Ghost of a flea

Excellent piece. We do not want to face this.

Thanks, Alan. Though you will note I am not long on suggested courses of action to take.

For someone whose ancestors used the pre-battle chalk wash like the man in the statue, that should be a great warning to us all, the horrific last stand against the tyrant that we will never allow to repeat.

You disappoint me, Flea. It is a diseased religion, mindset, culture, or whatever you want to call it that wishes to impose this on all of us. But you frame it as a gender issue. Why not go all the way with your argument and say that it is tens or hundreds of millions of straight men that seek this horrific future?

Lickmuffin, Arguably, there are numerous gay men within the Islamic World whom seek these things as well, simply because they have been taught this as rote for their whole lives. They are pathologically sick. Are the repressed, yes. Are they murderous, yes. Like the Turkish Garrison Commander in Lawrence of Arabia, they are in charge and do as they wish.

The Morality police who imprisoned Atefah had no morals themselves because they chose to abuse her while in their custody. Yet, because they are above reproach, they are able to as they please.

Despite recent claims that the United States wasted "the world's" "sympathy" following September 11, 2001 with the decision to remove the Ba'athists from power in Iraq, I remember precious little sympathy with their earlier decision to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

One well-known Annex denizen explained to me that while she opposed the Taliban she also opposed the actions of the United States and its allies, preferring instead to support RAWA. Had I heard of it?, she asked. I had, of course. I assumed at the time that the Revolutionary Armed Women of Afghanistan was some sort of agit-prop and I have had no reason to change my mind in the years since. Fine, I replied, but what had RAWA accomplished in years of opposition to the Taliban maniacs that the USAF and American special-forces were not accomplishing in a matter of days? More important, just what did her "support" amount to? No street protest or political agitation and certainly not her blood or treasure. Nothing, in fact, except her use of their acronymous name as a cheap debating point in her only real war; opposition to the United States no matter what.

There is monstrous hypocrisy in much of Western feminism these last several years as this same war aim - and fear of being labelled "Islamophobic", whatever the hell that is meant to mean - has trumped solidarity with women living in virtual slavery in those parts of the world otherwise sanctified as "the Other" in post-Said speak. I doubt Margaret Atwood would appreciate my use of her words to tacitly support my generally bellicose lines of argument here at the Flea.

That said, I think of Irshad Manji and imagine an Islam that is not a poison. There was a time not so long ago the only Christians who opposed slavery were mocked as Quakers. Certainly, there was no lack of Biblical support for the practice no matter we latter-day Christian casuists who would claim slavery and Scripture do not rhyme.

I think one could safely argue that the primary purpose of the Bible is to address the condition of one's relationship to God and to our fellow men, not to stand as a how-to manual in civil governance and cultural development. The principle involved (that each man has an equal and immeasurable worth before God) has led us to destroy the institution of slavery and to try and level the playing field as much as possible in all areas of human endeavour.

One of the stand-out features of the Bible is that it speaks on a macro level and is silent on many practices and philosophies, good and bad. This permits us to use our own reason and judgement, guided by divine principles, in tackling the issues. I much prefer a faith that leaves room for human intiative and judgement in the day-to-day, than a book that purports to be all-encompassing and locks its adherents into 7th century attitudes for all time.

For obvious reasons, Chris, I am sympathetic to your opinions in this matter. That said, there are many Christians who insist on a "literal" reading of Scripture which is often anything but. Just because the Muslim version of the same attitude have all the oil money and guns at the moment does not mean their views must hold sway for all time.

Yes, there is a difference between the two bodies of scripture in that the Koran is meant to be the word for word revelations of God through the angel Gabriel whereas the Bible is a collection of histories, wisdome literature, poetry, letters, etc. and so forth. That said, the reason Gabriel's Recitation is meant to be taken so seriously is that in Islamic theology humanity can only ever imperfectly understand the perfection that is God (please see Benedict's recent thoughts on the matter). But even the most perfect expression of God's thought in human language - 7th century Arabic - is only a question of a best fit rather than an ideal. God, being perfect, knows we will better understand his message in time and this is how interpretation enters the door...

I find out three-way similarlity in approach and the meaning and the role of the faith, even though I think we have somewhat different backgrounds, to be one of the more interesting discoveries of mine through blogging.

To the degree that fundamentalism of any stripe seperates and isolates the Will of God from Reason (logos) it is prone to horrendous mutations and evil by man. This, in fact, was the theme of the Pope's notorious speech in Germany.

I'm reminded of this story and 1985 video by Canadian singer Doug Cameron, "Mona with the children". I suppose here it is more a case of religious intolerance (Mona was a member of the Baha'i faith in Iran and was executed with 9 other women in 1983) but Mona's gender indeed appeared to have been a part of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ-UxEbuPag

(the soundtrack seemed a bit delayed when I viewed it)

http://www.adressformona.org/

Josh, I agree with the Pope both in this and with the rather larger portion of his argument cautioning against separating reason from faith. The problem is what further conclusion we might draw from this position and here I believe I am at odds with Benedict.

