Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues
by Michael Stuart Kelly

One of the hardest parts of understanding Islam for an Objectivist is the emphasis on faith. You can find mountains of literature and organizations on the Internet and there are many books to choose from. When you finally settle on a book or essay, there is usually a great deal of writing on the glories of Allah, the differences between Islam and other religions, what a commandment means in terms of the will of Allah, etc., which are not informative. Who has time to read all that? Then there are all those foreign names and words. Personally, my mind starts numbing after a while.

I finally encountered a writer who was able to provide an overview of Islam in a manner that I was looking for. He is a Christian convert from Islam, but he usually keeps the Christian part separate from the Islamic part in his writings. His name is Dr. Mark A. Gabriel. Information can be found on him at his website and on a Wikipedia article Mark A. Gabriel. He has written several books dealing with Islam and Christianity.

Some of the following material is taken from him and some from other readings. I have provided mostly Wikipedia links for the other information as these articles are rich in links and are easy to understand fact-wise without a lot of extra verbiage.

I will be writing about much more than what is provided here over time, but the idea right now is to give a relatively brief overview and go easy on the foreign names so we can get a basic notion of the Islamic culture and system of ideas.


Who was Mohammad?

Mohammad was a religious leader, political ruler and historical founder of Islam. He was born in 570 and died at 62 years old in 632 C.E. Note that this was well after the Edict of Milan of Constantine (313) which freed Christianity from Roman persecution and the fall of the Roman Empire (476).

Mohammad was born in Mecca, which is in the southwest of Saudi Arabia, not far from the Red Sea. He was a merchant from a well-to-do family. When he was 40 years old (610), he had a vision in a cave that the Angel Gabriel visited him and gave him the word of Allah. (Over his life, he had many more such visions. These visions later became the verses and chapters of the Qur’an.) He started preaching and his influence grew in Mecca until it threatened the local powers-that-be. He denounced corruption, challenged authority and preached against the pagan religions with monotheism. He and his followers became harshly persecuted, being ridiculed, beaten, starved, imprisoned, etc., and ultimately it became far too dangerous for them to stay. In 622 C.E., when Mohammad was 52, he was invited to Medina, a city 250 miles (400 km) straight north from Mecca, to resolve some local conflicts. He decided to transmigrate there with his followers.

While in Medina, he became a military leader in addition to his religious activities (visions and preaching), fighting in many battles and ordering others to be fought. He finally descended on Mecca in 630 C.E., two years before he died, and conquered the city without a fight. He destroyed the idols that were worshipped and demanded that the population convert to the one God of Islam. At this point, he became the de facto leader of the Arabian peninsula, although he governed in a loose arrangement through personal relationships and treaties with different tribes. On returning to Medina, after a visit to a cemetery, he fell ill and died of a fever in 632 C.E.

He is not seen as a divinity by Muslims, but as the final prophet of all prophets. They hold that he was chosen to provide the final form of Allah’s will for how mankind should live on earth and prepare for the afterlife.


The Qur’an

The Qur’an is a compilation of the visions Mohammad had with the Angel Gabriel over his life. According to the Wikipedia article Qur'an:


There are 114 chapters (called suras) and 6236 verses (called ayats). It is not in chronological order, but in an order that has been decided on by Caliph Uthman and a committee of Islamic scholars that compiled the basic text as it exists today.

(A Caliph was literally the successor of Mohammad, but essentially the Islamic equivalent of a king or supreme ruler. Caliph Abu Bakr was the first after Mohammad, but only for 2 years. The next, Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab started making compilations of the Qur’an. The third, Caliph Uthman ibn Affan, was born a few years after Mohammad, far outlived him and ruled from 644 to 656 C.E. Somewhere around 650-656 C.E., he sent copies of his new version of the Qur’an to all Muslim cities and garrison towns and ordered all other versions destroyed. The purpose was to stop the bickering over the material, which threatened to destroy the Islamic empire.)

One special characteristic of the Qur’an is that it is predominantly in the present tense, as opposed to the Bible, which is in the past tense. This supposedly makes it easier to read and memorize (which is widely practiced by Muslims) for being more dynamic.

Although translations are permitted for people to get an idea of the religion, Islam is essentially a closed system even at the level of language. Only the original Arabic language is considered valid. There is a series of links to different English translations here.


Two Approaches and Two Cities

The Qur’an contains two sets of chapters created in the two cities where Mohammad lived. Essentially, the first set (the 86 earlier chapters revealed to him in Mecca) preaches peace and love and the second set (the 28 later chapters revealed to him in Medina) preaches war and violence. This is an over-generalization, but it is essentially the case. They are all mixed together and can be seen in the traditional order here, but they can be seen in their chronological order here with the Mecca/Medina designations.

Obviously, they contradict each other at times. This is resolved by a passage decreeing that whenever there is a conflict, the later version shall prevail. This basically means whenever the verses of peace and love from Mecca clash with the verses of war and violence from Medina, war and violence it shall be.

The following excerpt explains this in more detail. It is from Mark Gabriel’s article, “A Comparison of Islam and Christianity.”



Another Sacred Book

There are actually seven collections of traditions called Hadith, not just one book. These are not divinely inspired pronouncements of Mohammad, like the Qur’an is, but instead they are compilations of observations of what Mohammad said and did in his daily life. They are all derived from oral tradition. For example, B told C about something about Mohammad he heard from A, who knew Mohammad. Then C told D what he heard from B, and so on. (There is a great deal of scholarship involved in verification of these sources.)

The main two collections considered the most reliable are called Bukhari and Muslim.

