For someone who is legally trained, you offer some fairly poor evidence for your proposition that 'something is truly wrong in Islam today...'
First, you rely on someone else's work: Bernard Lewis. Lewis presents an interesting, if not provocative thesis. It is however, one view of Islam and, being full of reductionist thought and crude generalisations, it is not one that stands and to close analysis. May I suggest you read Lewis' work again after reading Edward Said's 'Orientalism'? Despite all that has been written about Said (particularly post-humously), his work does offer a strong critique of the way we have viewed those in the East.
Second, you state that, apart from Turkey, Muslim countries in North Africa and the Middle East are 'reprehensible'. Turkey is neither part of North Africa nor the Middle East, but it does have some reprehensible aspects. Just ask the Turkish Kurds. According to Amnesty, the Turkish government continues to hold prisoners of conscience, engage in systemic torture (including sexual assault) of prisoners and actively discriminate against minorities. There are some Muslim countries in the world that are going along quite nicely, Malaysia for example is developing a modern secular society along with a robust economy. Can I suggest that the political history of the Middle East and North Africa, particularly the intervention of colonial powers and then the effect of the Cold War, may hold the key as to why these countries' governments are 'reprehensible'?
Your third point, that Islamic factions are trying to undermine the US construction of an open society in Iraq surely can be explained, at least in part, by realist international relations theory. Iran is supporting groups that are agitating for an Iranian worldview. Nothing special about this, its what international politics is all about. The US has been dabbling in Central America for quite sometime - what's the difference? As for your assertion that Judaism and Christianity does not produce the same dangerous elements, two words: David Koresh.
Your last point is that Islam appears to be medieval. You first cite honour killings as evidence for this assertion. Honour killings do not occur uniformly across Islam. Indonesia, a country of around 270 million people, 90 per cent of which are Muslim, does not have a history of honour killings. Honour killings are practised by certain cultures (eg, in regions of Central Asia and the Middle East), some of which are also Islamic. If there was an intrinsic causal connection between Islam and honour killings, would not the practice be found throughout the Islamic world?
I agree with you that stoning is barbaric. I hope you feel the same way about electrocution and the death penalty in general. Given that parts of the US haven't gotten past the old testament's teaching of an eye for an eye, is this point useful in distinguishing between civilised and uncivilised persons?
Perhaps the reason why you think criticism of Hart is not justified is because you engage in the same stereotyping and generalisations that he does?
Posted by legalbeagle at November 24, 2003 03:38 AM"And Hart's propensity for none-too-subtle evangelizing does not endear it to me either. I'm a Christian. I take Christianity seriously. But I don't read comics for theological succor. Peanuts and Dilbert are more my style."
In the sixties, I found and enjoyed a slender volume entitled "The Gospel According To Peanuts", an expanded version of a seminarian's doctoral thesis. Keep an eye on Linus, who was also on a poster I had saying "I love Mankind, it's people I can't stand."
Legal Beagle:
What's most striking about the majority of your comments is that they further support my argument. So while you may not be impressed with my evidence, I hardly need to offer any with adversaries like you.
But let's begin with your first complaint: reliance on Bernard Lewis. You offer a conclusory criticism of Bernard Lewis bereft of any examples of his purported reductionism or crudity. Your view of Crisis certainly doesn't match the majority of published reviews of Lewis's pithy little tome. Of course, Lewis's reputation and authority on this topic hardly rest on Crisis at any rate. Lewis has been prolific on this subject.
A single citation to a book that is now over twenty years old and rather contentious in its own right is hardly a convincing rebuttal. Such citation and reliance is rendered all the more problematic by the fact that Said was a professor of literature and not of history or religion. Criticisms of Orientalism that provide specifics are not hard to find (e.g., here and here).
A more relevant comparative selection might be John Esposito's The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?. Of course, my general thesis that there is much that is wrong with Islam and Muslim countries and that both merit substantial criticism is hardly irreconciliable with Esposito's views.
But let's move on to your more substantive claims. First, you write:. . . [Y]ou state that, apart from Turkey, Muslim countries in North Africa and the Middle East are 'reprehensible'. Turkey is neither part of North Africa nor the Middle East . . . .
Actually, I did not write that. Here's what I did write:
. . . [A] gander at the breadbasket of Islam, North Africa and the Middle-East, is hardly reassuring. Aside from Turkey, which major Islamic nation can one name that is not reprehensible?
On its face, these two sentences pertain to different things entirely. The first sentence involves "North Africa and the Middle East." The second sentence is more sweeping, dealing with all major Muslim countries worldwide. I generally assume that elementary geography is a subject that my readers have mastered. So I felt no need to explain that Turkey is not among those in included in the former sentence.
Turkey is a democracy with decided problems. Of course, everything is relative. In the context of most other Muslim nations, Turkey comes off rather well. None of the problems that you cite regarding Turkey appear to be tied to the religion of its citizens, so we are effectively comparing apples and oranges here, but it hardly helps your case to point out that even Muslim nations that enjoy a reputation for moderation, like Turkey, are reprehensible, now does it?
Inexplicably, you follow up this condemnation of Turkey with an endorsement of Malaysia as the model Muslim nation. You mean the same Malaysia whose prime minister recently excoriated Jews at a Muslim summit? It is hardly surprising that PM Mahathir should be mouthing such vile utterances, however, given that Malaysia's moderation is somewhat in doubt precisely due to hard-line Islamicists. Among other things, U.S. interests there have recently been subject to threats by terrorists extending their reach from the southern Phillipines.
It should also be noted that, to the extent that Malaysia may be considered moderate, that fact is largely attributable to the fact that Maylasia is not explictly an Islamic state and, perhaps, secondarily, to the presence of a large non-Muslim population. Although most states within Malaysia have enacted Sharia law to govern the private conduct of Muslims, the nation otherwise adheres to the English common law. So to the extent that Malaysia has prospered, it would seem to be precisely because it is not like the vast majority of Muslim nations in significant respects.
Citing Malaysia would appear to be little more than an instance of the exception proving the rule, to the extent that Malaysia is in fact exceptional. On a final note, it is worth noting that Malaysia is reportedly the location of substantial civil and human rights abuses similar to those in Turkey. See e.g., here, here, here, here, here. Human Rights Watch has more.I think that you also get your details wrong elsewhere. This notion that honor killings are merely cultural rather than an incident of a certain form of Islam is itself rather suspect with regard to Muslim countries. The Jordanian Parliament, for example, has in the past refused to enact harsher penalties for these killings on the basis that "more lenient punishments [for the women involved] will violate religious traditions" among other things. So yes, non-Muslims may engage in such behavior as well, but this is irrelevant. I am not asserting that Muslims alone engage in this practice, rather I am asserting that this practice in Muslim countries in which it is practiced is bolstered by Islam as it is preached therein and that it is more prevalent in Muslim countries.Indonesia may or may not have problems with honor killings, but it is hardly free of turmoil. And it may shortly have even more trouble due to inroads being made by the very sort of radical Islamicists that I condemned. Of course, even if such killings are absent from Indonesia, this hardly rebuts my point. As I stated in my initial post, "I would not agree with an unqualified denunciation of Islam." You seem to be debating a contention that I never advocated (i.e., that Islam is universally deplorable).
Posted by The Curmudgeonly Clerk at November 24, 2003 07:14 PM