahically/globally but was specific to Greeks/Hellenes. Islam was the opposite in positing the entire world as the dominion of Allah and his slaves. And lets not forget, the normative injuction in Catholicism demanding the separation of state (temporal power) and church (spiritual power) often led to conflict between the two over imperial expansion and the treatment of foreign peoples (there was, of course, collusion too). Catholics could also hold extremist views such as ultramontanism.

I am not so fatwwa-centric as my previous post may have suggested; it was merely meant to have been a “witty” (snide, is perhaps more appropriate) comment on something you said with regards to the different between medieval/modern Islam. Yes, Feyerabend has a lot to tell us (more so that Popper). Nonetheless I look forward to our continued discussion.
Tukhachevskii is offline  Report Post  
Old 11-10-2009  #6
Tukhachevskii
Council Member

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 589
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by tequila  View Post
That Christianity and right-wing politics was part of that of someone like Tim McVeigh, OTOH, is also undoubted. male who holds right wing views won’t do the same? Or any alienated white suburban youth, etc. etc.

Have you ever been to a Christian church in your life? Are you at all familiar with the history of Christian European expansion in North and South America, Africa, or Asia?

There are also several different legal schools of sharia, and a quite significant population of Muslims do not accept the hadith at all. To say that there is debate over the validity of certain hadith and the varied interpretations of such within mainstream Sunni theology is quite an underestimation.

Are you aware how many scholars work at al-Azhar, and how many fatwas are issued every day? Fatwas being legal opinions, of course. As for the breast-feeding fatwa, this was mocked throughout the region, condemned in Egypt, and quickly retracted by the scholar in question.

A Saudi imam recently issued a fatwa banning cell phones. I’m sure thousands of fatwas have been issued in favor of cell phones. If you’ve ever been to the Middle East, which fatwa do you think will actually be obeyed?
Sir, I have obviously deeply offended you in posting what was, after all, my opinionrather than gospel.

1. I agree with you. There are many causal factors involved in the “triggering” of nutcases (to use Omarali50’s felicitous formulation). However, I think we can agree that Christianity by itself does not glofiy warfare or killing in the same way that Islam does. My specific post was with regards to Islamic violence not all violence.

2. I was schooled at a Baptist school so I have some inkling of what Christianity in one of its more novel forms looks like (and lets not forget the Munster Anabaptists). As for European imperial expansion lets not conflate the terms of discourse. The Europeans were Christians but they were not by and large agents of the Pope or the Catholic(or later Protestant) church. The Churches often aided and abetted but they also obstructed imperial expansion and in some cases even humanised it. Christian law could often be deployed to defend the natives as much as it could be used to justify the usurper.

With regards to the Shari’a no Madhab has ever, to my knowledge, disputed the validity or truth of the Sahri’a, Hadeeth or the Quran. They may interpret (which is a different matter) the conditions necessary for a law to become operative but they would never dispute the truth. They all agree on Jihad as a religious duty; they all disagree on when it should occur (this doe not, however, ignore the fact that it remains a duty in constant potentiality if not actuality). As to validity of the Hadeeth I was refering, and admit that I should have made this explicit, to the Hadeeth universaally considered saheeh /correct by all Sunni and a majority of Shi’a Madhabs. Twelver Shi’a do not dispute the saheeh hadeeth in their entiret but only to those refering to Ali, Fatima and Alia.
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 11-10-2009 at 04:52 AM.
Tukhachevskii is offline  Report Post  
Old 11-10-2009  #7
omarali50
Council Member

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 786
Default
Before I get fired, I have to get back to work, but we will carry on this discussion in the future as well. Right now, I will leave you with this thought:

I guess I was reacting to notions (seen in Jihadwatch and suchlike) that we are faced with this unstoppable scourge that will destroy humanity unless all good men pick up their weapons and join the militia for this war to end all wars…..I exaggerate, but I think, so do they..and I suspect they have an agenda that has less to do with “saving humanity” and more to do with particular conflicts in which they are vested (like Israel vs Palestinians, or serbs vs bosnians; which are real enough as conflicts, but which may not possess the universal significance that they are being assigned…and yes, I know the jihadis are also assigning them universal significance; I dont agree with them either).

About political correctness being a disease, I dont think we disagree at all.

I was not trying to “indulge in chest beating”, email is not the best way to communicate but I think we will understand each other as we continue to argue.
omarali50 is offline  Report Post  
Old 11-10-2009  #8
omarali50
Council Member

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 786
Default with apologies for the long posting…
This is a long post, but i am posting it here as an example of how it goes at the other end. this is my reply to a post entitled “Why blame Islam”on our email group (the original post, in bad formatting, is below my post).

I agree that one cannot blame “islam” for the acts of particular Muslims. There is no single Islam to blame. I dont really accept the view that Islam is a uniquely self-contained religion. It developed and grew and many different individuals added to it and used what had been added before in creative new ways (a lot of it is borrowed from earlier religions, just as they had borrowed from even earlier ones).
I dont see most conflict in the world as religious. I dont even see the world through primarily religious eyes.

But there are some errors and omissions in your email and I will quicky and off the top of my head mention A FEW:

1. Christianity, not Islam, is the fastest growing religion in the world.

2. Afghanistan was actually not directly occupied by US troops. Instead, the US supported anti-taliban factions (already fighting in the long running Afghan civil war) and helped them kick out the taliban. At this time, Afghanistan is ruled by an Afghan govt that has US support. This govt is opposed by other Afghans and they in turn are supported by elements of the Pakistani intelligence service. Muslims are actually fighting on all sides of this very nasty and long running conflict.

3. The crusaders were indeed very violent and cruel. But how was their invasion different from the invasion of Europe by Arab troops (in Spain) or by Turkish troops (the Ottomans)? And what about the invasion of Eastern Roman territories by the Arabs between 630 and 650 AD? Invasions seem to be commonplace on all sides, not just outsiders invading Muslim lands (after all, they BECAME Muslim lands because of an earlier invasion; historically Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya etc were not Arab states, they became Arab states after conquest).

4. Hundreds of thousands have not been killed in any recent Irish civil war. In fact, hundreds of thousands have not been killed in Palestine either. In terms of casualties, the Irish “troubles” were small change and the Israeli Palestinian conflict does not reach the high standards set in the Chinese civil war, the Japanese invasion of China, Partition in India, civil war in the Congo and many others (just to name a random few).

4. The quote from Huntington (“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.) misses the point that all successful empires were built on superiority in applying organized violence. How else would they overcome different peoples? The arab empire, the persian empire, the mughal empire, the mongol empire, they were all built on military conquest (which is the very definition of “superiority in applying organized violence”).

it is also important to keep in mind that superiority in applying organized violence may actually be the RESULT of superiority of certain ideas (e.g in science, technology, administration) . Of course, its an ongoing process. A hundred years ago, Japan was getting ready to conquer China and British troops were looting in Beijing. Today, the situation is very different. Iran, for example, is becoming an increasingly capable power, though still very very weak compared to China or Japan or America. Tomorrow, it may not be that weak anymore… as its ideas improve, so will its ability to apply organized violence…

Omar

From: Samuel P. Huntington (Author The Clash Of Civilisations).
Quote:
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”

Islamophobic writers claim that “Islam” is responsible for the decline of Muslims. Without accepting this in toto, can we make a case that the solidification of Islamic theology has been bad for the Islamicate world?

http://voegelinview.com/closing-of-the-muslim-mind-review/

The Magical World of Islam
Robert R. Reilly. The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis.Forward by Roger Scruton. Wilmington: Intercollegiate Studies Institute Books, 2010. 244 pp. Hardcover, $17.79, Kindel Edition, $12.99.

In 2002 Bernard Lewis published a remarkable book, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. In his new book, Robert Reilly doesn’t ask what went wrong or even how did it happen? What he does ask is “Why?” That is, he proposes an explanatory interpretation, not a narrative of events. This is a more philosophically difficult task and is bound to be more controversial as well, and not just in the Muslim world, which has grown extraordinarily sensitive to such questions.

