July 22, 2007
THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE MODERATE:
The Fundamentalist Moderate: Religious scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi has become a popular figure in Pakistan for his strict reading of the Koran -- which, he says, dictates against gender discrimination, terrorist jihad, and other favorites of modern Islamists (Shahan Mufti, July 22, 2007, Boston Globe)
AFTER THE SUICIDE bombing in Islamabad last week that killed 17 civilians, I picked up a slick hardbound book called "The Islamic Shari'ah of Jihad" in a local bookstore. As I read through the first few pages it became clear to me that this was no apology for Islamic holy war. The book analyzed every verse of the Koran that mentions the word "jihad" and related it to its precise social context in seventh-century Arabia in order, it said, to "remove some grave misconceptions."I opened to the chapter titled "Suicide Bombers." I was disturbed by the events in the city -- the joyous mood of a pro-democracy rally, with thousands swaying to anthems, snuffed away in a moment of scattered body parts -- and I wondered about the Islamic basis for what I had witnessed.
The chapter was brief, barely two pages long, and it focused on one verse (5:32) of the Koran: "He who killed a human being without the latter being guilty of killing another or being guilty of spreading disorder in the land should be looked upon as if he has killed all mankind."
There was little else left to say.
The book was written by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. Like anyone who has spent time in Pakistan or even watched Pakistani television, I recognized the name of the slightly built, graying Muslim religious scholar, or alim. It is typical of Ghamidi to speak -- at conferences, on television, on the radio -- about the most politically charged issues with calm religious authority. The popular media gravitates to him for his impeccable oratory and the ease with which he makes common sense out of millennium-old religious texts. Of late he has become a bit of a rock star -- adored, hated, popular, and notorious all at once -- thanks to his extraordinary interpretation of Islamic Law.
At a time when many pin their hopes on "moderate" secular Muslims to lead the charge against radical militant Islam, Ghamidi offers a more forceful and profound deconstruction of the violent and bitter version of Islam that appears to be gaining ground in many parts of the Muslim world, including Pakistan. He challenges what he views as retrograde stances -- on jihad, on the penal code of rape and adultery, on the curricula in the religious schools, or madrassas -- but he does so with a purely fundamentalist approach: he rarely ventures outside the text of the Koran or prophetic tradition. He meticulously recovers detail from within the confines of religious text, and then delivers decisive blows to conservatives and militants who claim to be the defenders of Islam.
Posted by Orrin Judd at July 22, 2007 9:41 AM
And where does this "moderate" Muslim, an oxymoron if ever there was one, stand on "apostasy", or prosyletising by other "Abrahamic" religions?
I'll hazard the guess its a "kill them" position.
Mike
Mike -- so what? why should other cultures be as tolerant as our own?
"Christianity", the vague, western societal philosophy, can afford to be tolerant because it is attractive at so many levels. People pick and choose from the bible or tradition and still think of themselves as Christians, even though they are not without taking up the cross (Mark 10:21). But Christianity as a religion cannot tolerate dissension within its own ranks any more than the religions of Islam, or Science.
Posted by: Randall Voth at July 23, 2007 12:30 AMwhy should other cultures be as tolerant as our own?
Because it would be the right thing to do? Surely you remember that whole "freedom of religion" thing from the Founding.
But Christianity as a religion cannot tolerate dissension within its own ranks any more than the religions of Islam, or Science.
What the heck are you smoking? If you polled Christians and scientists, what percentage would advocate death for apostasy? Near zero. And for the last few centuries, the death toll from factional fighting within Christianity and science is bupkis. It wouldn't equal a slow month in the Islamic world of the last few decades.
Posted by: PapayaSF at July 23, 2007 1:04 AMPapyaSF -- Pakistan was founded by whom? Christians? Or did I miss the fact that the ghost of Benjamin Franklin founded Pakistan...
Smoking? I'd like to hear your definition of what makes a Christian nowadays -- maybe someone who doesn't smoke, or is so nice he tolerates everything immoral, or something equally vague?
The death toll of Science is abortion and the death of morality. The death toll of quasi-Christianity is probably counted in more eternal terms.
Posted by: Randall Voth at July 23, 2007 4:04 AMI think that the point here is that at least they're slaughtering us for the right reasons, viz. love of God. Zeal for his holy writ.
That is, they're essentially on the right path; they just have to fine tune a bit.
And because they go forth and multiply (also with great love and zeal), we must perforce give them a benefit of the doubt that we might not otherwise give the, for example, less devout.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at July 23, 2007 5:02 AMI don't get what any of this sarcasm has to do with the choices of the people of Pakistan regarding their national religion. Why should they be tolerant just because we are?
In Barry's scenario, Joshua was the bad guy against Jericho. But I wouldn't doubt that most Jews nowadays believe exactly that!
Posted by: Randall Voth at July 23, 2007 5:50 AMOther cultures need to be as intolerant as ours, but do so through democratic pressure.
The many have to suppress the few, not vice versa.
Barry:
That's not his point, but if it were to happen then they would be proved right.
Posted by: oj at July 23, 2007 8:48 AMRandall, some of us believe in human rights that are (or should be) universal. And don't you see the irony and danger of advocating tolerance for an intolerance that wants to kill or convert you?
And what does abortion have to do with this? You claimed Christianity and science can't "tolerate dissension." Abortions don't happen because of ideological disagreement between the parties involved.
Posted by: PapayaSF at July 23, 2007 12:32 PMThere is no irony. The belief is itself intolerant.
Posted by: oj at July 23, 2007 3:14 PMoj -- Isn't sharia law favored by the majority? (not sure, just asking). I'm not a fan of dictatorships, but I don't think Pakistan is very oppressive for the average guy.
PapayaSF -- Believe it or not, our western culture was formed through intolerance far worse than anything being exhibited in Pakistan.
Expecting other cultures to become ours without a similar path of intolerance is juvenile naivete.
Abortion demonstrates the result of us tolerating science's intolerance on the point of when a human become a human. Millions die without ever being given a chance to breathe. Just because you don't see the dead bodies doesn't mean we aren't at least as evil, maybe worse.
And Christianity does NOT tolerate dissension within its own ranks. I was forced out of bible college on a very fine point of dissent.
But you've just got a bee in your bonnet. Maybe you should try tolerating me instead of arguing!
Posted by: Randall Voth at July 23, 2007 3:27 PMForced out of Bible college, but not beheaded. All forms of intoleration are hardly equal. That's my point.
Posted by: PapayaSF at July 23, 2007 5:36 PMOf course sharia is favored by the majority in every Muslim nation, as is Judeo-Christian in the West.
Yes, our intolerance works. Theirs doesn't. That's why we're there forcing them to become like us at the barrel of a gun. And they are in caves.
Posted by: oj at July 23, 2007 10:21 PM