The Hadith collections are used to supplement the Qur’an and interpret how to implement many of the principles given in it. They are considered as essential parts of the religion—not as important as the Qur’an, but essential nonetheless.


Islam and Jihad

Islam, of course, is the name of the religion presented in the Qur’an and the Hadith collections.

It does not mean “peace.” The root of the word means “safety and peace.” However it is a noun form of a verb derived from that root (aslama), which means to surrender or submit. So Islam basically means “submission to Allah.”

Jihad does not mean simply Holy War. It means “struggle” and always means struggle of good against evil (as defined in Islam). There are basically five kinds of jihad:

1. Heart and soul: Inner mental and spiritual struggle of good against evil.
2. Tongue: Struggle of good against evil by writing and speech.
3. Pen and knowledge: Struggle of good against evil through study of Islam, legal reasoning, and science.
4. Hand: Struggle of good against evil by actions involving one's wealth.
5. Sword: Struggle of good against evil by armed fighting in a holy war.


Mohammad and War

Part of the romantic image of jihad to young Islamic terrorists is seen in Mohammad’s life itself. Mohammad was a literal warrior for Allah. Here is a quote from Mark Gabriel’s article, “A Comparison of Islam and Christianity.”


After Mohammad’s death, based on the example provided by him, the succeeding Caliphs spread Islam to many surrounding countries through wars of conquest. The Caliph became the Islamic equivalent of a Roman Emperor of a few centuries earlier. After lasting a couple of dynasties and the Ottomans, the institution was finally abolished in 1924.


Types of Muslims today

Mark Gabriel identified several types of Muslims in an article called Three Types of Muslims. (I presume the main categories would be Ordinary, Committed and Fanatic, with two other types of Committed, the Orthodox and the Sufites.)



Intellectual Concerns

The first concern we should have as Objectivists in talking to Muslims is to understand which of them will be open to reason or not. Our main interest is to try to convince them that love of freedom and respect for individual rights should be just as important to them for living on earth as following their religion is.

There is so much more that needs to be discussed with Muslims, but this is the starting point. If this point is not used as a fundament with them, none of the rest will follow. From what I have read so far, Muslims are great admirers of reason, so it should not be hard to interact with the “Ordinary” ones on an intellectual basis. According to Daniel Pipes:


Islamists would be what Mark Gabriel would call Committed Muslims and Fanatical Muslims. Islamists are the ones concerned with world domination. This means that Ordinary Muslims are the ones who will listen to us. A percentage of 85% to 90% of a billion to a billion-and-a-half people is quite a lot of chances to be heard.

The problem is in the premise, not the method. Their religion sets faith up as the standard for premises, but then allows reason to develop on top of those premises. Ordinary Muslims use reason in their day-to-day affairs with a great deal of competence. So our challenge is to reach Muslims on a premise level.

I think it is a drastic mistake to start out insisting that Allah does not exist. Every person has a right to his own belief, so there is no reason to alienate a person at the outset. There is something more basic that needs to be done if you look at matters from their eyes. They need to put Mohammad into historical perspective. They need to apply reason to Mohammad’s life, even if they cannot do so to his standing as a prophet.

This means that the history of his revelations needs to be examined using reason. I am not completely sure, but I think that the argument should deal with the abrogation verse. If some revelations (in Mecca) became without authority over time because of later revelations (in Medina), why did that happen? Their answer undoubtedly will be because Allah so willed. But then an argument could be made that He did so because the new situation in Medina demanded it for Mohammad’s movement to survive and grow. And if a commandment can be abrogated, what is to stop its replacement from being abrogated now that the modern world is vastly different than before?

That would be a first point in trying to convince Muslims to make room for individual rights and freedom in their thinking on a premise level.

Then there is the question of verb tense. I need to read more before I can see if something can be done here. As a preliminary idea, I think it might be useful to see how parts of the Qur’an sound in the past tense. The present tense carries an emotional load of something immediate when it deals with history or commandments. Often, once you “think outside the box” or look at something from another angle, many rational connections are made.

I see no way of getting around the task of reading the Qur’an. I also think it is a good idea to read essays addressed to children and to non-Muslims that are provided. This is a whole new world and if we want to show them what needs to be changed in their thinking for living on earth in peace, we need to become familiar with what they think.

I see another approach—one that Christians use. Many explicitly violent parts of the Bible, or those dealing with arbitrary customs, are “interpreted” nowadays and this is considered as fundamental by some denominations to understanding its real meaning. I see no reason this approach cannot be used on the Qur’an and Hidath collections. The needs of a people in the desert centuries ago are vastly different than the needs of a person in a modern metropolis, on a lush farm, in the suburbs, etc.

An absolute necessity is to find the arguments that will allow Ordinary Muslims to be comfortable in judging Fanatical Muslims and even the more aggressive Committed Muslims as backward and morally improper—and being comfortable to do so in public.

Two basic premise-level ideas need to be challenged. The first is that force is a proper means of spreading Islam. The entire concept of Holy War-type jihad needs to be relegated to the past as a historical practice that had its reasons in the conditions of the time, but is not valid for the modern world. The second idea that needs to be challenged is that the “submission” in Islam means submission of others. It should mean submission of oneself to the dictates of one’s own conscious. And it should mean submission of others to Allah only when this is done by intellectual persuasion. It should never mean submission of others by force. If just these two premises can be replaced, from what I have seen of the Muslim capacity to engage reason to develop a premise, new reasoning, a more fertile and healthy reasoning will blossom forth like springtime in the country, even among the more committed.