The thesis is disarmingly simple: “a large portion of mainstream Sunni Islam, the majority expression of the faith, has shut the door to reality in a profound way.” Reilly attributes this non-recognition of reality to a “dehellenization” of Islam, a condition made even more acute, thorough, and effective because “few are aware that there was a process of Hellenization preceding it.” According to Reilly and other western scholars of the history of Islam, until the ninth century it was still possible to discuss questions which are still familiar in the West, such as the relationship of reason and revelation, or the relationship between noetic and pneumatic experience and symbolization, or even the capability of reason with respect to truth. Such questions are, or were, common to all monotheistic religions.

The two chief ways of closing the mind, whether Muslim, Greek, or American, have been familiar since Plato’s day and were brilliantly restated by Allan Bloom in 1987: (1) reason cannot know anything; (2) reality is unknowable. Reilly begins from a basically Platonic position that closing the mind or a refusing to apperceive reality is a constant human possibility. He then provides a brief history of the original encounter of Islam with philosophy as practiced in the Byzantine and Sassanid territories conquered during the early Islamic centuries. The most interesting result flourished as the so-called Mutazalite School of theology. As did Socrates in the Euthyphro, they discussed and decided such questions as whether God forbids murder because it is wrong or whether it is wrong because God forbids it.

The Early influence of Greek Thought

The Mutazalites would have agreed with St. Thomas that humans are capable of apprehending things created in their minds because such things were first thought by God. That is, God’s intelligibility is what makes God’s creation intelligible. God can neither be unreasonable nor unjust, they held, because His reasonableness and justice were obligatory (wajib) or part of His nature.

The height of Mutazalite influence came in the first half of the ninth century. Central to their teaching was the notion that the Koran was an historical document rather than an entity that has coexisted with God from all eternity. This is an issue that has recently again become an item of discussion, at least among scholars, Muslim and non-Muslim, outside the Muslim world. For the Mutazalites, an uncreated Koran violated the fundamental nature of God, His unity (tawhid). An uncreated Koran, they argued, would be like a second God, which was impossible.

More than internal religious debate was involved however when the caliph al-Ma’mun required religious judges and witnesses to take an oath that Mutazalite doctrine was true. This inquisition (minah, testing) was more than an argument, though perhaps less than compulsion. In any event, as Reilly argued, there is nothing inherently irrational in the use of force to defend reason; “the enemies of reason cannot be opposed by reason alone.” How else but by force can reason then be defended against the unreasonable? This is a self-evident position that Westerners have forgotten as thoroughly as Muslims.

 al-Ghazali and the arbitrary Will of God

The “traditionalists,” as Reilly called the non-Mutazalites, believed in a lot more than in the uncreated status of the Koran, though that was a central pillar of their position. If eternal God had spoken to humans in the eternal Koran, there was no need for reason because reality and instruction had been finally and completely revealed. This was the fundamental position of the Asharite School founded by Abu Hasan al-Ashari in the early tenth century. In contrast to the Mutazalites, the Asharites emphasized the unlimited will of God, not His reasonableness.

The dispute with the Mutazalites was not over whether God created everything; they were agreed on that. Rather it was over whether, in addition to what Christian scholastics were to call the primary cause, namely God, there were secondary causes. For the Asharites there were none. The implications of this position were elaborated a century and a half later by Abu Hamid al-Ghazali in Deliverance from Error. According to al-Ghazali, the Koran does not reveal God but God’s instructions to humans. In effect this reverses the Socratic and Mutazalite teaching: murder is wrong because God wills it. Thus good is what is permitted, halal; evil is what is forbidden, haram. There is, in consequence, no need for moral or political philosophy at all because there is no need to reason about things.

Al-Ghazali’s other major book, called The Incoherence of the Philosophers, argued that, because God is not bound by anything, there is no “natural” cause-and-effect sequence. In Thomistic language, there are no proximate causes but only a prime or first cause, namely the will of God. For the same reason — the absence of any limitation to God’s will — human freedom must also be an offence against God’s omnipotence.

Reilly’s argument, very simply, is that the triumph of al-Ghazali and of the Asharite School ended the possibility of integrating philosophical reason and Islam for large numbers of Sunni Muslims. The line-by-line refutation of al-Ghazali’s The Incoherence of the Philosophers was made in The Incoherence of the Incoherence by Averroes in the twelfth century. Averroes’ reward was to have his books burned in the town square at Cordova in 1195. The victory of al-Ghazali was quickly followed by a simplification and a dogmatization of his views, first by Ibn Taymiyya and then by his Hanbali followers, including Abd al-Wahhab, the originator of Wahhabism, which inspires so many of the contemporary Islamists.

Reason-dependent Democracy impossible for Islamists

The most significant political consequence today of the ascendancy of the Asharites is, first of all, that democracy is rendered impossible for believers. This is less because Sharia is God’s law than because the prerequisite of democracy is the respectability of reason. “Otherwise,” Reilly asked “what could serve as its legitimating source?” The Thomistic syllogism Reilly employs is straightforward: without the possibility of secondary causes, there can be no natural law; without natural law, there can be no constitutional political order by which human beings, using reason, create laws to govern themselves and act freely.

By liberating divine omnipotence from the laws of causality, God was also liberated from rationality. A typical bit of theological policy-making along these lines would go something like this: the use of seatbelts is an affront to God because God alone wills the hour of our death. If that time has arrived, seatbelts will not save you; if your time is not up, using a seatbelt is unnecessary. Why, then, have a seatbelt law?

Freed from the constraints of cause and effect, things happen as if by magic; or rather, it becomes impossible to tell the difference between magic and God’s will. Supernatural forces, not a good aim and a steady hand, direct the bullet of a rifleman; in place of commonsensical accounts of political events, complex conspiracies rule the world. It is self-evident that science, including political science, is impossible. When the effort has been made to construct an “Islamic science” the results are both entirely predictable and utterly silly. Using Koranic quotations, for example, “Islamic scientists” attempt to deliver the chemical composition of djinns or the temperature of Hell (Reilly uncharacteristically fails to provide the information as to whether the temperature was calculated in degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius).

The Contemporary Wreckage

The contemporary consequences, which Reilly calls “The Wreckage,” are widely attested by Muslim thinkers. Just as some rabbis argued that the Holocaust was God’s punishment for not following His ways, some imams make the same kind of argument regarding the “wreckage.” It is a rebuke from God that can be corrected only by Islamism.

But just as Emil Fackenheim rejected the blasphemy of the Holocaust as punishment, Reilly argues that Islamism answers nothing. It is “a spiritual pathology based upon a theological deformation that has produced a dysfunctional culture.” Moreover, as Roger Scruton noted in his Foreword to the book, unless policy-makers understand they are dealing with a theological, philosophical, and spiritual problem, and not, for example a problem of economic inefficiency or social distress, their prescriptions are inevitably going to make matters worse. Such would be a recipe for even greater policy incoherence. Reilly provided an obvious analogy: “if someone had suggested that in order to deal with Nazism one first had to overcome the problem of poverty in Germany, they would be laughed out of school.”

More generally, if you believe in a magical world where everything operates by first causes, you will never have to bother yourself with the world and try to discover how it works. Islamism is as much a second reality in Eric Voegelin’s sense as the Thousand Year Reich or a Classless Society. Like those spiritual fantasies, it appears in the world with the recognizable face of totalitarianism.

Any remedy (if that is the right term) is one for Muslims to undertake. They alone can reconcile the unity of God with the unity of reason, much as Thomas did for twelfth-century Christianity. But as Voegelin once observed, the recovery of reason demands a new Thomas, not a neo-Thomist. How much more difficult to find a Muslim equivalent after so many centuries of Asharite irrationality. Most of us can see the parallel between Islamism and especially between militant Salafist jihadism and the totalitarian movements of twentieth-century Europe.

