I have written the following essay as both a Christian and an observer of politics in the Middle East. The political and the religious in this article, therefore, are tied together in the persona of this author. Inasmuch as my belief in the truth of Christianity colors my observations of the world, politics and religion are inseparable for me. However, when contemplating political actions or policy, I make observations and recommendations that I consider discrete to each arena. Some observations apply only to the Church – they should not form a political movement, designed to change the way humans are governed. Some recommendations apply only to the political fields – they involve religion only insofar as I believe they must be in accordance with Biblical values and Christian conscience. The concrescence of the two goes this far. Faith cannot be separated from political actors who hold to it; the actions of the state should, however, not mirror the actions of the Church.
Many, if not most, Western media and commentary in recent years have noted with alarm the resurgence of the idea of Shari’a as the basis for the judicial systems and legal codes in nations of the Islamic world. Conservative and Christian leaders have seized upon this theme with special fervor. There are many movements that the media and popular commentary that treat Shari’a synonymously with Islamic Law; indeed, it is used most commonly in discussions as though it were Islamic code. Rarely has so little attention been paid in the popular press to the origins of a term, and its precise domain. In an issue of this magnitude – especially when we are discussing legal terms – more rigor ought to be applied to our use of the language.
Shari’a is an Arabic word, meaning “way” or “path.” Shari’a is the way or path down which a Muslim travels in attempting to fulfill his temporal duties, ultimately to establish peace and justice in the community of God. Shari’a forms the bedrock values and principles that govern the temporal existence of believers in community. It is impossible, therefore, to think of Shari’a correctly as Islamic code. It is, rather, the interpreted values of the Qur’an, the Hadith (recounted sayings of the Prophet) and the Sunna (recounted deeds of the Prophet).
A more useful comparison for Western observers may be between Shari’a and Common Law. Both are essentially sets of principles that form the legal groundwork for code. Both are drawn from the interpreted principles of moral value, in turn drawn from the respective religious tradition. Neither is firmly or authoritatively codified, nor even exists in a universally prescribed form. Both have as their ostensible goal the preservation of order and peace in society, the promotion of virtue, the prevention of vice, and the preeminence of equality and justice for all people. Both have been used to formulate judicial systems and legal codes in a number of nations in history. To understand the sense in which Shari’a is a system of legal principles, rather than code, one need look no further than to some of the examples that so vex Western liberal observers—such as the question of apostasy from Islam. Neither the Qur’an nor the Hadith prescribe a penalty for apostasy. The various collections of Shari’a address the issue variously. Many Shari’a scholars do require execution for an adult male apostate within the community of believers, in some cases – though almost never universally. Other scholars maintain that that whipping is the correct punishment. Still others posit no punishment whatsoever. All fall within the domain of Shari’a law.
Inasmuch as the laws of some countries are drawn from interpretations of Shari’a, we must be careful not to conflate the laws of a nation with Shari’a. It would be incorrect to expect that the formation of an Islamic state with Shari’a-inspired judicial institutions would necessarily resemble Saudi Arabia. In that case, the interpretation of Shari’a by the highly controversial scholars of the Hanbali schools of law, combined with the Salafist (fundamentalist) leanings of the clerical establishment, has united with a tribal and authoritarian monarchy (whose members could hardly be described as Islamist). The disruptive or brutal expressions of law – especially punitive or gender law – must be considered as germane to the political and geographic situation in which it arose – not to Shari’a.
Having touched on the meaning of Shari’a , it is necessary to examine those other conditions that contribute to the formation of a system of law and government before an argument against or in favor of Shari’at legitimacy can be made. This is useful because when looking at those nations with the most violent tendencies, we might notice that the states rely heavily on an autocrat with a strong coercive apparatus at his disposal (the army and police).