I could go on, but I am at the brainstorming stage. I have only scratched the surface in both information and ideas. While our military is doing its job on the force front by containing hostile force and punishing those who attack us, there is a lot of work that needs to be done on the intellectual front. The world can be made a safer place for us, our loved ones and our descendents, and we can do our share. The time is now.

Michael; This is an excellent post. I am glad to get the difference between Muhummad in the early parts of his effort and the later ones. Thank you again!

Great work, Michael. Thanks for all the information.

The way to deal with a problem is to identify and understand it, and because fanatical tendencies within Islam are one of the biggest problems facing today’s world, you are taking the proper approach.

-Ross Barlow.

That was a wonderful article and helped my understanding of Islam. Most Muslims I have run across are pretty nice and live among us peacefully. A few years back my kids had a nanny who was a practiciing Muslim, although she was not from the Middle East and had no interest in politics. Most people in big cities live and interact with people of all cultures, and its really not a big deal. They work, raise their families, and live ordinary American lives. Like people of most religions there is a vast majority of them who are not fundamentalists and are open to reason. I would like to see some Objectivists from the Middle East who are familiar with the culture to help us all learn more about it.

Kat

Michael,

Thank you for posting this essay.

I second your suggestion that everyone today needs to read the Qur'an. The organization of the Qur'an is, to put it mildly, not what most of us are used to, but the entire book is about the same length as the New Testament and, in a reasonably well annotated edition, isn't harder to read.

Robert Campbell

I agree. I highly recommend the works of Ibn Warraq. I've read, "Why I Am Not A Muslim", and
"The Origins of The Koran".

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origins-Koran-Ibn-...q/dp/157392198X

Btw, *contextually* (which is what I'm sure you meant to say about Muslims) most communists are also nice too, Kat. So what? A devout Muslim holds evil ideas, so does a Communist. To the extent they act on these ideas is to the extent they're a threat. Of course, they're not open to reason when it comes to their beliefs because if they were they wouldn't be Muslims.

Wayne Simmons

Wayne,

Here is the crux of our disagreements:


I couldn't disagree more. On the contrary, many are very open to reason - at least many of the ones I have met and lived with. A huge number of communists today are open to reason. (There is even a project to publish Rand's works in Russia in Russian.)

Incidentally, how do you know "most" communists are nice? Have you met them or what?

Michael


Edit: According to the Amazon reader reviews, the book you linked by Ibn Warraq is a collection of essays on the Qur'an that are dated scholarship-wise. But he seems to be a serious scholar.

Given your proclivity for bashing instead of outreach, you might enjoy the following site: Faith Freedom International. Irrespective of slant, there is much on this site that should be read along with the other literature.

Michael

The issue of the study of Islam is made complicated by partisan complications. Due to the enormous volume of literature on the subject, one who is serious about learning must be very careful.

Much too often a person will have an agenda and provide misleading information. Here is an example of what I mean. Who was Muhammad?

Despite a bias I saw in the subtitle, "Founder of Islam and leader of Jihad," I decided to read it. This article is a very easy read and is pretty convincing, until I came to the end, where alternate religious stuff is given. But right before that, a huge warning bell went off in my head when the author said Muhammad died at 64. Unless they do math differently over there, 570-632 C.E. comes to 62 years old.

Then I reread sections and saw that the author had inserted an insinuation that Muhammad was an epileptic, that he died by being poisoned by a wife and a series of other "facts" that sounded good on first read, but are extremely dubious. The Hidath collections are not mentioned. Then, finally, The One True Way is presented at the end and I got the feeling that I wasted my time.

Literature that tries to debunk Islam in the name of another religion (as the only truth) is of little value, unless one can find others like Mark Gabriel, who know how to separate them.

Anti-Islamic literature from atheists - and of course pro-Islamic literature from the devout - should be carefully examined using the same lens for the same reason. Facts are the important thing and there is a universe of distortions available for the unwary.

Michael

On the violent side of the Qur’an, I found a very interesting article from the Accuracy in Media site called AIM Report: Media Are Blind to Islamic Threat - September B.

The article gives an impressive number of citations from the Qur’an on a series of violent commands, so this is a very useful resource. I have not checked yet, but I presume most all of the quotes are from the Medina chapters. I have also removed some of the anti-Islam rhetoric. This is signaled by "(...)" which also means deleted paragraphs.

It should be kept in mind that the Qur’an contains a large number of quotes stating the contrary of what is given below (just like the Bible).

If you use the online site containing a comparative version of 17 translations, Islam Awakened, you will find some of the translations actively "interpret" the violent parts. For example, most translations will mention "smiting the neck" of an enemy, but you will find the same phrase given as something like "cutting the command center," indicating the peaceful Muslims, whereas other translations will give the same phrase as "striking off the head," indicating hardcore Islamists.


All in all, this is a very good collection quotes that can be quite useful in discussing issues with Muslims along the lines given in my article (pro-peace and against fundamentalism). Unfortunately, it also can be used to good effect by those who hate Muslims in general. I will use if for addressing both Muslims and non-Muslims in spreading the value of reason.

Michael

Michael,

I haven't had much time to post lately, being heavily involved in committee work and pre-registration advising, but I had a few minutes to look up a few of the Koranic passages that the AIM article cited.

I'm using the N. J. Dawood translation (widely available as a Penguin paperback) and I make these remarks with no clear notion about the range of options available to a conscientious translator--especially when some passages in the Qur'an are said to be difficult for native speakers of Arabic to understand.

In the Dawood translation, I found 47:4 exhorting Islamic fighters to cut off the heads of their enemies on the field of battle. It says nothing about kidnapping people and beheading them to throw a scare into one's enemies. 24:29 says it is OK to take shelter in an unoccupied house, but (at least in Dawood's rendition) says nothing about looting. 48:20-21, on the other hand, promises "rich booty" to Islamic believers, should they follow Muhammad into battle. No ambiguity there.

