Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

[Robert Campbell]

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

[Charles R. Anderson]

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.

[Charles R. Anderson]

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,

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 Stuart Kelly]

The claim that Muslims honor reason is a dubious one.

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

[Charles R. Anderson]

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.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

[Charles R. Anderson]

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.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just now moved this from the Articles section here to the Mideast section. I reread it and see that it is still quite pertinent.

Michael