When looking at nations with the strongest voices for radical Islam, we should note that they come, in large measure, in opposition to secular governments that are seeking to oppress democracy and equality. The use of Islam as a way of galvanizing the community of oppressed is a hallmark of the middle-level opposition of authoritarian nations. A useful example is that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. While it is true that some members (among the sometimes half-million members) of the Brotherhood have been associated with terrorist acts, many thousands of its devotees are nothing more than the poor, the families of prisoners, the kin of the dead, who have suffered at the hands of a regime supported vocally and continually by the United States and Europe.
In addition to these states, there are others that those angered by the specter of freewheeling Islamic democracy underscore as evidence of the dangers and evils of Islam: governments associated with extremist Islam. The two most salient examples are Saudi Arabia, with its brutally hard-line Wahhabi brand of Islam, and the cleric-run government of Iran. For those set against any form of government that bears the hallmarks of the religion of Islam, these two cases are perfect examples: here are two governments that are inextricably tied with Islam – and have both become autocratic and viciously Islamist, to the point of supporting terrorism. But what is it that we really see in these nations? What some want to see are states wholly transfigured by the cancerous presence of Islam. But why is this the necessary analysis? Could it not be that these are states in which Islam has been wholly transfigured by a cancerous dictatorship? We know well the tendencies of authoritarian governments, who will use whatever means at their disposal to ensure legitimacy, obedience, and expedient enmity with international threats – all of which are accomplished for the Saudi Arabian monarchy and the Iranian government by small and extreme sectarian interpretations of Islam. In short, it is not that Islam has poisoned these nations, and therefore should not be a trusted religion in a free society. It is instead the case that dictators have continually built up extremist Islam in order to bolster their own staying power – in much the same way, it should be noted, as Japanese Shinto in the 1930s and 1940s, and Sectarian Christianity in some of the post-Reformation wars in Europe.
Most unfortunate of all, the opposition of Islamist groups against many brutal dictators allows them to see the West as an agent of repression, not of freedom – since the West has undeniably been associated with some of these dictators, in a bid to stunt the growth of radical Islam. The irony is, of course, that denying Islam’s participation in the political field only swells its ranks and radicalizes its methods. The Middle East and the Islamic world at large are never short of examples of this, thanks to U.S. and European policy. The most prominent and salient examples are those of Iran, Algeria, Egypt, and to a lesser extent, Turkey. In each of these nations, the United States, with active or passive support, has allowed or required the local governments to overturn the results of free and open elections, or to stifle participation in them, in order to exclude parties with Islamic agendas – even when those agendas did not call for violence, overthrow, suppression of other parties, or extremism of any kind. It should be painfully clear that this kind of policy is entirely unsuccessful, and leads to nothing—but forces moderate Islamists into the arms of true extremists, rather than incorporating them among the many democratically competing factions of good governments.
So now we must look to conclusions. What is our goal in political dealings with this Islamic region? If it is to establish peace and end the tendency toward violent uprisings and clashes, we cannot cling to the idea that supporting a secular autocrat will be more successful than allowing an Islamist into power—we have tried, and clearly failed. If our goal is to bring political openness and freedom, then the road is clear. Our political—and moral duty—is to emphasize and encourage free and open democracy, based on the ideals and traditions of the people who will exercise it. This may mean a democracy that at its heart is rooted in a legal system of Shari’a. And we should not be afraid of it.
What of the question of Islam and Christian duty? Christians can recognize—even while we encourage Islamic democracy through political means—that Islam is a false religion, and runs against the authority of Christ. But unbelief is also evil; atheism is also evil; any religion that denies the truth is evil. And yet those Christians who stand idly by while their own nation crafts laws based on the denial of any Heavenly truth—a legal system more capricious and dangerous than Shari’a—also balk at the idea of the principles of Islam having any role in any political system, anywhere. They would rather, in many cases, see an atheistic and brutal dictator rule Muslims than see Muslims exercise power responsibly. So what we cannot hope to do is simultaneously rid the Muslim population of their Islamic ideals while encouraging their continued enslavement to dictatorship. What we must do is loose their chains, demand just governance, and encourage freedom. We need not allow summary Taliban-style execution, or other expressions of evil terroristic, extremist violence– such things are not supported by the Shari’a, and are viciously hated by most Muslims, who are most often their victims.