Most of us can see that Islamism is a perversion of Islam. Few however raise the next question, which has been explored in the case of deformations of Christianity by scholars such as Norman Cohn and Hans von Balthasar and, of course, by Voegelin: what was it in Islam that made such a perversion possible? Robert Reilly raises just that question and provides a clear answer in this splendid book.

Islam Caused Islamic World’s Decline
by Andrew Stunich
07 Jul, 2008

Islam So Dominates Islamic Culture That It Had To Play A Role In Its Decline
The cause of the Islamic world’s decline is, like most issues related to Islam, controversial, but worthy of consideration given Islam’s increasing impact on Western culture. Bernard Lewis, a highly respected Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University who has written extensively about the history of Islam, wrote a well-received January 2002 Atlantic Monthly article and subsequent book entitled “What Went Wrong” wherein he set forth many sound reasons that help to explain why the Islamic world declined from its once dominant cultural, economic, and military status to its current state of abject inferiority.
However, Prof. Lewis’ analysis implausibly exonerated Islam as a factor in the Islamic world’s decline. He opined that “to blame Islam as such is usually hazardous and not often attempted.” He further argued that it was not plausible to blame Islam because during most of the Middle Ages it was the world of Islam that contained the major centers of civilization and progress.
While Prof. Lewis’ is correct that Islam once contained the major centers of civilization and progress during the Middle Ages, there is nonetheless a plethora of evidence that overwhelmingly establishes that Islam was a substantial factor in the decline of Islamic civilization.
We refer to the Islamic world using its majority religion to identify the culture for a compelling reason: Islam is more than just a religion. In its original form, Islam is a complete social, political, and religious way of life that absolutely dominates the lives and thoughts of fundamentalist Muslims. As a matter of simple logic and common sense, one is left to wonder how it could possibly be that the religion that so overwhelmingly drives and dominates Islamic culture could somehow have managed to not play a role in its decline? Quite the opposite is true: It would be hard to overestimate Islam’s role in the decline of Islamic civilization.
Islamic Diversity Often Masks Recognition of Islam’s Full Impact On Islamic Civilization
When I discuss Islam, except where otherwise noted, I am referring to the Islam Muhammad preached and practiced which I often refer to as “fundamentalist Islam” or “Muhammadanism.” On the other end of the spectrum of Islamic faith, I refer to Muslims that are largely influenced by non-Islamic factors, but who maintain some connection with Islam because they were born into an Islamic culture, as “cultural Muslims.” The Islamic world also contains Muslims that fall within many points between the two poles of cultural Islam and fundamentalist Islam and many Muslims that fall outside of the two poles (i.e., Twelver Shiite Islam) such that any analysis of Islam’s impact on the Islamic world can be quite challenging. But we should not be overly distracted by the diversity of Islamic belief nor should that diversity be allowed to preclude recognition of the impact of fundamentalist Islam on Islamic culture.
Real Islam is the religion founded in the seventh century by Muhammad Ibn Abdullah and which is based on the Quran, hadiths, and Sira (biography of Muhammad). A fundamentalist Muslim attempts to practice Islam just as the first three generations of Muslims did as set forth in the Quran, hadiths, and Sira.

