Quote of the Week: Khaled Abou El Fadl
Catholics have been told to get to know Islam better, not from polemical, anti-Islamic sources, but from the Muslims themselves. Just as a Catholic would be appalled if someone learned their Catholicism from Jack Chick, Dave Hunt, or James White, so Muslims are disgusted by the sensationalistic, anti-Islamic trash which misrepresents their theological tradition and their historical reality. It is in this spirit I have decided to use a quote from a Muslim scholar as this week’s quote of the week:
The existence of Muslim puritanism is hardly surprising. Most religious systems have suffered at one time or another from absolute extremism, and Islam is no exception. Within the first century of Islam, religious extremists known as the Khawarij (literally, the secessionists) slaughtered a large number of Muslims and non-Muslims, and were even responsible for the assassination of the Prophet’s cousin and companion, the Caliph Ali b. Abi Talib. The descendants of the Khawarij exist today in Oman and Algeria, but after centuries of bloodshed, they became moderates if not pacifists. Similarly, the Qaramites and Assassins, for whom terror became a raison d’etre, earned unmitigated infamy in the writings of Muslim historians, theologians, and jurists. Again, after centuries of bloodshed, these two groups learned moderation, and they continue to exist in small numbers in North Africa and Iraq. The essential lesson taught by Islamic history is that extremist groups are ejected from the mainstream of Islam; they are marginalized, and eventually treated as heretical aberrations to the Islamic message.
– Khaled Abou El Fadl, The Place of Tolerance in Islam (Boston: Beacon Press, 2002), 5-6.
Comments are closed.
Good idea and thanks for sharing Henry.
I’d be curious to see/know how his definition of tolerance and its place in Islam compare’s to what Ratzinger wrote in Truth and Tolerance
An how does he explain the history of the fact that the Koran commands the conversion or killing of the infidel and that historically in every Muslim country, Christians and other infidels are tolerated, taxed, denied rights Muslims have and are sometimes killed.
The facts are there.
If Islam ejects its radicals, that is only an inside power play. The facts above are demonstrably true. When Islam is in power, infidels suffer with the blessings of the Koran.
I think one of the major factors in what is referred to as “radical Islam” is the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent land-grabs by Britain and France after WWI. While not perfect by any means, the Ottoman influence throughout the Middle-East gave some stability, which in turn fostered a more stable religious theology.
JB
The book I quoted from is one I would recommend, because it starts with the essay I quoted from, has quite a few responses to it (from Muslims and non-Muslims alike), and ends with El Fadl discussing the points raised to his introductory essay.
With that, he would be the first to say, that his own understanding of tolerance is with a humanistic, pluralistic tradition, one which he believes can be found when one looks at the Koran and Islamic civilization as a whole. The Koran forms the foundation for Islamic tolerance, and tells them not to coerce people to conversion, and indeed, to work for and strive for peaceful relations. He believes that Islamic history has shown that has happened, although of course, with political movements, it’s not always been perfect (even as such pluralistic tolerance is not always found in the West). Ultimately he thinks Muslims should focus on their wide tradition, and use that to respond to the voices of intolerance like Bin Laden; and indeed, he thinks Muslims need to take back their tradition and not allow puritans with political agendas redefine Islam.
Ann, in the more stable periods of Islamic rule in the Middle East, “infidels” were treated no worse than were religious minorities in most of Catholic Europe. The modern unrest has its roots to large extent in the empire-building and colonization race that European countries took part in throughout the 19th century, in many cases deposing the more moderate authorities and installing warlords who were disciples of a more intolerant and warlike theology of Islam.