All truth belongs to our God, as does all true freedom. The work of the Church begins in turning the hearts of all men toward Christ. In order to do so, our government must allow democracy—even, or especially, Islamic democracy—to grow. The Muslims of the world will continue to be hostile to imposed, or tolerated, dictatorship. They will radicalize in response to an unjust West. And they will be clearly be marginalized by an imposed liberal democracy. However, if the United States, and the West at large, begins to support full participation, free elections, and good governance, we may see that Shari’a is not just a tool of the extremists. It will also be a tool for the moderates, and a tool for justice. It may even be the source of the principles that could ultimately open this region to the Church.
This is a difficult issue, and some will disagree with me. Is it possible for men to be free and to govern themselves without Christ? No—it is surely not. Can the mercy of Christian actions and the goodness of God be shown upon a nation and people in unbelief? They surely can. The question then that skeptics will ask is, can we then reasonably expect to see that freedom and that good governance if we encourage democracy that is rooted in a religion that rejects Christ? I have not argued that Islamic democracy and Shari’a are the end of the road for the Middle East. However, my argument is much the same that is made when opponents of abortion, even those most religious and conservative in their mission, join hands with feminists to do so. The end of the story has yet to be told, and not all has been resolved. But perhaps more children will live tomorrow than today. And that is encouraging. In the same way, the road of politics in the Islamic world – particularly the road of U.S. policy in relation to it – is headed toward a cliff. I hope that my argument is one that begins to shift the direction of that course. I may not be flying down the road in reverse – I am no prophet and no Churchman–but I confess Christ, and pray for His Kingdom. I am called as a Christian, and by calling, a political scientist. Some are called to follow after the example of Elijah, and some, Obadiah.
|
Posted at 3:09 pm EST on the 8th of February 2009 by Administration. Under Essays, Philosophy, Sundry, Theology as Christian worldview, Islam, Politics There are 12 replies. |
 |
| Pontification Ad Nauseam | ||
Is a blog of developing Christian writers, their minds, and their ideas.
Copyright MMIX. All Rights Reserved by Pontification Ad Nauseam And Its Respective Contributors. Powered by Wordpress. Pontification Ad Nauseam uses advanced web technology. For the best user experience please use Safari or Firefox 3.5+. |
Your essay illuminated a number of usually unmentioned aspects of Shari’a law, and I almost completely agreed with it. Still, your analysis of the situation is completely negative in nature. By negative I mean that, looking at lots of bad situations, you theorize about what a good situation would look like. Where is a positive example that supports your theory? Where is a practicing Islamic democracy that relies on Shari’a law?
However, your antepenultimate paragraph ends on a wrong note. By even mentioning the idea of “not allowing” I think you defend the notion you have apparently attacked all along: the idea that democracy is the right of every nation. As far as I’m concerned, anything short of large scale genocides and vicious dictators does not warrant international intervention. If the people (by and large) support a measure, it shouldn’t be interfered with.
Thanks for the comments. A couple of things:
First, the reason that I look at negative cases is exactly because positive cases don’t really exist. Iraq may be an emerging Islamic democracy, though there are indications it may be a secular democracy. Indonesia and Bangladesh both approach the threshold of free and open Islamic democracies, but neither are in the Middle East; perhaps they could serve as positive examples, demonstrating that it is not Islam or Shari’a that is the whole problem. But examples are scare, and still, many commentators, conservatives, and policymakers are petrified at the prospect. Are things really oging the way we want them too, though?