Islam is a revealed religion with a distinct set of unchanging rules and guidelines to follow. It is not a religion that is supposed to “come from within” like some new age religion. It seems quite incongruous to claim that one believes that Muhammad was Allah’s prophet and therefore profess to be a Muslim and then reject clear Islamic doctrine as established by Muhammad when the Qur’an demands that Muslims obey Muhammad and follow his “perfect” example. The religion is named Islam, meaning submission, because its founder, Muhammad, claimed that is the word Allah said to him in several alleged revelations. (Fn 1) Otherwise, the religion would surely have been known as Muhammadanism or something similar thereto.
I applaud on moral grounds any Muslim that rejects the violent and hateful aspects of Islamic doctrine, but it seems that at a certain level of modification from the Islam Muhammad preached and practiced, one ceases to be a Muslim. We would all be better served if adherents to evolved or reformed versions of Islam would more accurately self-identify under some other designation.
Instead, we see Ahmadiyya Muslims, many Sufi Muslims, and Bahai Muslims all believing they are “Muslims” when they have deviated so far from the religion Muhammad preached and practiced that Muhammad would hardly consider them Muslims. Muhammad once ordered a mosque, whose members were practicing a heretical form of Islam, burned and his followers burned it to the ground with the heretical Muslims inside thereby establishing in Islamic doctrine that schisms were not only not to be tolerated, but should be violently suppressed. (Fn 2)
Sikhs should be praised for admitting that they are adherents of a new religion that combines aspects of Islam and Hinduism. Many Muslim sects should follow the Sikh’s example as it would help alleviate much of the confusion that arises whenever Islam is analyzed and it would limit fundamentalist Islam’s ability to hide its true nature.
Because so many Muslims do not practice fundamentalist Islam, the religion often masks its true nature very effectively. Any religion, no mater how clear its doctrines, varies in practice depending upon the nature of the culture where it is practiced. This principle is especially true for Islam. Islam is a syncretic religion that incorporates beliefs from other religions, particularly Arabian Paganism, Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism. Because it is already a syncretic religion, Islam has historically readily absorbed increased influence from the other religions previously practiced by new Muslim converts in specific regions. The most well known being the Islam practiced by many Shiite Muslims. Over time, Islam often shed the increased influence in some regions as the old religions in various locales faded from memory, but in some regions, such as Iran, the influence of the prior culture and religion leaves a permanent mark that can greatly alter Islam—not always for the better as exemplified by Iran’s Islamic government.
Sometimes, however, the foregoing process does improve Islam with the unfortunate result that fundamentalist Islam, with the help of religiously sanctioned deception known as taquiya, often evades full blame for its extremely violent and hateful doctrines. As will be shown below, real or fundamentalist Islam started as an extremely aggressive, warrior religion and its beginnings set the stage for the Islamic world’s eventual decline.
What Went Right Set The Stage For Decline
Understanding what went wrong in the Islamic world is, perhaps, best addressed by first recognizing what went right because the initial success of Islam and its early rise to economic, political, and military power is also a primary cause of what ultimately went wrong.
When Muhammad and his early followers arrived in Medina, it is clear that they were in a less than secure economic state. They had cut themselves off from the protection and support of their tribe – an act that was considered tantamount to a death sentence at the time. Moreover, this severance from their tribe’s support and protection occurred in a hostile environment. The Arabian Peninsula consists mainly of desert that, under normal circumstances, can only support a low-density population. Whether Muhammad felt that he had no other alternatives or whether he felt he had other options is something we will probably never know with certainty, but there is no question that Muhammad chose to create a society that sustained itself and advanced its interests by preying upon non-Muslims.
Mohammed said: “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, and whoever says, None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, his life and property will be saved by me.” (Fn 3) “Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captives. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. . . .” (Fn 4) Clearly, Muhammad viewed non-Muslim’s land and property as fair game and his conduct established that he practiced what he preached.
Given the foregoing Islamic doctrine, it should not come as a surprise that Islamic history reveals that about eighteen months after arriving in Medina, Muhammad and his followers started raiding caravans owned by their former tribe in Mecca. These raids resulted in the murder of some of the caravan merchants and brought booty to the early Muslims such as raisins, tanned hides, and other various goods that allowed the early Muslims to flourish. (Fn. 5). Not only were valuable goods obtained directly from these raids, but captives from subsequent raids were either ransomed back to their families in Mecca or sold as slaves resulting in additional revenue. Financial success attracted more believers to the developing Islamic faith.
These caravan raids resulted in the early Islamic community developing the resources needed to later attack entire Jewish tribes. The subsequent attacks on Jewish tribes resulted in the destruction of the Jewish tribes on the Arabian Peninsula by some combination of slaughter, slavery, and expulsion. The attacks also transferred land and great wealth to the Muslim community that allowed it to then dominate the entire Arabian Peninsula.
Muhammad’s goal of gaining wealth via robbery and warfare is undeniable. It is also undeniable that extremely reprehensible means were utilized. The earliest history of Muhammad originating from a devout Muslim, Ibn Ishaq, reveals the brutal means by which Muhammad conquered non-Muslims and stole their wealth:
“Kinana, the husband of Safiya, had been guardian of the tribe’s treasures, and he was brought before the apostle [Muhammad], who asked where they were hidden. But Kinana refused to disclose the place. Then a Jew came who said, ‘I have seen Kinana walk around a certain ruin every morning.’ The apostle asked Kinana, ‘Art thou prepared to die if we find thou knewest where the treasure was?’ And he replied, ‘Yes.’ So the apostle ordered the ruin to be dug up, and some of the treasure was found. After that Kinana was asked again about the remainder, but he still refused to tell. The apostle of Allah handed him over to al-Zubayr, saying, ‘Torture him until he tells what he knows’, and al-Zubayr kindled a fire on his chest so that he almost expired; then the apostle gave him to Muhammad b. Maslama, who struck off his head.” (Fn 6)
The hadith also reveal Muhammad’s methods. Muhammad said “I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” (Fn 7)
The early behavioral example of Muhammad is of paramount importance to Muslims and set the stage for much of what is wrong in the Islamic world. The Qur’an expressly advises Muslims that in Muhammad they have “a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one. . . .” (Fn 8) In addition, the Qur’an repeatedly commands Muslims to not only obey Allah, but to obey Muhammad. (Fn 9)
It cannot be emphasized enough that the beginning of wisdom with respect to an understanding of Islam and its impact on Islamic civilization is the realization that Muhammad did not just bring a type of monotheism to the Arabian Peninsula by eliminating worship of all of the other pagan gods. Of far more significance is the fact that Muhammad also brought the belief that Muhammad was the Prophet, Apostle and Messenger of Allah, that Muhammad had to be obeyed as commanded by Allah, and that Muhammad’s life was the perfect example for living. This aspect of Islamic belief that Allah allegedly commanded that Muhammad must be obeyed and, further, that his life is a perfect example for Muslims to follow, has overwhelming ramifications when trying to gain an understanding of Islam and any Islamic civilization.
It follows that Muhammad’s early example has had a tremendous impact on Islamic culture. The example, as can be seen above, was indisputably not a favorable one. It is little wonder that Dante’s Divine Comedy depicts Muhammad in Hell being tortured for eternity by devils. Even if one ignores the immoral aspects of Muhammad’s example, once the opportunity for booty and ill-gotten gain played itself out, what was left for the Islamic world? It seems to me that not much was left other than to wait for the rest of the world to develop an economy that made the oil under the sand extremely valuable and that appears to be exactly what happened.
Unfortunately, Muhammad did not set forth a good example illustrating that his followers should work hard and develop industry, trade and agriculture. Muhammad had clearly set up a system predicated upon military expansion and an economy that thrived based on the fruits of conquest. Such an economy is doomed to failure when the source of booty not only runs out, but military losses drain the economy. Consider the example of the Ottoman Empire – the last great Islamic Empire.
In 1683, the Ottoman Turks tried to advance farther into Europe by besieging Vienna. The Turks had planned and prepared elaborately for the battle but nonetheless lost. It was a major turning point in history. The Turks not only lost the battle and failed to gain any war booty, but the fleeing Turks left behind a great bounty for the European victors. Polish King Jan Sobieski purportedly described the windfall in a letter to his wife as follows:
“Ours are treasures unheard of … tents, sheep, cattle and no small number of camels … it is victory as nobody ever knew of, the enemy now completely ruined, everything lost for them. They must run for their sheer lives . . .” (Fn 10)
Of course, it can be argued that decline from other causes led to military defeat, but my main point remains valid regardless – a civilization built upon conquest is doomed to failure. The historical record conclusively establishes that no empire has ever succeeded in maintaining its hegemony forever.
Islam once made Islamic cultures stronger as it produced fearless soldiers that believed they would receive an earthly award (booty and women) if they lived and a heavenly award if they died. Qur’an chapter 4, verse 74 promises: “Let those fight in the cause of God Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God, – whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).” Mohammed 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 Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to paradise (if he is killed). ” (Fn 11) The Qur’an guarantees instant Paradise to those who fight for Allah. (Fn 12) Dying for Allah is presented as preferable to living: “And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of God, forgiveness and mercy from God are far better than all they could amass.” (Fn 13) Martyrs are promised a secure, sensual (sensual is expanded to erotic in the hadiths) and luxurious life in paradise with beautiful women. (Fn 14)
When wars were fought hand to hand with swords and other such weapons, Islam had an advantage in that many Islamic warriors were absolutely fearless and not only unafraid to die, but sometimes eager to obtain their virgins in Paradise. As technology advanced, while it still takes courage to fight in any war, it is a little easier to fire a weapon from some distance as opposed to slashing and hacking in close combat amidst severed limbs, rivers of blood and the smell of sweat, blood, and human waste. In the modern age, the advantage is to the better educated and better familiarized with advanced technology and religious zeal with its associated fearlessness is no longer a significant advantage.
Not having left an example other than military conquest as a means to sustain Muslim society, Muhammad sowed the seeds of its eventual decline. While some might argue that Muhammad was once a caravan merchant himself thereby setting an example of entrepreneurship, that profession preceded the early Muslim community’s Hijra or migration to Medina. The Islamic world gives overwhelming emphasis to Muhammad’s example after the Hijra to such an extent that even the Islamic calendar is not based on Muhammad’s birth, the date of his first alleged revelation, or the date of his first convert. Instead, the Islamic calendar starts with the Hijra which speaks volumes. It emphasizes that what is important is not when Islam was in its infancy without military or economic power, but that what is important is political and military power. Such a view is well warranted by the statements attributed to Muhammad. Mohammed once was asked: what was the best deed for the Muslim next to believing in Allah and His Apostle? His answer was: “To participate in Jihad in Allah’s cause.” (Fn 15)
Based on the foregoing, it is undeniable that Islam’s origins are inextricably entwined with conquest and a drive for booty. As such, the origin of Islam has been a hindrance to an Islamic culture that holds Muhammad up as a perfect example for all time that Muslims are commanded to emulate. Winston Churchill reached the same conclusion:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! [Votaries means a devout adherent of a cult or religion] Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
As degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” (Fn 16)
The Focus On The Study of Islam Undermined Islamic Culture

Another result of the religious dominance of Islamic culture is that even when education is undertaken in Islamic culture, the emphasis is too often centered on Islamic studies. The Islamic world devotes such a disproportionate amount of its education resources on the teaching of Islam that it acts like an anchor that impedes forward progress. Not only does the emphasis on religious study take away from the study of knowledge that might help advance the culture, but it has the additional pernicious effect of cementing Islam’s grip on the culture. Muslim youth are inculcated into a relatively unshakable Islamic belief system that perpetuates itself into perpetuity. Many Muslims spend much of their time memorizing the Qur’an. Memorizing such Qur’anic verses as “slay the pagans wherever you find them” hardly prepares Muslims for an increasingly technical world.
The Islamic world was actually undermined when the technology advanced that made the spread of the Qur’an and hadith to larger numbers of the faithful possible. Increased knowledge of and access to the actual tenets of the religion actually caused more Islamic orthodoxy. The Internet is exacerbating the problem.
Islamic civilization was actually better off when Muslims were dependent on religious leaders and hearsay for an understanding of their faith during the periods when a more moderate form of Islam developed.
Discrimination Against Women Harms Islamic Culture
Islamic doctrine regarding women also impedes progress. Imagine what would happen to the world’s premiere economy, the United State’s economy, if women were forced to comply with Sharia law? The United States would lose a significant percentage of its work force and its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would suffer. Islamic doctrine directly leads to the restrictions on and prejudices against women in Islamic culture that impedes advancement. It is beyond credible dispute that Islam is an inherently misogynist religion that has resulted in untold discrimination against women.
Muhammad taught that captured women were lawfully subject to slavery and rape by their male captors. (Fn 17) Note that in the Quran the references to “those whom your right hands possess” is a euphemism for captives and slaves. Modernly, it is applied to non-Muslim women working for Muslims in Islamic countries. It is common to hear reports of workers in Islamic countries, especially Saudi Arabia, being raped by their male employers. (Fn 18)

