Spencer (And Other Critics) Respond
Robert Spencer, following the publication of my Brown Daily Herald article that criticized his comments during Islamofascism Week, has responded in a post over at his blog. Interestingly, a lot of the criticisms that I’ve gotten at Jihad Watch have to do with my alleged ‘misreading’ of the Quran. The Muslim holy book is much more violent than the Bible, many are suggesting, and therefore Islam is inherently based on violence and oppression.
The problem with this line of reasoning, however, is that it fails to take into account the evolution of Islamic thought over the past 1400 years. As’ad AbuKhalil, alluding to the broad swath of interpretation about correct Islamic practice, mentioned to me dryly in a recent phone interview that he’s “never been stoned, and no Muslim has ever taken revenge against me.” Indeed, as Ali Eteraz has so eloquently outlined, there is no singular interpretation of Islamic law and practice; instead, it continues to evolve to meet modern day circumstances.
American Law with respect to racism and gender underwent reformation. Islamic Law with respect to violence against non-Muslims has also modified to fit with the world in which it finds itself.
…Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the high Mufti of Egypt, whom Spencer in another post tries to paint as an extremist because Gomaa (like John Ashcroft) does not allow graven images in statues, recently allowed women to get hymen reconstruction surgery, as well as allowing women the right to political leadership. Other major jurists today have allowed women the right to lead prayer. Even al-Azhar University, by no means a bastion of reform, has taken a strong stance against Female Genital Mutilation which it once used to permit. Islamic Law changes. I hope that is obvious by now. The way islamic jurisprudence evolved to make rules limiting violence serves as a model of how islamic jurisprudence will evolve to give rights to women, minorities and non-Muslims.
Islamic law isn’t static. That’s the key point. The world has changed since Muhammad’s day, and so have Muslims’ views on what practices and beliefs are appropriate. Indeed, this evolution is not entirely different for Islam than it has been for Christianity. Jed Bartlett illustrates this point pretty well:
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “Spencer (And Other Critics) Respond”
Religon aside I think you should know that I have also recently decided that women should be allowed access to politics and should not have their clitoris cut out at a young age, which I once used to permit. Do I get a pat on the back for my forward thinking attitudes or do you still cringe at my once and recently held beliefs?
and the Holy Bible isn’t full of murder, sex ,and violence?
Whoa hat a symbol of modern new thinking, allowing women to get their “Hymen Reconstructed” so they will not be subject to stonning to death for sex out side and before marriage.
Maybe this will save a few thousand women evry year from the common Honor Killings that are occuring and never prosecuted.
Now if we can only get someone to setup a Billion $$ Hymen Reconstruction fund to save all those women who have had premartial sex !!!
“and the Holy Bible isn’t full of murder, sex ,and violence?”
Oh it is, but its been many hundreds of years since it was openly preached by the Vatican to launch holy wars and impose religous law upon the landscape.
Jeb,
I’m amazed at your patience in trying to reason with the unreasonable.
Some people just KNOW what the Koran means, just like others just KNOW what the Bible says they should do and think about every daily issue.
The fact that both texts have directed people to come to different conclusions means nothing.
THEY KNOW.
I wish you strength and perseverence.
Young girls, in many different Islamic countries, are still subjugated to genetial mutilization
Women, in many different Islamic countries, are still stoned for adultery
Christians, in most, if not all, Islamic countries, are not able to practice their faith publically, build churches (Muslims build mosques all over the place), etc.
Gays, in many different Islamic countries, are still executed.
The point I think Jeb is trying to make (actually I think he is making it clearly it is just being ignored) is that Islam is as complex as any other major religious tradition and it changes through time. What people once thought was the ideal interpretation of the Quran is different than they think now. And there is no single interpretation now, just as there is no single intepretation of Christianity or Judaism now. To focus exclusively on certain segments of what was written 1400 years ago in order to understand the modern religious tradition of a billion plus people would be like taking Deuteronomy and concluding you now understand the essense of Christianity for all time.
Islamic thought hasn’t changed. Some Islamic thought has changed. As a religion even more decentralized in its authority figures than Christianity it is even more complex than Jeb is saying. There are those who preach against the violence of the terrorists and those who seek to justify it. Each side finds things in the Koran to justify their position. As Don said, women are still stoned in some places and gays are executed for no other crime than their sexual orientation as well. Pictures of these executions have made their way out of Iran, for instance.
Sam said:
“its been many hundreds of years since it was openly preached by the Vatican to launch holy wars”
To be sure, but the Vatican isn’t the only power evoking a godhead to claim divine backing for whatever it wants to do.
Note also, that Islam has undergone many phases in how the religion is practiced.
Many of the most vile practices in the Muslim world are triabal or societal in nature, and it’s just as possible for them to skip over inconvenient parts of a holy text as it is for those in the West to do the same. When society evolves, there is a ‘miraculous’ parallel evolution in what iis found for inspiration in holy texts. It’s true of all religious texts.
It’s a matter of how those in power use the texts, not the texts themselves, that makes the difference.
How Islam will evolve will be determined by the politcs of the societies, not by the texts.
Here it is – Your Right – The Islamic faith is becoming modern. Proof prositive…!
————- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307680,00.html
————-
Saudi Marriage ‘Expert’ Advises Men in ‘Right Way’ to Beat Their Wives
He’s Saudi author and cleric, “Dr.” Muhammad Al-’Arifi, who in a remarkable segment broadcast on Saudi and Kuwaiti television in September, counseled young Muslim men on how to treat their wives.
“Admonish them – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times,” he advised. “If this doesn’t help, refuse to share their beds.”
And if that doesn’t work?
“Beat them,” one of his three young advisees responded.
“That’s right,” Al-’Arifi said.
He goes on to calmly explain to the young men that hitting their future wives in the face is a no-no.
“Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals,” he explained. “Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face.”
His final words of wisdom?
“Woman, it has gone too far. I can’t bear it anymore,” he tells the men to tell their wives. “If he beats her, the beatings must be light and must not make her face ugly.
“He must beat her where it will not leave marks. He should not beat her on the hand… He should beat her in some places where it will not cause any damage……………..
MidAm-
Yours is an interesting comment on Saudi society.
It shows how religion can be used to excuse vile behaviors.
It doesn’t pertain, however, to the claim that a religious text must inevitably and always be used in the same way.
Remember slavery and the Christians? Both sides of that debate cited the Bible.
“It shows how religion can be used to excuse vile behaviors.”
Excuse, propogate, invent, take your pick.