Second, I think you misunderstood something. Where did I attack the idea that democracy is the right of every nation? I think my essay argues precisely for that. I don’t think every democracy will take the same shape (liberal European-style democracy, Islamic democracy, etc.), but I think the right to participatory self-governance is universal. And while I agree (to an extent) that we should observe the rules of sovereignty and refrain from unnecessary intervention, I think that extends to military policy in particular–the threshhold is far lower for diplomatic policy and pressuring. And the argument rings hollow in this case, since the current situation is not one in which there is an indigenous problem, and we want to interfere to fix it. We’ve been interfering and putting our fingers in the pie for centuries, and many of the challenges we currently face are results of that interference.
Lastly, we have to be careful with statements about what the people, by and large, support. I was at a forum recently in which one individual made the argument that the people of the Middle East don’t want democracy–they want dictators and strongmen. What an ignorant argument, and a childish one at that.
So, how is this going to happen? It seems like you are, in an underhanded fashion, really making a non-interventionist argument, unless you actually imagine that going into these countries and mandating that they make a democracy conducive to their culture, which is self-defeating. Is this really a libertarian foreign policy?
*EDIT* Underhanded, tongue and cheek. Obviously, I admire anything non-interventionist.
Asalaamu Alaikum! I have a few questions for now, and I’m sure I’ll be putting in more later.
1. “Shari’a is the way or path down which a Muslim travels in attempting to fulfill his temporal duties, ultimately to establish peace and justice in the community of God.” Show me the verse in the Qur’an that speaks of peace or justice for Muslims that is not conditional or the verse that speaks of peace and justice anywhere, in the non-abrogated verses, that applies to Christians and Jews.
2. “Neither is firmly or authoritatively codified, nor even exists in a universally prescribed form.” It is definitely codified. Otherwise the Ulama (Islamic judges) would have no foundation from which to make Fatwas (Islamic decrees)which are both religious and legally (Shariah) binding.
3. “Neither the Qur’an nor the Hadith prescribe a penalty for apostasy.” This is a lie. (www.answering-islam.org) “How can Muslims be expected to respect and honour Jews and Christians while the Qur’an depicts them in the most horrible of terms, describing them specifically as:
a. Debauched sinners in Suras Al-Baqara 2:59 and Sura Al-Maeda 5:25
b. Unjust in Sura Al-Araf 7:148, 150
c. Hypocrites and forgers in Sura Aal-E-Imran 3:24
d. Apostates in Sura An-Nisa 4:155, At-Tawba 9:30
e. Polytheists in Sura At-Tawbra 9:30
f. That the forged the Bible in Sura Al-Baqara 2:75-79, Sura An-Nisa 4:46, and Al-E-Imran 3:78
g. Took their leaders as gods in Sura At-Tawbra 9:31
h. Spread corruption on earth in Sura Al-Maeda 5:33, 64
So the question remains, according to Islam, does the honouring of Allah of mankind include Jews, Christians and the unbelievers?”
Explain Sura 9:29: “Fight and kill those who do not believe in Allah and the last day, neither do forbid what Allah and his apostle has forbidden and do not follow the religion of Islam, even if they be the People of the Book, until such time they pay the Jiziya and find themselves humiliated.”
(answering-islam.org) “It is an obligation for Muslims to fight and kill the Kaffirs. Is it simply because of their rejection of Islam?
a. Sura Al-Baqara 2:1
b. Sura Al-Anfal 8:65
c. Sura At-Tawba 9:5
d. Sura At-Tawba 9:36 b&c
e. Sura Al-Mujadila 58:22
f. Sura Al-Mumtahina 60:1
g. Sura As-Saff 61:4″
4. “Both have as their ostensible goal the preservation of order and peace in society, the promotion of virtue, the prevention of vice, and the preeminence of equality and justice for all people. ” This is another lie. It can’t be for all people, only Islamic people because everyone else, People of the Book and Kaffirs need to be humiliated and killed.