In so far as a Muslim ontology holds in an ultimately unknowable God that God can, to cite Benedict's example, direct us to worship idols. In most Christian theology - and certainly Catholic theology - this unjunction would be illogical, irrational and therefore impossible. There are limits, in other words, on the action of God because of God's own nature as Logos - divine reason - and the immanence of reason in Creation.

We find parallels in Jewish thinking about the Covenant. While in truth all things are possible to God, in practice God has entered a contract with humanity to maintain an ordered Creation. So, the sky is blue today and will be blue tomorrow (barring rain) as the sun will rise in the east today and will rise in the east tomorrow (barring Superman). Muslim theology is broadly similar with an important caveat about the character of this covenant grounded in the nature of reality. While to most Jews and Christians creation happens and history carries on from there, an Islamic view of creation is of an ongoing process as reality is sustained in the thoughts of God. In this sense the Covenant is an agreement not between God and humanity but of God with Himself.

Starting with these different notions of reality can lead to different lines of argument but this does not mean that Muslim theology argues God is irrational. Rather, it holds that to an imperfect humanity God's actions may seem irrational. I do not believe this position is inconsistent with that offered by the author of Job, to cite one example from Jewish and Christian scripture. We can imagine, therefore, a reading of the Koran where - with the passage of centuries - we come to understand that God meant humanity to take this or that Sura ironically; knowing people would not, indeed could not, know better in the early years after its reception.*

The best known case for this sort of casuistry concerns the injunction to marry no more than four women. A caveat with the rule is to the effect that a man should not marry any more women than he can properly support. Is it possible, we may now ask, for a man to ever genuinely support - emotionally as well as financially - more than one woman? If the answer is "no" then God's intention is monogamy no matter the superficial meaning of His words and a mistaken understanding of them down through the years. I notice Mormonism managed a similar volte-face on the issue of polygamy and managed to remain largely intact and recognizable to itself.

I understand this sort of thinking drives some people around the bend. Yet somehow Christianity has survived its parting with slavery intact. As has the United States its own great emancipation, something Originalist interpreters of the United States Constitution rarely choose to take issue with despite their railing against supposedly imaginary rights to privacy, for example. Both transformations were only accomplished at great cost and against people who honestly believed their understandings of Scripture, and of Liberty, were the truth. I expect we are going to have to face the same for a comparable transformation of Islam.

*Something comparable, if not directly analogous, to this possibility is already established by Muslims to be the case with the so-called "Satanic verses" of the Koran.

Thanks, Mike. I am going to have to wait until I get home to take a look.

I want to add that I have not been avoiding Lickmuffin's criticism because I do not think it is important but because I do not believe I understand it. If we disagree with social or political choices made in the name of Islam it is worth articulating what these are. A central one, it seems to me, is the systematic maltreatment of women. And if we are to ask why many ostensibly "Muslim" social and political choices are made it is worth asking what logic underpins them. I believe sexism is one of these underlying, motivating reasons. I further believe that the incentives of booty and rapine motivate many to adopt jihadism as an opportunistic excuse or rationale.

There was, and continues to be, all manner of gangsterism and extortion carried out by "Protestant" and "Catholic" paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. I believe we are dealing with comparable phenomena for Muslim gangsters be they opportunistic kidnap-for-ransom gangs, al Qaeda-style NGOs or the grand-gangsters of the House of Saud.

Which is not to say booty and rapine might not be a consequence of adopting a worldview rather than merely an incentive for adopting it as a matter of convenience. I doubt Manson Cult members would have been terribly successful if left to their own devices but I doubt most of them individually would have carried out the atrocities they did as a group. I agree the dominant strains of Islamic thought - politically, economically, militarily - which confront us are both virulent and pathological. But I do not believe these dangers are any more, or less, inherent in Muslim theology than they are in other belief systems. One mistake is not to recognize the danger or to confront it. This mistake is in thinking there is some theological explanation for what we are facing independent of political, economic or social considerations. In other words, to say "if only Muslims would accept the coherence of reason with the divine we would not have these problems". Well, centuries of contrary examples from our own history refute the point.

But it is equally a mistake, it seems to me, to say that simply because Christianity has its own well of horrors that we are somehow in no position to criticize today's Islam. Indeed, and here I believe Benedict and I are on the same page, we are uniquely suited to offer suggestions and advice based on our own experience. The big question, of course, is whether there is - or will be - anyone left to hear it.

Have you seen what our friendly neighborhood holocaust-denying cartoonist has been up to recently?

It's not pretty.

I knew I would have to hold my nose and wander back into that fever-swamp eventually. I expect I will take a look some time this weekend... I had been meaning to hold off into I heard something about a "winner" of the cartoon contest.

One thing I will say to our American cousins south of the border. I respect the free-for-all of ideas and the resolve to give the greatest possible latitude to freedom of expression. I think it is an incredible experiment and has obvious benefits. But as time goes on I am finding I am not only more British/Canadian in my thinking but with a couple centuries on rewind thrown in for good measure. I would quite cheerfully see the lash for people mocking the Holocaust; hard labour and/or the stocks as a near equivalent. I have had quite enough of the notion that we are somehow beholden to the finest sensibilities of our enemies as they tool with nuclear fire, Wormtongue joking about genocide all the while.