Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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:

The Qur’anic revelations were originally memorized by Muslims as Muhammad spoke them, with some being written down on whatever was to hand, from stones to pieces of bark. Compilations of the Qur’an began under the Caliph Umar, but it was Uthman who decided upon a definitive copy and destroyed all other versions. The Qur’an has never changed in substance since.

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.”

An argument often made is the Quran has verses about tolerance that balance out the verses about war and fighting. The key is to know how the Quran was revealed. Muhammad claimed that the angel Gabriel would come to him from time to time and reveal verses, a process that occurred over a period of about twenty-two years.

Muhammad’s life can be divided into two parts—the tolerant years in Mecca and the aggressive years in Medina. The so-called revelations Muhammad received in Medina sometimes clashed with the ones from Mecca. Let’s look first at Muhammad’s “tolerant years.”

The Tolerant Years. Muhammad was living in Mecca when he first began to receive what he described as revelations in 610. At this time he was a preacher, trying to win people to Islam by being nice. Even after he and his followers moved to nearby Medina in 622, Muhammad continued to preach a positive message for about a year, hoping to attract people to Islam that way. Here is one of the often-quoted verses from this time.

“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.” [9] (Surah 2:256).

This verse says, “You can’t force anybody to change their religion. The right way should be obvious.” Other verses in the Quran say that Christians and Jews will be accepted by God if they practice their own religion.

“If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side.” [10] (Surah 5:66).

People who say Islam is a religion of peace point to these verses. However, these verses were a part of the early revelations Muhammad received regarding those who rejected Islam. Muhammad was presenting a peaceful religion at this time because Muhammad had only a few followers, and they were all vulnerable, but Islam didn’t stay weak.

The Aggressive Years. Muhammad and his followers were persecuted in Mecca, so they went to Medina. Muhammad again attempted to persuade people with words. This lasted for about a year. Then Muhammad launched a new strategy based on power. He declared jihad (holy war) with the goal of converting nonbelievers to Islam by the sword. One of his new revelations stated:

“Kill the Mushrikun [pagans] wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.” (Surah 9:5).

This “verse of the sword,” as it is now known, contradicted earlier revelations such as Surah 2:256 above.

Another later revelation declared a similar judgment against Christians and Jews.

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e., worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” (Surah 8:39).

Muhammad preached this new philosophy until his death. In one of his last sermons he declared:

After today there will no longer be two religions existing in Arabia any more. I descended by Allah with the sword in my hand and my wealth will come from the shadow of my sword. And the one who will disagree with me will be humiliated and persecuted. [11]

Abrogation. How does Islam deal with contradictions between earlier revelations and later revelations?

“Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?” [12] (Surah 2:106)

This verse says that Allah causes some parts of the Quran to be abrogated, i.e., “to abolish by authoritative action,” “to treat as nonexistent” or “to nullify.” Therefore, when there is a contradiction between two verses in the Quran, the newer revelation overrides the previous revelation. The new cancels the old. You can still read, “There is no compulsion in religion,” in the Quran, but these words no longer have authority. This verse has been mansookh (canceled) by later revelations.

[9] Ali translation of the Quran
[10] Ali translation of the Quran
[11] From the hadith of Al-Bukhari, the pilgrimage section, farewell sermon. This sermon was preached from Mount Arafat during the pilgrimage to Mecca.
[12] In the Quran, the word We is used to refer to Allah. The term is not meant to express plurality. It is rather used to show the greatness of Allah.

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.”

Muhammad personally led twenty-seven battles. In addition, he sent out his army forty-seven times without him (about seven times a year during his leadership). [19] Muhammad instructed his followers to use jihad to make converts:

I command by Allah to go and fight all the people of the world until they confess there is no God but Allah, and I am his messenger, and to pray five times a day and to give alms. And if they do that, their blood will be spared from me. [20]

The Muslims took jihad outside of Arabia, attacking many countries in Asia, Africa, and Europe. Muhammad’s leadership ended in 632 with his death.

[19] Ibn Saad, Al-Tabkat [The Layers], vol. 3, p. 43.
[20] From the hadith of Al-Bukhari

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.)

Ordinary Muslims

Ordinary Muslims practice some of the teachings of Islam, but they don’t want to do anything difficult, like participate in jihad. They are more interested in having nice lives, providing for their children and running their businesses. They are Muslims because of their culture and tradition rather than because of strong religious beliefs.

Most of the Muslims in the United States are ordinary Muslims. Some even send their children to Christian schools. Even in the Middle East there are more ordinary Muslims than committed Muslims. It would take time and motivation to turn ordinary Muslims into committed Muslims.