The acceptance of slavery should be obvious to any reader of the Qur'an. That in itself doesn't distinguish the Qur'an from the Old Testament--or the New Testament. But the Qur'an is rather more blatant about sex slavery than the Old Testament.

I'll look up more of these when I get a chance.

The immediate lesson is that while the AIM piece points to passages in the Qur'an that need further attention, not all of these passages have to be interpreted as the AIM writer reads them.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

That is exactly my thinking, not even with any qualifications. (You should see how this reads with the sarcastic rhetorical questions I removed. But it is a useful set of references.)

I probably should come up with a list of references to peaceful passages in the Qur’an to contrast this.

The whole problem with studying this issue for an outsider is that there is so little objectivity. The exaggerations are blatant on both sides.

As far as translation options go, for individual verses, I cannot recommend the Islam Awakened site highly enough. It is not good for doing a straight read of the Qu'raqn, but for a comparison of 17 different translations, verse by verse, it cannot be beat. Here is the page on the "beheading" verse (47:4) as an example (without the embedded links). The Arabic writing at the beginning appears garbled to me (because of copy-paste limitations) when I compared it against the original page, but I am including it just to give an idea of what the page looks like. I preemptively beg the pardon of those who read Arabic.

In this verse, the JM Rodwell translation is incomplete. Apparently, in order to get the Qaribullah translation included, you have to click on the verse link (I have not checked many other places, but where I checked, this was true).


The N. J. Dawood translation that you are using is not given. Still, this comparison gives a very clear idea of how differently the Qur’an is interpreted by different schools of Islam.

One thing should be very clear from this: the gross oversimplification of Islam we see argued all around us that is used to justify preemptive bombing of Islamist intellectuals.

Michael

The only reason I can see to better understand Islam is to help smite it down. Not with bombs, but with propaganda, ideas and truth. And cut off the oil money and state sponsorship of terrorism.

--Brant

Brant,

I have several reasons to learn about Islam:

1. Over a billion people, the vast majority of whom are not devoted to Islamo-fascism.

2. To find ways to get the non-Islamist (non-fundamentalist) Muslims to include individual rights, freedom and the separation of church and state in the fundamentals of their thinking.

3. To find out what will make such Muslims comfortable in publicly denouncing Islamo-fascism and to distance themselves from it - and then encourage that.

Of course, I fully agree that world-domination-by-force-type Islamism must be smitten down. (By the military when they use force and by goal-directed intellectual means idea-wise, which is what I have started here to do my own share. I may be like the little birdie carrying water to a forest fire, but I fully intend to do this thing.)

Michael

Michael, I don't agree. I'll elaborate later.

--Brant

Michael, here is a very different statement of who Muhammad was, from a review of Robert Spencer's The Truth About Muhammad.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/books/20061...6886r_page2.htm

"Mr. Spencer's stated purpose in writing the book was to elucidate, in particular, those aspects of Muhammad's life used by Muslims today to rationalize violence, or other behaviors incompatible with Western constructs of human rights and dignity.

"The final chapter is a brilliant analysis of Muhammad's disturbing modern legacy. Mr. Spencer provides understated, scrupulous documentation of the consequences of Muhammad's status as 'an excellent example of conduct' (Koran 33:21), invoked by contemporary Muslim clerics, governments, journalists and jihadists alike: exploited child brides and general misogyny, sanctioned by law; Draconian, mutilating punishments such as stoning for adultery and amputation for theft; jihad violence against non-Muslims and Shari'a (Islamic Law)-sanctioned oppression of non-Muslims under Muslim rule."

And Pope Benedict, in his recent speech, quoted a Byzantine Emperor as follows:

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"..

Barbara

Barbara,

I intend to get Robert Spencer's book over time. He also hosts a website called Jihad Watch, which is vehemently anti-Islam, from what I have seen on browsing it. Still, some solid facts are given there, so it is good to read it.

The most biting criticism I have read of Muhammad so far is on the following site: Faith Freedom International. But this site opens as follows:


It is a site devoted to getting Muslims to leave Islam, yet it is unable to get itself read in Islamic countries. Wonderful. That poses a small operating difficulty for being effective. This is not what I am proposing. (At this point, I am not interested in getting Muslims to abandon their faith. I want them to accept individual rights and some ideas like that.)

As to the Pope Benedict quote, I opened a new thread in "Mideast" right before you posted called Pope Benedict XVI's controversial speech mentioning Islam, which gives the discussion you were having with Judith on another thread. She posted the entire speech, so I gave it and your answer and hers, and I followed by Ed Hudgin's article on the speech and comments (including even another article on the speech).

I see no purpose in devoting my energies to bashing Muhammad if I am trying to find openings among Muslims for the purposes I have laid out in previous posts. (And I am not suggesting that you want me to. I am only mentioning this to explain why I haven't focused on the negative aspects of Muhammad, although I did provide information on his war side in my article).

For example, I don't see how I ever would be able to establish any dialogue with Christians if I started out bashing Jesus, although there are very good reasons to do so, or how I ever could start talking to Jews if I started out bashing Abraham and Moses, but likewise, there are very good reasons to do so. The same thing applies to Muslims.

Being aware of the facts is extremely important. This means reading material that presents them, even if such material is slanted. For Muhammad, I need to read both the good and the bad about him. After all, a billion and a half people do not follow him because he was a sadist, exploiter of women, etc. And some of those people don't turn into suicide bombers because he was all peace and love either. Wading through all the misinformation out there gets very tedious. When an author on one side has an agenda, he tends to lose objectivity (adherence to facts). So he starts distorting.