Islamic doctrine is no more enlightened with respect to Muslim women. Muhammad declared that women are intellectually inferior to men and that they comprise the majority of Hell’s occupants. (Fn 19) One hadith records Muhammad as stating: “Women are naturally, morally and religiously defective.” (Fn 20)
The Qur’an describes men as being above their wives, demands women’s obedience to their husbands, demands that women cover themselves, and states that their husbands may beat them. (Fn 21) Muslim women are given less of an inheritance than men. (Fn 22)
Modernly, probably the most terrible aspect of Islamic discrimination against women is that their testimony in court is considered to be worth only half that of a man’s testimony. (Fn 23) This law, in addition to other aspects of Sharia Law, yields the terrible result that if a woman wants to prove that she was raped, then she must have solid evidence beyond her own testimony as the male rapist’s testimony is deemed to outweigh her testimony as a matter of law. Muslim women that are rape victims sometimes find themselves jailed or stoned to death for reporting rape given that since it cannot be proven, they have effectively admitted to adultery. (Fn 24)
Based on the foregoing, it seems obvious that Islam has directly resulted in women being unable to make a full contribution to Islamic society. Any religion that prevents approximately half its population from full participation in the economy patently acts as a hindrance to advancement and economic growth. Bernard Lewis seems in accord on this point. He accurately summed up the plight of women in the Islamic world as follows:
“According to Islamic law and tradition, there were three groups of people who did not benefit from the general Muslim principle of legal and religious equality – unbelievers, slaves, and women. The women was obviously in one significant respect the worst-placed of the three. The slave could be freed by his master; the unbeliever could at any time become a believer by his own choice, and thus end his inferiority. Only the women was doomed forever to remain what she was – or so it seemed at the time.” (Fn 25)
Given the Islamic world’s treatment of women and focus on religious studies, is it any wonder that the Islamic world declined? To understand just how poorly the Islamic world performs on the World stage, consider the following. Muslims comprise approximately twenty percent of the world’s population and they have collectively won less than ten Nobel Prizes. Jews comprise .02 percent of the world’s population but have collectively won more than 180 Nobel Prizes. (Fn 26)
Islam is Not Conducive to Democracy