From the point of view of a committed Muslim, this group should be referred to as secular Muslims because they are not submitting wholly to Islam.

Committed Muslims

Committed Muslims are making great efforts to live according to Islam. They are praying five times a day (which can take 2 ½ hours per day), giving alms and fasting all food and water during daylight hours of the month of Ramadan. A committed Muslim may not be in a radical group like Hamas, but he could choose to cross that line at any time that he feels his religion or people are threatened.

Orthodox Muslims

A subset of committed Muslims is the orthodox Muslims. Not only do orthodox Muslims want to follow the requirements of Islam, but they also want to do it in the same way as Muhammad did in the seventh century. They spend much time reading the Quran and Islamic books. Following the Quran and hadith, they may put severe restrictions on women. In Islamic countries, orthodox Muslims may choose to grow out their beards, but in the West they may not look different from other Muslims.

Sufites

This is the first sect in Islam that tried to transfer the meaning of jihad from spreading Islam with the sword to a spiritual struggle to fight evil within oneself. Sufism started six centuries after Muhammad’s death. Only 2 to 3 percent of Muslims worldwide are Sufites. Orthodox Muslims and fanatic Muslims reject them and do not consider them to be true Muslims.

Fanatic Muslims

These are committed Muslims who put their words into action. They are the types of people who join militant groups such as Hamas or work with al-Qaeda. They are ready to practice jihad (to kill or be killed in the name of Islam).

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 constitute a small, but significant, minority of all Muslims, perhaps 10 to 15 percent of the population.

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.

[Chris Grieb]

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!

[Ross Barlow]

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.

[Kat]

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

[Robert Campbell]

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

[Guest Damage Inc.]

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

Edited October 19, 2006 by Damage Inc.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wayne,

Here is the crux of our disagreements:

Of course, they're not open to reason when it comes to their beliefs because if they were they wouldn't be Muslims.

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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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.

Why have our elites not exposed what the Koran says about non-Muslims and the commands to kill them? If they would read the Koran, they will find out that Allah wants Muslims to kill the infidels (unbelievers) wherever they are found (Koran 9:5), and that peace will come only to those who submit to him (Koran 8:17, 48:29, and 65). The Koran also has Allah saying that unbelievers should be killed (Koran 2:191, 3:141, 4:104, 4:89, 8:12-16, 9:5, 9:73-74, 9:123, 25:52…), that Muslim apostates should be killed or chastised (Koran 2:39, 2:85, 3:85, 3:106, 4:89, 16:106, and 47:25-28), that the heads and fingers of unbelievers should be cut off (Koran 5:33, 8:12, and 47:4), and that Muslims should fight and humiliate Jews and Christians (Koran 5:18 and 9:29). (...)

(...) For Allah, warfare is good (Koran 2:216) and jihad (fighting in the way of Allah) should continue until only Islam is dominant (Koran 2:193, 3:85, 8:39, 9:33, 35:37 and 61:9). Allah wants his followers to slaughter his enemies (Koran 8:67), allows Muslims to loot (Koran 8:1, 8:41, 8:69, and 59:7), to commit suicide (Koran 2:154, 2:207, 3:140-144, 3:157, 9:111 and 47:4), and to acquire slaves (Koran 4:3, 4:23-24 and 8:67). Muhammad himself was allowed to engage in unlimited sex with female slaves and captives (Koran 4:3, 23:6, 33:50-52 and 70:30). (...)

In addition, Allah orders Muslims not to take Jews, Christians and other unbelievers as friends (Koran 3:28, 5:51 and 9:23), and will not forgive Christians (Koran 4:48 and 4:116). Muhammad taught to put the infidels to death wherever they were found (Koran 2:191, 2:244, 4:89, 5:36, 9:5, and 9:29), urged Muslims to fight the unbelievers who are close (Koran 9:123), mentioned that fighting is obligatory (Koran 2:216), and mandated the conquering of those relatives who opposed Muslims because loyalty to Islam overrode all other human bonds (Koran 9:23-24, and 58:22).

Muhammad is also quoted in the Koran as urging fighting until Islam is the only religion (Koran 2:193, 8:39, and 61:9), seeking the death of apostates (Koran 9:73-74), accepting slavery (Koran 4:3, 4:24, 5:87-89, 23:6, 24:32-33, 33:50-52 and 70:30), supporting the slaughter of captives (Koran 8:67), the raping of women captives (Koran 4:24), beheading the infidels (Koran 47:4), and approving looting in wars (Koran 24:29, and 48:20-21). (...)