Here is a very good article by Daniel Pipes called Identifying Moderate Muslims. It is a bit dated (Nov. 2004), but it shows clearly that there is an audience for what I intend to do. Here is a quote from the article stating exactly what I wish to encourage (and he gives several examples afterwards):

Knowledge is power.

This is why I am so interested in finding the facts from objective sources. My phase right now is study. I have no doubt I will find the right words to convey what I wish and the right people for using them.

Michael


Edit: Here is an extremely interesting quote by Salam Al-Marayati, Executive Director, Muslim Public Affairs Council of Los Angeles, at the State Department's Open Forum back in January 2002. The name of the speech is Rising Voices of Moderate Muslims. Despite some things I strongly disagree with (especially a call for "balance" between Sharia law for places that want it and the principle of total separation of church and state, whatever the hell such "balance" means), the following quote popped out. It deserves to be pursued study-wise and I see a seed of what I am looking for.

Michael,

Here's how Dawood renders Qur'an 47:4



Robert Campbell

Well, obviously I can't disagree with you about what your goals and motivations are, but you may be asking too much of yourself, especially in regard to your second item.

--Brant

Brant, I agree with you about the unfortunate implausibility of achieving the second goal listed by Michael, especially in view of the fact that most Americans don't have an abiding respect for individual rights, freedom, and the separation of church and state.

I think that the best that can be realistically hoped for is to promote a transformation of Islam into a religion that mostly renounces terrorism as a tool for spreading or enforcing the religion, much as Christianity and Judaism have mostly renounced terrorism. In essence, what is needed is an Islamic reformation. I think this is a far more plausible scenario than converting any significant number of Muslims to objectivism, despite the obvious philosophical superiority of the latter.

Martin

Martin,

There are degrees involved. I don't need to get complete compliance with individual rights, freedom and separation of church and state in the mix. All I need to do is find how to get some Muslims to start including these principles in their thinking and writing.

I am not too convinced of the efficacy of negative values, anyway. I think it is easier to adopt a new idea which leads to renouncing an old one, than it is to simply renounce an old one. Whether or not the Founding Fathers fully practiced individual rights, etc., they had enough of them to make a difference. I don't think the USA could have been founded with the principle of separation of church and state exclusively by renouncing aspects of the church's doctrines. Positive ideas were needed.

I agree that Islam needs a transformation. (And only Muslims will do that--certainly not me or any Objectivist.) But it needs good ideas to fill in where there are bad ones. From the philosophical distance of dealing with Sharia as a Muslim ideal, just getting the core concepts included in Muslim discussion is enough for a wonderful start.

So I am starting there.

Michael

Here are the two passages from the Qur'an that the AIM writer says authorize looting, again as translated by Dawood.

24:29



48:20-21



On this issue, the AIM writer appears to be 50% accurate.

Robert Campbell

Michael,

I found your article to be very interesting. Thanks.

A short while ago, a Syrian engineer contacted me about working on a technical problem. I replied that I do not work with Syrians, Iranians, or North Koreans on technical problems. His response was that I have been misinformed by the media and that Syria is a democracy and a peaceful country with no crime on the streets, unlike Europe and the USA. He says he lived here for a time and has a sister who lives in the US. Well, we exchanged a few notes on our respective viewpoints subsequently. Of course, he probably cannot agree with me on many issues, unless he wishes to expose himself to torture. So, it is not clear that he would comment at length on my comments even if he wants to.

A question on my part about what extent Syrian law is Sharia, is answered only as Christians, Jews, and Muslims all have the same law in Syria. Syria is a democracy, but Jews are not allowed to vote in the Presidential elections owing to the history of Jews. Questions about individual rights and the Rights of Man, all get the response that he does not understand such political theory, so we should only talk about the culture. True Muslims do not believe in violence, he asserts. He is working to make Syria a peaceful place. But, he has nothing more to say about the violence other than to vaguely allege that Israel and the US are equally violent. On despots, no despot is so bad that any Muslim country will benefit from or want help from the outside. Leave it to them to handle any problems they may have.

My attempts to discuss any aspect of Islam with him are ignored.

What impresses me is that this engineer is relatively well educated, but he thinks and responds almost entirely at the slogan level. That level is generally one of adamant faith in Islam, though a version which supposedly does not favor violence, that democracy is good and it exists in Syria, that safety from street thugs is all-important, that Western media has convinced the West that they are at war with Islam and, he is convinced, only at war with Islamic terrorists. He has a revulsion for American culture and thinks America is imposing it on Syria and Iraq or wants to do so. I suspect that his views are pretty common in the Middle East.

Charles,

The task I have set out is not an easy one and, for sure, there will be many failures of communication--on both sides. As this project develops, I will be drawing up a list of organizations that involve Islam but are adherents to individual rights (and I will be providing links and other contact information).

One thing should have been clear to you from your experience. If you are not one of them, or accepted by them, you have no easy path of communication open. That is probably the first barrier that needs to be addressed--opening the communication channel. I do not see any other alternative right now than involving people who are part of "them." They speak the language, so to speak. This is why I am seeking them out.

In terms of premises, especially from an Objectivist viewpoint, I recently discovered one very interesting observation on the Jewish Virtual Library site I just mentioned in the "Mideast" forum. It is in the article, About The Qur'an.