Ann
The fact is — the KORAN does not, just like the Bible does not promote genocide, although one could certainly take passages of the Bible out of context to make for a theology of genocide and claim it is what Jews and Christians believe. So many people, especially in the West, take verses out of context to “define Muslim orthodoxy” for the Muslims, and tell those who don’t take their misconceived form of Islam as “true” that they are “liberals.” That is not the case at all; indeed, if one looked at the context, it was in defensive positions at best where killing was allowed, and one should and must sue for peace. Indeed, the Koran is very clear in the protection Islam is to give to non-Muslims, which is why the “kill them all” representation is quite false. And to the surprise of many, Hinduism was considered one of the traditions of the book, which explains why Islamic rule in India didn’t wipe out Hindu thought (indeed, it assimilated much of it!).
I would highly suggest you go back to Vatican II, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict (not misquoted, misrepresented Benedict, but Benedict when talking with Muslims) and see what they say; they know your representation of Islam isn’t valid and Christians are required, by the Church (Vatican II) to end such useless polemics and to truly engage Muslims in honest dialogue (learning from the Muslims instead of telling them what they “must believe in” to be “orthodox”).
JohnH
Right, in fact, often the Islamic lands were of greater tolerance than Christian ones (which is why many Jews fled to Islamic ruled countries, or why the Coptics welcomed the Muslim overlords, or why even many Orthodox said better the turban than the mitre!).
I think what is problematic, as far as orthodox Islam goes, is how far it, as a religion/political system, can go in a pluralistic world. We can talk all day about how much worse Christians were than Muslims but I think the real question is how one can remain true to the main tenants of orthodox Islam without being a potential threat to those outside the house of Islam.
Name one other religion today that does the sort of violence – in the name of God – that adherents to Islam do to those outside of its faith? You could mark the hot spots all over a map where Muslims – in the the name of God – are at war against Animists, Jews, Christians, Hindus, other Muslims, Secularists etc. Can you say this about any other of these faiths listed?
The primary issue with Islam is its lack of language to talk about religion separate from the state – it’s one and the same, – and its inherently expansionistic nature. The combination of these two aspects of Islam make it incredibly difficult to deal with. Certainly it is true that there are “moderate” Muslims, but I would argue that in order to be a moderate Muslim, at least how Westerners define the term, a Muslim would have to sacrifice one of the two things I listed above.
Ursus
Just start with America and people who say, “they are trying to kill us, so let’s fight them in the name of God.” And you will find this within the Christian tradition; just look to Sarah Palin and her false presentation of the Islamic world and her belief in the value of war as the way to engage Islamic nations. You will find all kinds of people with that kind of mentality: those who, with a political agenda, mix it up with their religious faith and use it to find excuse for war. They will of course demonize the enemy as a way to dehumanize them, so it makes it easier to have such a holy war, and to believe one is different, because “we are the good, they are the bad.”
You will find Hindu, Buddhist, and Jews all fighting in the name of their religious faith. Indeed, there is a major problem with Hindus in India doing just that, or various forms of intolerant Buddhism like in Sri Lanka.
The lack of contextualization and inability of many who say “they are the ones who are evil, and while there might be moderates, it’s just people giving away from their true beliefs” which make for the wars we see in the world.
Is all of Islam peaceful? Obviously not. Nor is all of Christianity, even today. However, if one looks at the whole, and the multitude of theological traditions in Islam, one will note the “puritanic” kind IS an abberation, but the kind reinforced by Western propaganda. We have made them more than anything else.
Henry,
I could certainly be sheltered but I have never met one person – not even in Missouri where I’m from – who has said, “they’re trying to kill us let’s kill them in the name of God.” Certainly, there are some white supremacist type groups that are out there that might espouse this kind of nonsense in the name of some form of paganistic Christianity, but they’re hardly the organized threat that militant Islam is on a global scale. What might be more true is to hear people say “those Muslims are killing us, let go kill them” dropping the “in the name of God.”
You can certainly find killing in the name of God within Chistian history but where do you find this now to any relevant or organized degree? And even if you could, are Christians at war – in the name of Jesus – like Muslims are – in the name of Allah – with almost every people around the globe? For that matter what faith is at war in the name of their God like Islam is with so many different peoples/faiths outside the House of Islam? No one comes close.