Many, including Bernard Lewis, have opined that Islam is not incompatible with democracy. That is an arguable point, but what is not subject to legitimate argument is that Islam is hardly conducive to democracy. Muhammad set a clear example of combining religious and political authority. Islam also naturally fosters the belief that man cannot by popular vote set aside “Allah’s laws.” A religion that does not even give protection to someone for being unable to believe that Muhammad was God’s prophet (Quran chapter 9, verses 5, 29), can hardly be expected to produce the type of enlightened belief in pluralism that is necessary in any healthy democracy.
Can a culture that focuses its educational resources teaching that the Qur’an is literally God’s word really expect its citizens to accept anything other than a society controlled by the Qur’an given the express commands to the contrary? Of course not. Consider what the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had to say on the subject:
“Divine governments . . . set themselves the task of making man into what he should be. To juxtapose “democratic” and “Islamic” is an insult to Islam. Because . . . Islam is, in fact, superior to all forms of democracy.” (Fn 27)
Democracy has been repeatedly proven by example to result in the most dynamic economies in the world. Islam, by making Islamic culture naturally resistant to democracy, has, therefore, impeded the Islamic world’s advancement. Statistics tell the story quite well. Turkey’s Islamic culture has been held in check by a strong secular government and military that imposes as a matter of law sever restrictions on Islamic practice. According to the CIA World Factbook, Turkey has a $12,999 per capita GDP. Conversely, Iran, an Islamic Republic, has a per capita GDP of $10,600 despite vast oil revenue and a very educated population. But the foregoing figures do not tell the whole story. On the matter of per capita GDP and income, Hassan Hakimian and Massoud Karshenas, in their article “Dilemmas and Prospects of Economic Reform and Reconstruction in Iran,” observed:
“During the two decades before 1975 per capita income in Iran grew faster than in Turkey and kept pace with Korea. By 1975 the level of per capita GDP in Iran was more than double those attended in Korea and Turkey. However, since the late 1970s income per head in Iran has witnessed a rapid decline. . . By 1990, GDP per capita in Iran had declined by half, almost down to the levels prevalent in the early 1960s and falling behind Turkey and Korea.” (Fn 28)
A can be seen, the reintroduction of Islamic rule in Iran caused Iran to go from having a per capita income of more than double Turkey’s per capita income to a per capita GDP less than Turkey’s per capita GDP. Over time, Iran will continue to lose ground in comparison to non-Islamic countries and more secularized Islamic countries unless and until it can escape the grip of Islamic fundamentalists. The Islamic regime has driven away the country’s best and brightest and will continue to do so until its grip on Iranian society can be broken.
Nature of the Qur’an Assures That It Dramatically Impacts Muslims’ Behavior
Because most people in the West are secular, it is often difficult for Westerners to appreciate how deeply religious belief can impact individuals and society. The impact of devout religious belief is magnified in the Islamic world because of the duel nature of Islam as a religious and political system that permeates nearly all aspects of life in most Islamic countries and the belief that the Qur’an is literally the word of God revealed to Muhammad via an angel. Try to understand how the Qur’anic verses set forth in this essay would affect you if you truly believed they were literally the word of God and you lived in a society wherein Islam dominated your religious, political, business and social pursuits. When the Qur’an says slay the pagans if they will not convert to Islam and that non-Muslim’s property and even their women and children are fair bounty for Muslims to take, sell into slavery or even to utilize as sex partners whether the women consent or not, it is not hard to fathom that many adherents will do just that and that such conduct still exists, for example, in Sudan in the twenty-first century should hardly come as a surprise.
It Is Difficult For Many Muslims To Challenge Islamic Orthodoxy
Despite Islam’s obvious drain upon and hindrance to Islamic culture, Islam has inherent properties that make change extremely difficult. For example, Islamic doctrine demands that apostates, those that leave the faith or try to modify it, be killed. That command is vaguely set forth in the Qur’an, chapter 9, verse 12, but clearly set forth in the hadith. (Fn 29) It is, therefore, difficult for cultural Muslims in some Islamic states to make headway against Islamic orthodoxy as any attempt to do so might result in being declared an apostate with severe consequences. Similarly, any criticism of Islam that targets Muhammad and his example is likewise dangerous. Many Muslims can and do act quite violently to any criticism of Muhammad. Such violence is sanctioned by Islam given that Muhammad himself ordered critics and rivals assassinated.
Debunking Arguments Exonerating Islam
In “What Went Wrong,” Bernard Lewis exonerates Islam as a factor in the Islamic world’s decline by noting that for most of the Middle Ages Islam contained the centers of civilization and progress. But Prof. Lewis’ conclusion is hardly compelled by his premise. When the reasons underlying the Islamic world’s dominance during the Middle Ages are examined, the better conclusion is that the Islamic world experienced a Golden Age despite Islam and not because of it. The only benefit Islam played in the Islamic world’s Golden Age is that it drove Islamic conquest, but that quality of Islam, as shown above, paved the way for its eventual decline.
The fact is that the Islamic world simply benefited from the decline of other cultures during the Middle Ages and from the industry and effort of its conquered dhimmi population. (Fn 30)
The previously dominate Western culture, Roman culture, declined dramatically during the Middle Ages. The Islamic world simply filled a void created by the weakened Byzantine Empire (last of the Romans), weakened Persian Empire, and the collapsed Western Roman Empire. Germanic invasions, disease, civil war, and other causes simply caused Western civilization to steeply decline. In addition, the Byzantine Empire and Persian Empires had exhausted themselves fighting each other and both were thereafter drained by periodic Islamic aggression that surely sapped much of their vigor. Europe was also hemmed in by a hostile Islamic world thereby limiting trade until sea routes were established bypassing the Middle East. By comparison to declining Western Civilization, the Islamic world seemed robust and vibrant and in a way it was. But it was a culture that benefited from conquest and the absorption of the host cultures.
Over time, however, as discrimination and persecution resulted in fewer and fewer non-Muslims and the influence of Islam increased as the percentage of Muslims in the society increased, the Islamic world declined. As common sense would suggest, as the Islamic world expanded dramatically it brought into its fold many other religions and philosophies that exerted significant influence on the culture. With the passage of time, these influences waned in many places because, not only did the dhimmi population shrink, but these influences had no doctrinal support within the Qur’an and life and sayings of Muhammad. Even where we see these influences preserved to some degree such as in Iran, the non-Islamic influences have sometimes failed to mitigate the harsher aspects of fundamentalist Islam and, in fact, in Iran has produced an even more virulent strain of Islam called Twelver Islam.
We can see a modern example of how a culture can decline when it loses an industrious minority population by observing what happened in Uganda. When Idi Amin took power in Uganda in 1971, he eventually forcibly removed the entrepreneurial Indian minority from Uganda with the result that the economy declined dramatically. The same principle caused decline within Islamic culture. Over the centuries, the dhimmi population declined as a result of significant persecution. The dhimmi population strengthened Islamic culture and as it diminished Islamic culture suffered.
In addition, the tales of an Islamic Golden Age of scientific progress are greatly exaggerated and, to the extent it existed, it occurred despite Islam – not because of it. I have read the Qur’an and hadith and there is nothing of any significance in either body of work that would remotely cause a Golden Age. I am not alone in reaching such a conclusion. One writer observed that:
“[t]he success of the Muslims as successful scientists, thinkers, writers and medicine men had little to do with their religious piety. If you look at the lives of the greatest philosophers and scientists of the time, you will realize that a great number of them were agnostics if not completely atheists. Avicenna, Razi, and Omar Khayam were not orthodox believers.” (Fn 31)
I greatly suspect that some day people will argue that present day Qatar is an example of a successful Islamic culture experiencing a “Golden Age.” The country is 77.5 % Muslim and it is thriving economically and making great strides forward culturally. Qatar boasts one of the highest per capita GDP’s in the world at a whopping $80,900 a year. Qatar is also undergoing some spectacular real estate development. There is no question that Qatar is doing well, but the success has nothing to do with Islam. It is simply an example of an Islamic state whose ruler is more inclined to follow Western economic models as opposed to traditional Islamic culture.
Qatar certainly establishes that with vast oil and natural gas revenues and sound leadership that Muslims can achieve success, but it is such a tiny country and its success is so driven by the unusual circumstance of having vast per capita oil and natural gas revenue, military protection from the United States, and a relatively liberal leadership that has even allowed women to vote, that it is a poor model with respect to legitimizing fundamentalist Islam. Quite the opposite is true. Qatar proves that an Islamic culture can thrive when fundamentalist Islam is held in check by what appear to be leadership that draws more inspiration from non-Islamic influences than Islam. Qatar’s progress simply proves that as an Islamic culture moves along the spectrum of belief that is modern Islam away from fundamentalist Islam and toward cultural Islam that the pernicious effects of Islam will at some point surrender its grip on the culture and give way to advancement. The same principle operated in pre-Islamic Revolution Iran and the same principle, in reverse, operated in post-Islamic Revolution Iran to drag the country backwards and caused decline quite similar to what was observed in the Islamic world following Islam’s Golden Age.
It seems to me to be no coincidence that ibn Taymiyyah, a fourteenth century reformer of Islam, sought to return Islam to its roots and return the religion to one based on the Qur’an and life of Muhammad; in other words, return Islam to the religion preached and practiced by Muhammad. Ibn Taymiyyah’s reform agenda arose at a time when most historians believe Islam’s Golden Age was coming to an end. Could it be that ibn Taymiyyah’s movement helped bring to an end the very age that occurred, at last in part, due to the relaxed degree of Islam to which he so strongly objected? Regardless as to the answer, the fact that he saw such a strong need for reform reveals that Islam’s so-called Golden Age may well have been golden, but it had strayed from the Islam Muhammad preached and practiced.
Even the Mongol invasions that so devastated Islamic culture cannot serve to mitigate the evidence against Islam as a factor in the Islamic world’s decline. While the Mongols laid waste to much of the Islamic world and certainly helped end its Golden Age, the devastation did not have to occur. The Mongols had already satiated themselves with victory and booty from other cultures, including Chinese culture, and Genghis Kahn – who was nearly in his sixties by 1219 – appeared to simply want to live out the rest of his life in peace. Accordingly, he initially sent conciliatory messages and gift laden envoys to the Islamic world seeking sincere peace and trade relations, but those overtures were not only rebuffed, but met with the slaying of the Mongol envoys that resulted in infuriating Genghis Kahn. (Fn 32)
Could it be that the extremely hateful way that Islamic doctrine refers to non-Muslims and allows for the murder and robbery of non-Muslims caused the Muslims to act so savagely toward the Mongol overtures and thereby bring down upon themselves such utter destruction? It is not hard to imagine given what Muhammad alleged God had to say about non-Muslims. We have already seen above how the Qur’an and haith allow the killing and robbery of non-Muslims. To such religiously sanctioned murder and robbery, the Qur’an refers to non-Muslims in numerous derogatory ways and clearly teaches that non-Muslims are fair game for almost every type of indignity and violence.
The Qur’an states that non-Muslims are: not to be taken as a friend (3:28), confused (6:25), to be Terrorized- ” I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”(8:12), to be made war on (9:5 & 29), to be considered unclean (9:28), considered evil and a helper of evil against God (23:97 & 25:55), to be punished (25:77), humiliated (37:18), hated (40:35), to be beheaded (47:4), to be laughed at (83:34), and assumed to be plotting against Muslims (86:15). Finally, as if there could be any doubt based on the foregoing, the earliest biography of Muhammad originating from Ibn Ishaq flatly quotes Muhammad as stating: “”Muhammad is the apostle of Allah! Those with him are violent against Unbelievers but merciful to one another. . . . ” The Qur’an is in accord: “Muhammad is the apostle of God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. . . ” (Fn 33)
Based on the foregoing, is it then any surprise that when the first Mongol envoy arrived with tremendous wealth that it was seized and all of the Mongols killed? Does it not appear to be very similar to Muhammad’s treatment of the Meccan caravans and are Muslims not admonished to follow Muhammad’s example? When Genghis Kahn sought redress for the first destruction of his envoy, all of the members of his second envoy were also killed or mutilated. Genghis Kahn was infuriated and understandably so. He was no longer content to live out his days in peace. The resulting Mongol invasion of the Islamic world is legendary for the level of destruction and brutality. Genghis Kahn and the Mongols had learned that it was best to utterly destroy a civilization and kill its upper class in order to make sure that the civilization would never rise up again and that is what happened to much of the Islamic world. (Fn 34)
While it is true that the Great Ottoman Turk Empire arose after the Mongol devastation and that some other parts of the Islamic world did well after the Mongol invasions, there is no denying that the Mongol invasions had a terrible overall impact on Islamic culture and it all happened because Muslims viewed the Mongol envoys as fair game to be killed and robbed just as Islamic doctrine teaches.
Modernly, we see the exact same type of Islam inspired hatred toward non-Muslims once again setting the stage for further decline in the Islamic world. The Iranian government has repeatedly made bellicose statements indicating that it intends to eventually attack Israel. The evidence also overwhelmingly suggests that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power is intended for military purposes and that Iran may well undertake a nuclear first strike against Israel. While a full discussion and proof of this issue is beyond the scope of this essay, it is relevant to note that the Iranian Government’s conduct toward Israel is eerily analogous to the violence and bellicosity that brought the Mongol wrath down upon the Islamic world. Iran would very much like to provoke a confrontation with Israel. The Iranian Government periodically announces a stated intent to destroy Israel. The Israelis are understandably deeply concerned. The last time the Jews ignored a tyrant’s stated desire to destroy Jews they experienced the Holocaust. The Israelis are determined to not make the same mistake and are openly practicing long-range military strikes that are obviously geared at preparing the Israeli air force to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities.
I believe that eventually the Iranians will get the war they seem so eager to provoke and I also suspect that the country, like its Middle Age Islamic counterpart, will be devastated by the conflict. The Israelis, like the Mongols in the Middle Ages, are simply better at war than the Iranians and the Israelis may well end up dropping nuclear bombs on Iran if the Iranians succeed, as the Iranians fully intend, in causing enough damage in Israel so as to make the Israelis feel that they have no choice.
If war comes, it will cause an even further decline in Iran’s already sad state of affairs. That decline will be directly attributable to Islam. Not only do the Qur’anic verses set forth above about non-believers fuel Iran’s intransigence and bellicosity, but the Qur’an has several verses that disparage Jews in the worst of terms and overall Islamic doctrine and history drives Islamic hatred of Jews and Israel. (Fn 35) That Iran’s bellicosity toward Israel is driven by Islam is also evidenced by the fact that, prior to its Islamic Revolution, Iran had good relations with Israel.
As a direct result of religiously generated hatred of Jews, the modern age will see a repeat of what happened in the Middle Ages – Islam will cause a decline in Islamic culture. Not only will Iran decline, but the decline may well extend to other Islamic countries should they attempt to assist Iran in its attempt to annihilate Israel.
Prof. Lewis further observes that Islamic “governments and societies achieved a freedom of thought and expression that led persecuted Jews and even dissident Christians to flee Christendom for refuge in Islam.” Here again, it is simply by comparison with an equally corrupt and oppressive Western culture during the Middle Ages that Islamic culture in the Middle Ages looks relatively palatable, but even at that tales of Islam’s alleged tolerance of Jews and Christians are greatly exaggerated. While at certain times and places there may have been some tolerance, a non-Muslim never knew when some event might cause terrible persecution and Jews and Christians lived under formal discriminatory rules such as the Pact of Umar that were far from anything that would, under modern belief, be considered tolerant. (See Fn 30)
While the discrimination may have seemed better by comparison during the Middle Ages and during times and places when Islamic culture deviated from its roots as a warrior culture that destroyed Jewish tribes, Islam has largely locked much of the Islamic world in a state of religiously mandated discrimination against non-Muslims. By subscribing his thoughts and views as the word of God to be followed for all time, Muhammad has made it difficult for Islamic culture to keep pace with other cultures’ advances with respect to the treatment of minority populations. That is why most Jews now live outside the Islamic world.
Such religiously mandated bigotry toward non-Muslims has also certainly had a chilling effect on some Muslims’ ability to conduct business and trade with non-Muslims and surely hobbles economic development. If the Arabs living near Israel were to shift their focus from trying to annihilate the Jews to trying to engage in commerce with them, they might raise their paltry per capita GDP. In just sixty years as a nation the Israelis have managed to achieve one of the highest per capita GDP’s in the world , $25,800, despite being saddled with a less than industrious and significantly hostile Arab community that comprises approximately 23 percent of Israel’s population. By way of comparison, Syria has a per capita GDP of $4,500, Jordan $4,900, and Egypt $5,500. Lebanon, which has a large non-Muslim population, has a per capita GDP of $11,300. While Jordan and Egypt have supposedly made peace with Israel, it is a cold peace and it has not resulted in the type of true peace and economic cooperation that could and would help bolster their economies.
Conclusion
Muhammad’s behavior and teachings may well have been within the range of normative behavior for the seventh century and he certainly advanced Arab culture to a level of success it may well have never otherwise known. If Muhammad had only been a general and political leader, we might well view him much as we view Alexander the Great. Unfortunately, however, Muhammad attributed his philosophy, wants, and desires to be the word of God and in doing so he has prevented the Islamic world from advancing as it should have. One hadith claims Muhammad said that “Islam cannot change.” (Fn 36) If Islam cannot change, it should be no surprise that an Islamic culture that is so overwhelmingly influenced by Islam also has difficulty adapting and changing and, as such, its decline and continued difficulties are in large part directly attributable to Islam and the religion’s inherent flaws.
________________________________________