If we are to talk to these people at all, we have to understand what they mean by "rational." This quote pretty much nailed it from what I have seen so far. Damning faith as evil, as the opposite pole of reason, to a person who has rationally chosen faith and submission to Divine will (to the best of his ability to reason) will not even get you out of the starting gate with him. He knows he uses both reason and faith in his thinking every day. He will simply say you don't understand and he will sincerely believe that.

To be honest, I am starting to find all this fascinating. It is like a huge Gordian knot to untangle. I sincerely believe that those who manage to untangle this particular knot will be great benefactors of mankind and intellectuals in the noblest sense of the word. As an egoist, I am enjoying the challenge enormously.

Michael

I have been reading Robert Spencer's book, The Truth about Muhammad, Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion for the last couple of weeks at a pace of a few minutes a day. As a result, I have read 102 pages of the 194 pages of main body text. I am finding it a fascinating read. It is well written and well argued.

What I am finding most remarkable is the degree to which Islam was a religion of personal convenience to Muhammad. It seems a particularly transparent case of the religion evolving not over hundreds of years as Christianity and the Hebrew religions did to meet the changing needs of the Jewish tribe, then their kings, and then the church authorities, but one which very quickly and on a dime changed to accommodate the changing needs of Muhammad.

If he has a spat with one of his wives, Allah tells him that he is right and the wife must accommodate him or be instantly divorced. When he concludes that he is not making headway in converting the Jewish bands, who were widespread in Arabia at the time, then he suddenly has a revelation that Allah is angry that the Jews have not seen that he is the prophet described in the Torah and that Muhammad's followers will now pray toward Mecca, rather than Jerusalem as they had been doing prior to this. When he sends a band out to spy on the caravans of the Quraysh, the people he came from, and they raid a caravan at Nakhla and kill the Quraysh on the last day of the sacred month of Rajab, when fighting is forbidden, he first is angry and refuses his share of the spoils, but then has a revelation and is allowed to take the spoils. When he has four wives, which is the limit that a revelation said a man can have, and he wants more, Allah reveals that he is an exception and may take as many wives as he wants.

All of the religions I know about appear to be man-made, but none is so transparent as Islam.

What is scary for the non-believers of Islam is that the good is what is good for the Muslims, while evil is anything that harms them. To some degree, this was true of the Jewish religion, whose god is a very tribal god, but the Jews never had enough power to take a very aggressive stand against others and seem to have mellowed in their moral condemnations. They also were little inclined to bring non-tribal members into the religion. The Muslims were repeatedly enjoined by Muhammad to use force to spread their religion among others and he became quite incensed that the largely pagan Quraysh and other such tribes did not convert quickly to Islam and that the Jewish tribes did not accept him either. This resulted in revelations in which Allah expressed his anger at the non-believers and justified the use of force against them.

The Christians, as supposed followers of a gentle Jesus, committed many atrocities in the name of their religion against non-believers and against those who got it a bit wrong. If followers of a gentle and loving man were so long so violent, what can we expect from the followers of Muhammad, a warlord of the early 600s in Arabia, when they attempt to emulate him, as their religion requires them to do?

Of course, most followers of Islam are rather half-hearted when it comes to taking on the full measure of the life depredations of war that the religion calls for. But, it is clear that the true followers are not those who believe in peace in a world which still has many non-believers in it. Peace is what is supposed to follow when everyone believes in Muhammad as the last prophet of Allah. So yes, the Muslims believe in peace, but it is one without non-believers. The fervent believers of Islam are not acting contrary to the religion. They are the true believers. They are many and they are readily inclined to deny that others, who we think of as being Muslims, are so wrong that they are not true Muslims. Hence Sunnis and Shiites often think there is little wrong in killing one another, let alone in killing Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists.

This understanding of the religion is most unsettling. We can fully expect to live with Muslim generated violence for decades and perhaps for hundreds of years. It is not going to be possible to ignore this problem.

Michael,

My above comment was written while you were posting your last comment and was not a comment on your last comment.

I hope that you, and others who attempt to do what you have in mind, will prove effective in diminishing the scale of the problem. Of course, there are many quotes in the Qur'an that sound more reasonable and one would like to see their status elevated. The Christian religion has generally become more gentle in its practice over hundreds of years, especially since the Enlightenment. Unfortunately, there are so many calls for the use of violence in the Qur'an and the several important books on the life of Muhammad, that it is going to be much harder to mellow out Islam than it was Christianity. It seems that Christianity was pretty violent itself from about 315 to about 1700 CE.

Because so much more violence is an integral part of Islam, one wonders if it can be mellowed at all. In the end, I think its believers will have to stop believing. As they do, we will see less violence.

Charles,

One thing we should be wary of is when we say "Muslims" as if we were talking about a homogeneous group, even on fundamental principles.

From my own personal experience, I know that many Muslims are so for the same reason many Frenchmen or Germans or Americans (etc.) are so: they were born into that culture. Nothing more. Islam is not so much a religion for them as it is a culture. Islam is also particularly strong on family ties.

There is no one Islam, though. There are many Islams. They all use the same set of books, but so do Christians, and the denominations are very different.

On that business above about reason, I am starting to believe this explains lot. One general characteristic of Muslims you can say, regardless of denomination, is that they are much more loyal to their culture and/or religion than almost any other of the world's main religions. Once a person is born into that culture, it is very difficult for him to want to leave.

Islam does not shy away from reason whereas Christianity does (the present Pope notwithstanding). Instead of denying reason, it uses reason in a bent manner. I believe this is one of the underlying principles for such strong adherence.