Where are you getting these ideas from? If you are getting it from Islamic sources, then keep in mind that they are not allowed to lie–except for three reasons: to save their marriages, to protect Islam and to anyone who is not Islamic. Do you actually believe this? It’s great that you studied political science and Persian, but this is just a big lie. Islam is not just a religion, it’s a political system. The Muslims lives are controlled by Islam, the mosque tells them what to think, how to think and what to do. If someone converts from Christianity, then their friends and family talk to them. If someone converts from Islam, then they are a traitor and need to be killed. A traitor, according to the dictionary is “one who betrays one’s *country* or cause.” It’s not a religious thing, it’s a political thing masked as a religion. You can separate church from state, but you cannot separate mosque from state. They are the same thing.
In addition to what Kristen said, what I want to know is this:
Since you apparently support islamic theocracy, do you support Christian theocracy too? I sort of guess you don’t, from the sentence at the end of your introduction paragraph, but why is an islamic-based system subject to different rules?
Kristen –
Thanks for the post…I appreciate your thorough reply and the thoughts you clearly put into it. I’ll try to be brief as I can be in response, while complete enough to answer what you have to say.
First, I must say that I’m in the curious position of finding myself defending Islam here—so let it be clear that I am not an adherent, I am a Christian. As such, I still maintain that Islam is a false religion. In answering these objections of yours, I may appeal to the Qur’an; if I do so, it is not an appeal to true revelation, but to the authority for Islam. While Islam may be a false religion, going after it with a false understanding – especially when formulating political policy – is a bad idea.
What is a problem is trying to answer Islam with the Qur’an – as I’ll explain. I am not trying to argue for Islam with the Qur’an either. I am simply arguing for the allowance of Islamic participation, even governance, in the political processes of the Middle East.
Regarding objection (1) – First, a note on abrogation. This is a favorite of many who are trying to answer Islam, though it ironically has its origin with (I believe) 1st century (Islamic calendar) Islamic theologians. The basic theory is that there are a number of Qur’anic verses that seem difficult to square with one another: a good example is 2:256 (“There shall be no compulsion in religion,” and 9:29, as you quoted. The main objection from non-believers has been, as many non-believers of Christianity object to that religion’s gospels, that there is a clear contradiction. In the early periods of the development of what one might call a systematic theology for Islam, Muslim theologians, particularly Ibn Salama, a Jewish rabbi who converted to Islam, developed the theory of abrogation. According to this textual analysis, there can be no contradiction of revelation; therefore, verses or sayings offered by the Prophet later supplant those offered earlier, though all remain in the body of revelation. Thus it is, according to the theory, that later verses can be clearly contradictory to earlier ones—but revelation is preserved, since the earlier (abrogated) verses are simply overruled.
This is a handy trick—though primarily used by those who wish to discredit what they sometimes estimate to be almost half of the Qur’an that some various Muslim and non-Muslim scholars have categorized in various ways as “abrogated.” But remember, this is a theory. Nowadays, it is held primarily by the people at places like, say, http://www.answering-islam.org. It has never been widely held among Muslim theologians. Much as is the case in the Canon of Christian scripture, there are points of difficulty, where there are temporal or contextual conflicts of texts. In general, these have been rather deftly explained by the prominent theoreticians of Islamic hermeneutics—and I see no reason why we should crudely club at the Islamic scriptures with sketchy charges of contradiction, when we laugh at those who do so the Old and New Testaments.
Again, this is not a defense of the truth of the Qur’an—or even its consistency. My own belief is that the book is nothing more than the collected teachings of an Arab merchant, written down by some rather educated followers. I suspect it is chock full of contradictions. But we can’t be crude about it, find two verses that seem to disagree, and plop them down triumphantly. It is, after all, the teachings of that religion, and if the majority of its theologians find no contradiction, we’ll find it hard to argue against them based on their text.
All that long-windedness aside, I have to admit that I don’t quite understand what you mean in objection (1). “Show me the verse in the Qur’an that speaks of peace or justice for Muslims that is not conditional or the verse that speaks of peace and justice anywhere . . .that applies to Christians and Jews.” I may be dense, but I’m not sure what you’re looking for.