Again, the main issue I raised is that orthodox Islam particularly problematic in that it is both inherently expansionistic and it does not separate mosque and state. If you take, for example Judaism and Christianity, both have one part missing. Although orthodox Judaism sees no difference between temple and state it is not expansionistic. Christianity, although it is expansionistic, it has language to talk about a separation between church and state. Islam has problematic combination of both. This, in my opinion is why, unless you neuter some part of orthodox Islam, we’ll always have these problems.
This is not about demonizing others or making thing black and white.
Ursus
There are many problems, as I have already hinted at, with the way you deal with Islam. You make univocal statements which are over-generalizations, and your reductionist look at “Islamic expansion” demonstrates a lack of history even in that context. I would be interested in an examination of what tradition(s) you mean to be “Orthodox Islam,” so then we can continue the discussion further. Why are they “orthodox” and not other forms?
And don’t ignore the relation of “church and state” in the actions of a Sarah Palin or a GW Bush. American hegemony and its expansion in the world has always had a religious overtone — manifest destiny continues.
Henry,
Something you wrote resounded with me. You say the Quran endorses violence and genocide no more than the Bible does, given some of the passages of the Old Testament. I have a basic (although insufficient) understanding of how Catholicism addresses those passages. Do you know what Orthodox Judaism treats (or how different currents in Orthodox Jewish thought treat) the commandments from God to the Israelites relating to violence against other peoples? And how do you as a Christian understand the portrayal of God there?
Regarding Islam, Henry, don’t you think a more practical concern is that most of the money being spent to support teaching and the production of theological work within Islam today is coming from those who encourage the puritanical strain Khaled Abou El Fadl identifies? Maybe traditional Islam in northern Nigeria or central Sumatra is understood differently from what is preached in a mosque in Medina. But the new Mosque being built in northern Nigeria is paid for by the Saudis and staffed by an imam educated by the Saudis, so the Wahhabi current of Islam gains new adherents. This has happened in the Maghreb, in Southeast Asia, and in London. So I have a little doubt about Khaled Abou El Fadl’s confidence that this current of Islamic thought will abate; his confidence seems to ignore contigency, in the same way those who say “Christianity has endured persecution before, it can endure it again” ignore the fact that in many places it hasn’t really survived persecution (North Africa, Japan, Persia). We Christians may be confident that the Church will endure and triumph, but that doesn’t mean triumph in any given place and time, and our confidence is a theological one; so is Abou El Fadl’s.
Also, you rightly respond to Ursus that there are many currents in Islamic thought; nevertheless, his criticism (I apologize if Ursus isn’t a he, I am guessing based on the name being Ursus, not Ursa) that throughout Muslim history, there has been great difficulty separating political and religious duties seems well founded. I wish success to Khaled Abou El Fadl in his attempt to ensure that Islam and religious liberty can be fully reconciled, as I know our Holy Father does, but the signs that in the short run he will have such success are few. The only governments in majority Muslim states that provide strong protection for religious minorities are often very unpopular, especially with devout Muslims and often partly because of the protection they provide.
Turkey may be a sign to the contrary, if the challenges that AK offers to laicite are broadminded enough to protect the Christians in Turkey; that would indeed be a good sign. It’s possible that certain Gulf states and even the Saudi king are beginning to consider steps toward religious liberty (although notice that they do so not in a democratic framework). Elsewhere, in Iran, Malaysia, Iraq, Gaza, Afghanistan, Pakistan, northern Nigeria, good signs have been fewer.
John and Henry, the facts dispute you. Revisionist history to the contrary, turning the world into an Islamic state is demanded by the books and history of Islam. Do you think it unfair of Isabel to oust the Muslims? Do you think it horrible that Europe won the Battle of Lepanto or turned the Muslims away from Vienna? Do you think it a coincidence that many Islamic acts of terrorism occur on dates of defeat of their literally genocidal policies?