Michael

Charles,

A couple of thoughts:

(1) The Assad family dictatorship in Syria doesn't really use Islam as its claim to legitimacy. The Assads belong to a small sect called the Alawites who are spurned as heretical by nearly all other Muslims. Hafez al-Assad had around 30,000 people killed in Hama when the Islamic Brotherhood started an uprising against his regime there. Like Saddam Hussein, he was a Baathist; he rose to power as a leader of a secular collectivist movement that drew inspiration from both Fascism and Communism and claimed to promote the interests of Arabs in general. Bashar al-Assad's support for Hezbollah/Hizbullah/Hizballah comes with the clear understanding--capisce?-- that Sheik Nasrallah and his organization not seek power in Syria or foment opposition against the family dictatorship.

So while I would expect some rather draconian laws to be in force under the Assad family dictatorship, I doubt that they are based on shari'a--any more than the laws in force under Saddam would have been.

(2) I also found some passages in the Qur'an quite blatant in divinely ordaining special privileges for the Prophet. The standard Islamic term for modest female attire--hijab--literally means "curtain." It originally pertained to a curtain that was supposed to separate the Prophet's wives from visitors who arrived at his home when he was not there. Now since the Prophet is emphatically not divine--the Qur'an repeatedly insists that he is an ordinary human being, as Christians ought to realize that Jesus was--I am curious how believers can square that principle with either the divinely ordained special treatment, or with the latter-day prohibitions on drawing or painting Muhammad (as though drawing or painting him would be like making a graven image of God).

Robert Campbell

Michael,

Just to be very clear, I agree with you that most Muslims probably do not want to spread Islam by literally becoming soldiers for that purpose themselves. I am also sure that there are large numbers of Muslims who would very much like to ease much of the violence of Muhammad out of the religion by putting more emphasis on those of his revelations which were more peaceful and more reasonable. But, I can now much better understand how those who want to maintain the Muslim culture under the pressures of triumphant Western Civilization can easily justify the use of great violence in a Jihad war against the West with a legitimate claim that they are doing so in the name of their religion. However many denominations there are, it seems that the basic text gives ample justification to those who turn to violence. This is a very real problem, with long-term and scary implications.

The claim that Muslims honor reason is a dubious one. It is more like they claim that reason is simply consistent with all of Muhammad's claims, because it must be. Muhammad claimed reason as his, just as he claimed that the Jews knew he was the prophet that the Koran said would be coming. If it is consistent with Islam, then it is rational, seems to be the definition. For a long time, this is pretty much what the Catholic Church maintained. When the Renaissance and the Enlightenment made that farce difficult to maintain, there was a rise in the currency of utter, blind faith and God as one who works in mysterious ways. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment have yet to arrive in the Muslim cultures.

I wish those who want to live in peace the best, but they really have their work cut out for them.

Robert,

I was aware of the Syrian regime being Baathist and that they were more secular than Muslim societies usually are. I was hoping the Syrian engineer would explain in what ways Syrian laws paralleled Sharia and where they deviated. That he chose to avoid the issue was somewhat interesting. Thanks for reminding me about the Alawites and of Hama. That background I had read about a long time ago and had forgotten.

From what I have read, it is not universally agreed among Muslims that Muhammad cannot be pictured. Images of him are published with little or no problem in some Islamic countries.

Another of the peculiar requirements of Islamic law arose from the claims of 3 men that Muhammad's favorite wife Aisha had commited adultery with one of Muhammad's soldiers. Because her conveyance in the troop caravan was so thickly veiled, it was picked up and carried away in the belief she was in it. She was not and was left behind. Of course this could have been deadly for her. An officier later came along who was trying to catch up with the troop caravan and rescued her. Three plotters against Muhammad accused them of adultery and Muhammad apparently agonized over whether to believe them. He then had a revelation that 4 male witnesses were needed to prove adultery.

Muhammad had an adopted son who was a commoner and who he arranged to marry a woman from a rather aristocratic family, who was also a beauty. The marriage was unhappy and the adopted son left his wife Zaynab against Muhammad's wishes. The wife apparently fancied Muhammed. Soon enough, when Muhammad was with Aisha he had one of his many fainting spells and awoke with news of a new revelation: Allah had married Zaynab to Muhammad.

Apparently, Allah just could not do enough for his prophet Muhammad. Or, more cynically, one might suspect that Muhammad put words in Allah's mouth as he found it convenient to do so.

Charles,

I didn't say that they honored reason. That would sound too much like an Objectivist definition and it would not be applicable. I said that they used reason and developed it more than other religions. They start from wrong premises, but the use of reason from that point on is highly encouraged. At least this happened among the people I knew, some others with whom I have discussed and some things I have read. Muslims discuss how to use reason as a formal topic in their instruction (at least some do). I don't know of any similar Christian practice.

Also, there are areas like medicine where Muslims excel and there are many fields (like optics) they have opened up. The "goats and caravans" image Westerners have of Mideast countries is not at all accurate except for slums and small villages.

I agree with you about the self-serving nature of some of Muhammad's visions. That is not all there is to Islam, but this element is definitely there. Some of the conclusions are so obvious they are silly.

This is not a characteristic limited to Muslims, though. Mankind has always pampered its favorites, granting such pampering an almost metaphysical status, whether rulers, prophets or rock stars.

I just added a new link to my thread in the Mideast section here on OL on translations of the Qur'an. It might make reading it more palatable to Objectivists. I believe it is very important to become familiar with this book, as the Muslim problem will not go away from one minute to the next. I am giving the entry below:

The Skeptic's Annotated Qur'an
This is the full text of the Qur'an along with a series of commentaries from a skeptic viewpoint according to category (Injustice, Intolerance, Cruelty and Violence, Absurdities, Good Stuff, Women, Contradictions, Sex, Interpretations, Science and History, Family Values, Language and Homosexuality). The translation used is The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall.