The Koran states that if Muslims do not fight, Allah will replace them with others who will. (Koran 9:39). Those who cannot fight must help fellow Muslims in other ways, including through donations of money. (Koran 8:72). Only Islamic law or sharia is lawful for Muslims (Koran 5:50). There will not be mercy on unbelievers (Koran 5:36-38 and 48:29). The end of the jihad will happen when there is faith only in Allah (Koran 2:193). Power must belong to Muslims only (Koran 63:8), and they must exert power over non-Muslims (Koran 4:141). (...)

(...)

Some might say that the war or sword verses of Muhammad only apply to his times and not to the present. However, the Koran does not state this. In fact, what the Koran does say is that Muhammad is the ultimate model of behavior. (Koran 33:21).

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

[Robert Campbell]

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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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).

Compared Translations of the meaning of the Quran - 47:4

Muhammad - Muhammad

Verse: 4

Muhammad 047:004

‏47:4 فاذا لقيتم الذين كفروا فضرب الرقاب حتى اذا اثخنتموهم فشدوا الوثاق فاما منا بعد واما فداء حتى تضع الحرب اوزارها ذلك ولو يشاء الله لانتصر منهم ولكن ليبلو بعضكم ببعض والذين قتلوا في سبيل الله فلن يضل اعمالهم

_____________________________________________________________________________

Transliteration

Fa-itha laqeetumu allatheena kafaroo fadarba alrriqabi hatta itha athkhantumoohum fashuddoo alwathaqa fa-imma mannan baAAdu wa-imma fidaan hatta tadaAAa alharbu awzaraha thalika walaw yashao Allahu laintasara minhum walakin liyabluwa baAAdakum bibaAAdin waallatheena qutiloo fee sabeeli Allahi falan yudilla aAAmalahum

Literal

So if you met/found those who disbelieved, so hitting the necks until when you weakened them , so strengthen the rope/tie/chain (confinement), so either/or blessing (releasing war prisoners) after (the war ends), and either ransom/compensation until the battle/war/fight drops its weights/burdens (ends), that and if God wants/wills He would have gotten victory from them, and but to test some of you with some (to test each other), and those who were killed in God's way/path , so He will never/not misguide their deeds .

_____________________________________________________________________________

Yusuf Ali

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

Pickthal

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

Arberry

When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if God had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of God, He will not send their works astray.

Shakir

So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

Sarwar

If you encounter the disbelievers in a battle, strike-off their heads. Take them as captives when they are defeated. Then you may set them free as a favor to them, with or without a ransom, when the battle is over. This is the Law. Had God wanted, He could have granted them (unbelievers) victory, but He wants to test you through each other. The deeds of those who are killed for the cause of God will never be without virtuous results.

Khalifa

If you encounter (in war) those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks. If you take them as captives you may set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. Had GOD willed, He could have granted you victory, without war. But He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of GOD, He will never put their sacrifice to waste.

Hilali/Khan

So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allahs Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus (you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection), but if it had been Allahs Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost,

Hilali/Khan revised (H/K/Saheeh)

So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah never will He waste their deeds.

Malik

Therefore, when you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield smite their necks and, when you have thoroughly subdued them, then take prisoners of war and bind them firmly. After the war lays down her burdens, then you have the choice whether you show them favor or accept ransom. Thus are you commanded. If Allah wanted, He Himself could have punished them; but He adopted this way so that He may test some of you by means of others. As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.[4]

QXP

Now if you meet the disbelievers in battle, strike at their command centers. When you have subdued them, bind in a firm bond, and thereafter an act of kindness or ransom till the battle lays down its weapons. (Free the captives as an act of kindness or ransom, such as in exchange for your men in their captivity. There is no third option). And if Allah willed, He could indeed punish them Himself, but that He may let you humans test one by means of another (as to which nation remains vigilant). And, as for those who are slain in the Cause of Allah, He will never let their actions be lost.

Maulana Ali

So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite the necks; then, when you have overcome them, make (them) prisoners, and afterwards (set them free) as a favour or for ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (shall be so). And if Allah please, He would certainly exact retribution from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will never allow their deeds to perish.

Free Minds

So, if you encounter those who have rejected, then strike their formations until you overcome them, then bind them securely. You may either set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. And had God willed, He alone could have beaten them, but He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

Qaribullah

Therefore, when you meet the unbelievers smite their necks, then, when you have killed many of them, tie the bonds. Then, either free them by grace or ransom until war shall lay down its loads, in this way, it shall be. Had Allah willed, He would have been victorious over them; except that He might test you, the one by the means of others. As for those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will not let their works to go astray.