Objection (2) is a bit easier to answer. Maybe the misunderstanding is in my use of the term “codified.” Shari’a is certainly not codified in the sense that a set of legal code is written down somewhere. There are collections of Shari’a that have been written – several of them – that offer sometimes differing perspectives on social and penal justice, and associated rewards and penalties. The Fatwa of a religious functionary is one way of codifying Shari’a – though it is not as universally or permanently binding as it sometimes appears. The Fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini condemning Salman Rushdie to death is about as binding as a 9th circuit court ruling banning the consumption of cheese after 9pm in private residences: likely to cause some rumblings, but not exactly legitimate. The process of codifying Shari’a always involves judgments and opinions. Thus Shari’a writ large cannot be condemned on the basis of codes—perhaps the codes, code-makers, or legal processes need reworking. As I said before, Shari’a is a body of legal constructs, not a body of laws.
Objection (3) is full of Qur’anic verses, of when I read all. Some of them clearly do refer to Jews and / or Christians; some, perhaps not as clearly. In any case, many of the accusations described (“sinners,” “unjust,” “hypocrites,” “forgers,” “polytheists,” “took their leaders as gods,” etc.,) are things that I could, with a clean conscience, ascribe to followers of Shintoism. Yet I do not wish them to be executed. This is a cheap argument that people make, using many presuppositions to allow this leap: the Qur’an clearly condemns Jews and Christians as unbelievers – how can we expect it to respect them? The Enthymeme, or unstated argument, is that unbelievers are to be reviled, persecuted, or even killed. But that’s not necessarily so, which was my original point. You said that it was a lie, but then changed the subject. I say it isn’t, back at you ? Instead of finding me verses that attack the beliefs of Christians and Jews (perfectly legitimate), find me a verse that actually prescribes a penalty for apostasy—as I originally said.
Your next collection of verses is more difficult (have you read them?) – but only if you’re taking the approach I listed above. Sura al-Baqara 2:1, strangely, has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Each of the others is a famous quote of militant Islam – especially Tawba 9:5. But my previous point remains valid: these verses all speak rather vaguely about “fighting against the pagans,” and achieving victory for Allah at the last day. We can try to pin down a meaning for them that is held by a minority of Muslims, but then here we are again, using somebody else’s text (which we hold as manifestly false) to try to convince them of what they believe. It feels to me as though we’re engaging in something like a favorite pastime of 1st century Rome. Here we are, the senator, banging on the manuscript talking about the “body” and “blood” of Christ, telling someone they are an evil cannibal.
In light of the above 3 points, objection (4) has little merit, in my opinion—and again, you proclaim my argument a lie with little in the way of explanation.
Finally, yes, I do believe these things. As I said at the top, I believe in Christianity, but I don’t think that we should attack other false religions with lies. I think that the Church, and all believers, should strive tirelessly to bring about the end of Islam through the opening of the hearts of Muslims. And I think politically, we should be perfectly willing to live in a world with Muslim citizens and even Islamic states, in the sense that some Western states are Christian states. And I see no contradiction. I think you are simply wrong when you say that the Mosque cannot be separated from the state. There are a majority of Arab countries that contradict you on this. In fact, though this may frighten you, I am arguing that we allow a greater participation of the Mosque in the state – because excluding it only makes it more politically significant and encourages the assumption of its reins by the most extreme, rather than the most moderate.
V.K. Blake -
No, I do not believe in Islamic theocracy. Where did I say I did? If by theocracy we mean any system where the clerics or the “deputies” of God rule the state, certainly not. What I expect you may be interpreting as “theocracy” is my argument for a legal system based on moral common law. I do believe this, in both Christian states and Muslim states, as well as Buddhist states, the Shinto state, Hindu states, or any others. It is difficult, if not impossible to have a legal system that is not based in moral common law, and a moral common law must come from a moral set of beliefs. These come from the normative religious traditions of a country. In a broader sense, as a Christian, I believe there is the mercy and revelation of Christ in all understandings of morality, even if those who recognize that mercy worship an idol instead.