Zak: also, one of the ways the more radical elements of Islam are spreading these days is online. Alienated, angry young men are particularly susceptible to radicalism, and Al-Queda and other fringe groups have capitalized on that.
Henry: I think Islam is more prone to extremism than Christianity these days. Notwithstanding your proclamation on Palin and Bush, the sort of foreign policy that is advocated by the current administration is one that was drafted and carried out by overwhelmingly secular strategists. Bush may couch his rhetoric using religious terms at times, but that’s worlds away from the sort of intertwined religious and political beliefs that are embraced by those such as the Taliban. As I said above, I think a lot of this has to do with the destruction of the social system that was holding the Islamic world together a century ago. You’d have to go back around 150 years in the US to find that sort of mentality at work in the name of Christianity (i.e. the actions of John Brown and his followers).
Henry,
It’s odd that you take me to task for characterizing Islam as expansionist but are mum on my characterization of Christianity as expansionist. They both are probably the most aggressively expansionist of the faiths I’m aware of. All you need to do is look at a map to see that both religions span the globe and claim – at least historically and culturally – quite a bit of real estate.
Let me give you an example of what I mean by “orthodox” Islam: for about five years I worked as a supervisor at an academic library. Over that time I worked with many Muslim students. Attempting to seek common ground I had many conversations on religion. There’s a big difference between say a Turkish Cypriot Muslim who doesn’t know their faith and a Pakistani Muslim who does. Make know mistake that the second Muslim believes, as “moderate” as he/she may seem, ultimately the world should, and will be, Islamic and under Sharia Law. Of course there are differences on interpretation of Sharia – that is one of the ultimate goals. Just as you and I, who are Christians, believe in the Second Coming and have different interpretations of what that looks like – it is an irremovable part of orthodox Christianity and it has consequences on how we view the world.
Your parting shot about “GW,” Palin and manifest destiny was a bit of a non-sequitur. I realize you were trying to draw a parallel between them and what we see today in Islam but I find this dubious, plus it does nothing to help us further our understanding of Islam.
Ursus
You did not answer my question. Show me what you actually know of Islam. Show me you actually know about Islam. You really have given tautologies “orthodox Islam is expansionist, and doesn’t want to separate church and state,” and anyone who doesn’t follow that is, then, someone “who doesn’t know their faith.” What I see is you don’t know Islam and its wide range of views. So keep making vague references without actually discussing specifics.
Ann
Your response reminds me of Protestants who tell me when I deal with history, I am being revisionist because I am not agreeing with Jack Chick. Seriously: read what John Paul II or Vatican II said about Islam. Study what the Church expects us to do. It is not to engage old, false polemics; rather, as I said, it wants us to know Islam from the Muslims and from their perspective. Not to continue false assumptions. It is not revisionism; it is an attempt for honesty. Something I see lacking in those attacking Islam on here right now.
Zak
Everyone is concerned about it; but the first thing the West needs to do is to stop aiding terrorists within Islam who want to define that as orthodoxy! As long as the Western rhetoric is “That’s true Islam” it helps create more radicals; the propaganda from both sides work together to help form those very terrorist. Combine it with the fact we ignore what creates the terrorists, in reality, and just use Islam as a scapegoat, we will keep doing what it takes to make terrorists.
JohnH
One can find the same explanation for Islamic violence, that it is more political than religious, and religion is the scapegoat to ignore the political issues involved. But the religious tenor of course helps the “true believers”, just as it does with Bush and Palin in the West.
Now we need to look at the reason why there is much extremism in Islam vs the West. First, it has to do with the fact that the West, as a whole, has given up faith in Christianity. But it has found a new religion: democracy. And THAT extremism is indeed what is fighting Muslims.