_____________________________________________________________________________

George Sale

When ye encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them; and bind them in bonds: And either give them a free dismission afterwards, or exact a ransom; until the war shall have laid down its arms. This shall ye do: Verily if God pleased, He could take vengeance on them, without your assistance; but He commandeth you to fight his battles, that He may prove the one of you by the other. And as to those who fight in defence of God's true religion, God will not suffer their works to perish:

JM Rodwell

When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters. And afterwards let there either be free dismissals or ransomings, till the war hath laid down its burdens. Thus do

_____________________________________________________________________________

Asad

NOW WHEN you meet [in war] those who are bent on denying the truth, [sc., "and on barring [others] from the path of God" - thus connecting with verse 1 and laying down the fundamental condition which alone justifies physical warfare: namely, a defense of the Faith and of freedom (cf. in this connection see note on 2:190). In other words, when "those who are bent on denying the truth" try to deprive the Muslims of their social and political liberty and thus to make it impossible for them to live in accordance with the principles of their faith, a just war (jihad) becomes allowable and, more than that, a duty. The whole of the above verse relates to war actually in progress (cf. note on the first part of 2:191); and there is no doubt that it was revealed after 22:39-40, the earliest Quranic reference to physical warfare.] smite their necks until you overcome them fully, and then tighten their bonds; [Lit., "tighten the bond". According to almost all the commentators, this expression denotes the taking of prisoners of war. In addition, it may also refer to any sanctions or safeguards which would make it unlikely that the aggression could be resumed in the foreseeable future.] but thereafter [set them free,] either by an act of grace or against ransom, so that the burden of war may be lifted: [Lit., "so that (hatta) the war may lay down its burdens". The term "ransom" comprises also, in this context, a mutual exchange of prisoners of war (Zamakhshari, quoting an opinion of Imam Ash-Shafi).] thus [shall it be]. And [know that] had God so willed, He could indeed punish them [Himself]; but [He wills you to struggle] so as to test you [all] by means of one another. [i.e., so as to enable the believers to prove by actual deeds the depth of their faith and their readiness for self-sacrifice, and to enable the aggressors to realize how wrong they have been, and thus to bring them closer to the truth.] And as for those who are slain in God's cause, never will He let their deeds go to waste:

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

[Brant Gaede]

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

Edited October 26, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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,

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

[Brant Gaede]

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,

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

Edited October 27, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Barbara Branden]

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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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:

This site is blocked in Islamic countries. Find a proxy in Google or in proxy.org to access it.

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):

With time, individual Muslims are finding their voice to condemn Islamist connections to terrorism.

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.

In dealing with Muslim countries, Muslim groups, and the Muslim masses, it is important to recognize that the use of reason, a pillar in the foundation of our secular society, is not alien or modern to Muslim cultures. The Koran stipulates that the use of reason is one of the commandments of God, alongside justice and decency. The Koran also challenges people to use reflection, and it defines itself as a book made for those who think. The problems are immense amongst Muslims, but the opportunities are equally great.

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

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

When you meet the unbelievers on the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take a ransom from them, until War shall lay down her burdens.

Thus shall you do. Had God willed, He could Himself have punished them; but [He has ordained it thus] that he may test you, the one by the other.

As for those who are slain in the cause of God, He will not allow their works to perish.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

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,

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

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

[Martin Radwin]

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,

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

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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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.

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

[Robert Campbell]

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

24:29

Believers, do not enter the dwellings of other men until you have asked their owners' permission and wished them peace. That will be best for you. Perchance you will take heed.

If you find no one in them, do not go in till you are given leave. If you are refused admission, it is but more proper that you should go away. God has knowledge of all your actions

It shall be no offence for you to seek shelter in empty dwellings. God knows what you reveal and what you hide.

48:20-21

God has promised you rich booty, and has given you this [i.e., the spoils taken at the battle of Khaybar, in 629] with all promptness. He has stayed your enemies' hands, so that He may make your victory a sign to true believers and guide you along a straight path.

And God knows of other spoils that you have not yet taken. God has power over all things.

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

Robert Campbell

[Charles R. Anderson]

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.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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.

The Qur'an has one overriding theme, endlessly repeated and elaborated throughout the text: complete submission (in Arabic: islam; muslim means "one who submits") to the word and the will of God, who is one God and the only God. The God of Islam is both a stern judge and endlessly forgiving; obedience to God wipes away all transgression. This submission, however, must be fully and rationally given; faith (iman) is a rational consent to the truth of the word of God. Therefore, much of the Qu'ran concerns the word of God and how it is received and believed, or not received and believed as the case may be.

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

[Charles R. Anderson]

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.

[Charles R. Anderson]

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.