Footnotes
Fn 1: Quran 2:132-135
Fn 2: See Sirat Rasoul Allah: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Sira.htm#tabuk) See chapter 25 called Tabuk
Fn 3: Al Bukhari Vol. 4:196
Fn 4: Qur’an 33:26
Fn.5: See Sirat Rasoul Allah: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Sira.htm#firstcaravan) See chapter 12 called “First Caravan”
Fn6: See Sirat Rasoul Allah: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Sira.htm#khaybar; See chapter 20 called “Khaybar”
Fn 7: Al Bukhari: Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 220
Fn 8: Qur’an 33:21
Fn 9: Qur’an 3:32, 3:132, 4:59, 5:92, 8:1, 8:20, 24:47
Fn 10: See Wikipedia, Battle of Vienna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna
Fn 11: Al Bukhari, Vol. 1:35
Fn 12: Qur’an 4:74; 9:111; and 47:5-6
Fn 13: Qur’an 3:157
Fn 14: Qur’an 44:51-56; 52:17-29
Fn 15: Al Bukhari Vol. 1: 25
Fn 16: Sir Winston Churchill, The River War, first edition, Vol. II, p248-250, London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899.
Fn 17: Qur’an 4:24 and 33:52
Fn 18: See e.g., http://hrw.org/reports/2004/saudi0704/7.htm#_ftn145
Fn 19: Al Bukhari 2:28 and 6:301
Fn 20: Al Bukhari 3:195
Fn 21: Qur’an 2:228, 4:34, and 24:31
Fn 22: Qur’an 4:11
Fn 23: Qur’an 2:282
Fn 24: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/pakistan/
Fn 25: What Went Wrong, (2002) Bernard Lewis, p67-69
Fn 26: See http://www.masada2000.org/nobel.html
Fn 27: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, 1979, as quoted in The Iran Threat, 2007, Alireza Jafarzadeh, page 39
Fn 28: Source: Parvin Alizadeh (editor), The Economy of Iran, I.B. Tauris Publishers, London, 2000 as referenced online at http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/iran.htm#RECORD
Fn 29: Al Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 260: “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'”
Fn 30: For those interested in further proof of my views regarding the treatment and effect of dhimmis in the Islamic world, I strongly recommend the work of Bat Ye’or, an historian specializing in the history of non-Muslims in the Middle East and author of the following books relevant to this subject: Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (2001), The Decline of Eastern Christianity: From Jihad to Dhimmitude (1996), and The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam (1985). I consider her to be the leading authority in her field.
Fn 31: Myths about the Golden Age of Islam, Yasser Latif Hamdani, January 2, 2005
Fn 32: Gengis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, 2004, Jack Weatherford, p. 105-107
Fn 33: Qur’an 48:29
Fn 34: Gengis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, p105-124.
Fn 35: See Arab-Israeli Conflict, parts one and two, by Andrew Stunich on the Islam-watch.org website.
Fn 36: Al Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 88, Number 174

________________________________________
Andrew Stunich is a practicing lawyer in California. He specializes in civil litigation. He has studied the Middle East for the last twenty-seven years. In addition to his Juris Doctorate in law, he studied business, economics, and history at Humboldt State University. After September 11, 2001, he undertook an intensive self-study of Islam. Mr Stunich has also appeared on a regional radio program in Northern California to discuss Middle East related issues and Islam. He has also debated Islam on a popular Northern California website and in newspaper editorials with a Humboldt State University professor and Islamic apologist.