Henry,
It looks like we’re at an impasse. If you deny that a divine law exists in Islam (Sharia) and that a main tenet of Islam is to establish that law on earth (with all others under its yoke), we can’t even begin to discuss this topic. Like I said earlier, it’s like trying to talk about Christianity with a devout believer of the faith, and thinking somehow they can be talked out of a belief in the resurrection or the second coming. In essence what you’re proposing is a totally new faith made suitable for the modern world. This maybe possible – and hopefully it is for the sake of peace – but, again, you’d be constructin a new faith. To use an analogy, it would be similar to how many mainline Protestant denominations have become essentially social clubs because they’ve liberalized themselves into irrelevance. It sounds like you’re proposing the same thing for Islam – and that’s what the “extemists” are keenly aware of and are trying to prevent.
Ursus
Once again, the problem is you make broad generalizations about Islam without any indication of actually knowing the different Muslim theological traditions, and the diversity of thought which is within the Muslim world. You portray some versions as “authentic” and the rest as “social clubs.” You don’t even demonstrate an ability to discuss key Islam ideas; when I keep asking for theological examples, you give general broad discussions and tautologies. Notice the difference between the quote I provided with its specific examples and your vague, undeterminable examples of people you talk to in a library? Your examples are not concrete, and don’t demonstrate who they are and how they relate to the overall Islamic traditions.
Ash’ari? Imami? Mu’tazili? Ismaili? et. al.
Here’s an example of one Muslim thinker, legal expert even:
““Thus, in the authentic concept of Islam we all have one religion and we are all one community of the faithful. But every teacher, messenger or prophet had or has his own Shari’a – path, method or way – in teaching the people how faith and righteousness should be lived in accordance with their state of mind, culture and customs. There is a verse in the Qur’an that reads, ‘We [God] gave you [teachers, messengers, and prophets] one religion, but we gave every one of you his own Shari’s path, method, or way’ (Sura 4:84)” Sa’id al-’Ashmawy.
Henry,
I believe we’re talking past each other because we’re starting at different places. I’m talking about a fundamental tenet of the faith while you’re talking further down the line about schools of interpretations. Again, do you deny that a fundamental tenet of Islam is to bring the world under the yoke of divine law? Until we establish whether this is a main tenet of Islam we cannot proceed. This is not talking in vague generalities as you suggest, just a point from which to start.
Henry, I find that sort of suggested moral equivalence a tad simplistic. I guess we’ll have to differ on this one.
Henry, I think your analogy is wrong. If you want to learn about Catholicism, you go to the Vatican documents. What central authority can I go to to learn about Islam?
Ursus
Islam exists only in concrete forms; you again make an outsider’s tautology about Islam and say those who don’t follow your external presentation (based not on any evidence from Islamic sources themselves) are just not “good Muslims” or the like. That is exactly the problem. Reminds me of Chick on Jesuits.
Ursus
YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS. Your question REQUIRES MORE INPUT before one can answer. That is the point. It needs to be concrete. You do not know Islam, that is obvious. You are playing a game. Goodbye.
There was a time of Cafeteria Islam that was actually far preferable to Christendom. Without Muslim scholars, much of antiquity would have been lost forever. It was a long time ago, however. Not that any religious government is desirable, and a staunchly Catholic regime wouldn’t be much better than an Islamic one. One need only go back in time a few hundred years and look at Europe. The difference is that Catholicism has been neutered whereas Islam is still at it. It’s not a monolithic system, after all bellydancing didn’t always get one the death penalty. Homosexuality didn’t use to get one executed either. The bottom line is, however, that it doesn’t matter how many ‘nice Muslims’ there are, when the fanatics are in charge.
“The essential lesson taught by Islamic history is that extremist groups are ejected from the mainstream of Islam; they are marginalized, and eventually treated as heretical aberrations to the Islamic message.”
It might be just as helpful to look abroad to England and the European continent to find out what to expect from getting to know Islam. Assuming that the Euro press is only half right, it doesn’t look to be a very promising learning experience.
Does Khaled Abou El Fadl give a rough idea on when to expect this mass excommunication of the extremeists, so that we can assure women and the non-Muslim dhimi religious around the world not to worry?