So basically, no, not theocracy, but I am okay with a democracy in Anytown, Middle East, or anywhere else, that has as its legal root Shari’a–once again, provided it meets the standards of good governance. I don’t think it would crush those standards necessarily, as Kristen probably does, and I think that there are other reasons besides Islam that would likely be the cause if it did.
John -
You’re a crazy libertarian. Just give it up and embrace anarchy already :-)
Well, I see what you’re saying. But it’s not really a non-interventionist policy. Certainly, I’m not suggesting we suddently enter where we have previously been absent; clearly, we haven’t. But I don’t think we should just take our hands off, either. Partnership and mentorship, democracy promotion, etc., are all important elements of our policy, especially when dealing with a part of the world where the U.S. and Europe have been messing around for 200 years.
So it’s not a neutral game. It’s not as though we now start something, or stop something, but rather, change what we’re doing.
I actually might agree that differences between classical and modern liberalism on foreign policy are differences of means rather than ends. Coercion, international unions, and any sort of contracts with heavy stipulations are still, I think, bad ideas in foreign policy. If, of course, America was any sort of an economic power to be reckoned with, we might actually have some weight behind sanctions, but any more interventionist policy is endangering our perception as anything other than the residual imperialism that scholars like Thomas Madden see as the cause for Islamic hostility today.
AP–
First off, I’m sorry — I didn’t read your whole reply to Kristen, so if I say something that you addressed up there, I’m sorry.
Second, you never explicitly stated that you supported islamic theocracy. But look at it this way. If it is true that muslims are allowed to lie to non-believers as Kristen says (and which I believe, because she and her family are extensively involved in ministry with muslims, especially muslim women. And when you get women together in a compassion ministry, they tend to say things they would be afraid to say in other circumstances), I don’t see how you could have a government based on Islamic principles without all the officials being muslims. At the very least, everyone in the courts would have to be a muslim. Because what good would a court system be if the defendants were allowed to lie with no consequence? And if the people have to be muslims for the court system to run, how is that different from a theocracy?
Forgive me if I mixed up islam and muslim. ^_^
Okay, fair enough, I see your argument and it’s a fair one, if oblique. But it all hinges on some very, very shaky assumptions. The first of these is Kristen’s point, which she phrases as follows: “. . . they are not allowed to lie–except for three reasons: to save their marriages, to protect Islam and to anyone who is not Islamic.”
What Kristen has here, whatever the source, is an inaccurate paraphrase of a famous Hadith verified by Umm Kalthoum bint Mohammad, the daughter of the Prophet Mohammad – interesting in that it is one of the very few Hadith verified by a woman. The Hadith points out that Mohammad permitted deception in three instances only – battle, reconciliation, and preserving peace between husbands and wives.
Islamic scholars broadly point to the numerous verses of the Qur’an (3:28, 16:106, 40:28, etc.), that abhor dishonesty. They identify two principles: the Taqiyya (Prevention) and related to it the allowance of the necessary over the forbidden. Specifically, it is permissible to lie, only to prevent physical harm to oneself or another. Many Christian scholars have pointed to the *duty* of Christians to lie in situations like the Holocaust. In fact, I know of few major religions that do not permit such activity. It is flatly wrong to take the incredible leap to say that such a permission to be deceptive on the battlefield or to save lives means a wholesale permission to lie to non-believers. To do so is to conflate the rhetoric of Osama bin Laden with the theology of generations of majority scholars.
One need look no further than the historical record, which shows that in every major Islamic domain from the Umayyid to the Ottomon Empires, there are prominant examples of Jews and Christians occupying high administrative and executive positions of government. (Bernard Lews)
Wow, John. I think I agree with some of that. I think I disagree with some of that. Hard to say for sure. You’ve clubbed your sentences to death with words!