Adonis is probably right about “classical Islam”, the Islam of the 4 Sunni and 1 Shia school that is regarded as canonical by most of the world’s Muslims (most of whom, of course, have little or no idea about the details of said Islam, but honor it in principle). That Islam developed such superb self-defense mechanisms: apostasy and blasphemy memes borrowed from Christians and Jews perhaps, but refined and perfected to the point where they are to be enforced by the democratic will of the masses (i.e. by free lance executioners and mobs) and are therefore near-impossible to reform by diktat from above. But at the same time, one must (on the grounds of “common sense”) reject the possibility that ANY human institution can escape the weaknesses and strengths of human biology and culture. Culture evolves, so do bodies and brains. Change will come (and has always been coming); even among Muslims, the vast majority do not seem to practice slave trading or the sex-slavery of concubines (even though it is explicitly permitted by the 5 classical schools), so this just means there is a lag (perhaps of centuries, but certainly not infinite) between the change in everyday practice and the change in legal and theological texts. The first step was taken long ago: ignore half of them. The second step (explicitly renounce them) is awaiting weakening of the apostasy and blasphemy memes. And changes in the “relations of production and the means of production” have already undermined them too. It is a matter of time. (I kid my Marxist friends. I actually don’t know if means and relations of production are the decisive factor or not; but I do know that the times, they are a changing..)
http://www.dw.com/en/syrian-poet-adonis-hits-back-at-criticism-over-german-peace-prize/a-18691869
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2012/jan/27/adonis-syrian-poet-life-in-writing

http://www.banipal.co.uk/contributors/504/adonis/

The Syrian poet Adonis is probably the most famous living Arabic poet. He

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/19/islam-cant-be-modernised-says-worlds-greatest-arabic-poet/

The writer regarded as the greatest Arabic language poet alive today has said Islam cannot be modernised.

Adunis Asbar, known by his pen name Adonis, is a Syrian-born writer often considered one of the greatest living poets of the Arabic language. He has come under criticism for comments he made recently about Islam before receiving the Erich Maria Remarque Peace Prize, named after the famous pacifist and author of the classic World War One novel ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’.

In an interview with Die Welt he talked about one of the most pressing issues in Germany since the migrant crisis began, the idea of being able to integrate migrants from predominately Muslim countries into European societies.

Being raised a Muslim himself and having one of the greatest understandings of the language of the Quran, Adonis said: “You can not reform a religion. If they are reformed, [the original meaning] is separated from it. Therefore, modern Muslims and a modern Islam is already impossible. If there is no separation between religion and state, there will be no democracy especially without equality for women. Then we will keep a theocratic system. So it will end.”

Laying down a heavy critique of the Islamic world, he added: “Arabs have no more creative force. Islam does not contribute to intellectual life, it suggests no discussion. It is no longer thought. It produces no thinking, no art, no science, no vision that could change the world. This repetition is the sign of its end. The Arabs will continue to exist, but they will not make the world better.”

The remarks are in reference to the broader questions of how he sees the Middle East, and specifically his native Syria which has been in a state of civil war for years. Adonis describes the totality of Islam in the life of people in the Islamic world saying Muslim society is “based on a totalitarian system. The religion dictates everything: How to run, how to go to the toilet, who one has to love…”

Initially seemingly reluctant to condemn the Assad regime, he did write an open letter to Bashar Assad asking him to step down. However, this also angered rebel sympathisers when he referred to Assad as the elected President of Syria. Adonis said: “But I’ve also written a second letter, which was addressed to the revolutionaries. I have asked for their vision. But they would not read it, because they are not independent.”

He went on to say the rebels were controlled by interests in America, Saudi Arabia and certain sections of Europe, and stessed:

“I have long been an opponent of Assad. The Assad regime has transformed the country into a prison. But his opponents, the so-called revolutionaries, commit mass murder, cut people’s heads off, sell women in cages as goods and trample human dignity underfoot.”

Adonis was referring to the Islamic State and the Al-Nusra front (an Al Qaeda affiliate) who have become the largest opposition force to Assad over the course of the civil war.

Breitbart London has already reported that attempts to house and integrate Muslim migrants will cost Germans and other European countries billions of euros, and according to Adonis’ opinion it could be a useless endeavour.

When asked if he receives death threats from radical Islamists Adonis said: “Of course, but I do not care. For certain convictions people should risk their lives.”

Razib Khan has a post up about Asian Americans and how they are perceieved/presented in American intellectual discourse.
Facts are important. But they can be inconvenient….. Today Quartz put up a piece, If Asian Americans saw white Americans the way white Americans see black Americans, which is not really about Asian Americans at all, but simply uses them as a prop, often in a mendacious manner. First, it gives a nod to the Asian American “Model Minority Myth,” stating that there is “perception that they are high achievers relative to other American ethnic groups.” Get it? There’s a perception. There’s a myth in some scholarly and political quarters that the model minority idea is a myth, founded mostly on assertion (e.g., just stating that it’s a false myth) and slicing and dicing the statistics to emphasize ways in which Asian Americans are disadvantaged in relation to non-Hispanic whites. For example, there is often a focus on the diversity among Asian Americans, ranging from affluent Indian Americans, to groups with more conventional socioeconomic profiles like Filipinos, and finally, those which are somewhat disadvantaged such the Hmong. This is to show that Asian Americans are not a model minority…some of them are struggling. But the logic is not applied to whites! Those who purport to debunk the myth of the model minority would not accede to debunking the idea of white privilege by pointing to the state of Appalachia, and rural white America more generally. Group averages for we, but not thee?


 And yet the Quartz piece engages in some interesting jujitsu by actually reporting the statistics of Asian American advantage vis-a-vis white Americans in the service of a broader agenda of putting whites in their place in relation to their critiques of black Americans. In particular it quotes Anil Dash as saying “If Asian Americans talked about white Americans the way whites talk about black folks, they’d bring back the Exclusion Act.”


This to me is really bizarre, and why I term the piece mendacious: Asian Americans do talk about white Americans the way whites talk about black folks. This sort of thing was a clear subtext of Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Many (most?) Asian American kids who grew up with immigrant parents were barraged with assertions about the disreputable character of their “American” (white) friends, and how it was important to keep on the straight & narrow. Immigrants from Asia often perceive white Americans to be sexually obsessed, lazy, and prone to a general amorality and fixation on short term hedonic interests. These are polite ways to condense the sort of attitude many Asian immigrants have toward the white American mainstream, which they worry will absorb and corrupt their children. Dash must know this, as he probably had immigrant parents, or was friends with people from immigrant backgrounds. Most white Americans don’t know this, partly because most white Americans don’t have non-white friends. But anyone from an Asian American background would be aware of the stereotypes and perceptions.


The tacit misrepresentation of Asian Americans here, not acknowledging that they do engage in the exact sort of behavior you are hypothetically positing they might engage in and so alienate white people, is not surprising. Asian Americans are often simply bit characters in a drama involving broader social and political streams which dominate the political landscape.,, 

Read the whole thing there..

I am posting this because I have often wondered why some Asian-American intellectuals (and more specifically, “South Asian” ones, since I am a little more familiar with them) are so committed to a model in which the model minority is a myth and Asian-Americans are “people of color”, standing shoulder to shoulder with African-Americans and Latinos in POC-solidarity against the oppressive rule of White privilege? I don’t mean to say that there is NO truth in any such model. But leaving the truth and untruth of the assertion aside for the moment.

In so many ways I’ve been reading the various back-and-forths on the various conflicts of the world.

What has dawned on me that most opinions on society