Michael

Michael,

Your correction on the reason is honored phrase is understood.

It is interesting to watch Muhammad's response to one of his followers pointing out a contradiction. Sometimes he constructed an argument to do away with the contradiction, though the argument was not always a good argument. Often, he then took care to have another revelation, which set the contradiction straight. So, yes, there was some interest in not having contradictory rulings.

Now, of course the rulers of the world of 620 AD were able to take what they wanted. It is not surprising that a merchant turned warlord in Arabia at that time took as many wives as he wanted, robbed trading caravans, broke his word whenever convenient, consummated marriage with a 9-year old girl, told husbands it was their right to take their wives sexually whenever they wanted, held slaves, executed prisoners taken in battle by the hundreds, married the wife of a man he had tortured to death the same day as the husband's death, hid women behind veils, allowed husbands to abandon their wives, killed believers who became dis-believers, and finally came to preach that it was a Muslim's duty to kill non-believers. What is mind-boggling, is that any man in 2006 would take Muhammad as his moral guide. What is unbelievable is that anyone would wish to emulate the life of this man and would live as he did in the 21st Century. But, this is exactly the duty of every Muslim man today.

The Golden Age of Knowledge among the Muslims is an interesting puzzle. It is very hard to believe that it could have happened with this religion, but it did. In that period, the Muslims did make many very important contributions to human knowledge. There are some Muslims who are making good contributions today. But, it is not very surprising that there are many who seem to yearn strongly to return to 620 AD Arabian life. It would be much easier to emulate Muhammad if they could really live today as they did then. This is why the Golden Age of the Muslims had to come to an end and why it has not re-occurred.

Charles

I fully agree with your conclusions, but I extend them to all modern religions organized around ancient dogmas. How can they believe in this stuff?

For example, both Christians and Jews believe that the disgrace of mankind is due to a talking snake--and to atone for the wily reptile, there were centuries of animal sacrifices, then for Christians, the mother of all sacrifices was erected to bring it all to a halt.

Notice that where this business is taken symbolically, there is much more progress. Where it is taken literally, there is violence, bigotry, excommunications, torture, general poverty (with a few fat cats on top, of course), etc.

This same principle applies to Islam and fully explains its golden age. Our job as intellectuals is to convince the Muslims who are not Islamist fundamentalists to take some things in the Qur'an symbolically (or historically) and use reason based on the reality we live in for social affairs. (Then, of course, expand on this more to other parts of life later.)

I used to mention on SoloHQ that I think the Muslim community needs a James Bond or John Wayne type fictional hero to look up to who does not denigrate the Islamic culture but focuses on the admirable parts instead, who embodies certain fundamental rational values and virtues (especially freedom, individual rights, production, etc.) and who disapproves of religious fanaticism because of the hypocrisy and hatred that come with it.

I fully intend to create such a figure after I finish my studies of Islamic ideas and cultures and some other things I have planned. That is an excellent manner of spreading ideas.

Michael

Michael,

I agree that all of the major religions have very irrational premises and rules. I agree that many of the problems result from modern people trying to too literally live according to very old religions from times of great ignorance and primitive living conditions. While I think some of the differences have significance for some current international problems, I have no desire to undercut your or others efforts to transition Islam into a kinder and more gentle religion.

Your point that the Muslims need more modern heroes who have an appreciation for freedom and modern life, is a very good one. One of the great problems is a sense of inferiority. They keep trying to overcome this sense of inferiority by force of arms against Israel, but they never succeed. It would be great if they were to set that effort aside and adopt an effort to become real contributors to progress in the modern world. If they did that, they would develop a sense of self-worth and might get over the foolishness of hating Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Western Civilization. One hopes.

I worked closely with a Palestinian scientist for about 7 years. He was a good scientist, but he suffered badly from self-doubt. He imagined slights from everyone, which were not indended. He was constantly trying to prove his worth, and looking nervously about to gauge whether anyone else saw it. I do not think he is an unusual representative of his culture. I see many of the problems of the Muslim world as arising from similar insecurities and self-doubt. Dangerous people are most commonly those who wish to be thought worthy, but think they probably are not. It is not uncommon for such people to become angry with those who they think do not see them as they wish to be seen. Strangely enough, the religion that says that they are superior to non-believers fuels the problem because they do not really feel superior or even equal.

So, yes they would be helped by having some more rational and efficacious modern heroes. I know that my interest in reading about the heroes of Western Civilization when I was a kid played a very positive role in my development. Most of my heroes were real heroes, but good fictional heroes are great also.

Here is an autobiography I intend to purchase about Iran. I saw an interview with her on Fox News and I liked what I saw.

Living in Hell by Ghazal Omid

This woman caused all kinds of problems over there that embarrassed the government and finally had to flee the country. She is a devout Muslim and denies that the radicals are the true embodiment of Islam.

Michael

I just came across an article by George Walsh on Islam.

The History and Creed of Islam
by George Walsh

It is part of his larger work on religion:
The Role of Religion in History (TAS)
The Role of Religion in History (LFB)
The Role of Religion in History (Amazon)

This essay is certainly eclectic and to say it is incomplete as an overview is an understatement, but it contains some interesting and highly illuminating insights—especially looking at ancient Arabian and Islamic society through the lens of business. That is why I am putting the link here in the thread to a longer essay on Islam rather than opening a separate thread for it. If a person has knowledge of a wider context about Islam, these insights become a welcome addition. As a standalone understanding of Islam, they are lacking.

Michael