.
Democratic Faiths
The following article “Democratic faiths” is an excellent piece on roots and sustenance of democracy, however, the author exhibits his inadequacy and bias in his research.
The Muslims around the world are waking up and figuring out the effects of cold wars, the power struggles of nations to control the resources and extricating themselves from these tentacles. It is time for Muslims to wake up and figure out how to bring sustainable democracies in their nations. While the majority of Muslims want the democratic form of governance which is indeed rooted in Islam, they have been unable to speak up against their rules, we Americans also have experienced that since 2001. The Saudi King made a statement that his subjects are not ready for democracy. Is that the faith he has in his people? No one is eternal and immortal, except the continuance of human race and it is our obligation to bring sustainable governance, where people are continually involved in its checks and balances for harmonious co-existence.
Author’s bias comes through when he subtly claims superiority for Hinduism and Christianity and shows his ignorance about Islam or rather Prejudice against Islam.
This is not how you build peaceful societies by creating bias against another faith. One has to find the truth, point the specific errors and not generalize it to suit one’s bias.
Continued: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2009/06/democratic-faiths.html
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, Terrorism, India, Islam, Peace and civic issues. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and several Blogs listed on his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/
#
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Is Islam compatible with democracy?
http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-islam-compatible-with-democracy.html
Is Islam Compatible With Democracy and Human Rights?
There are several flaws in societies where Muslims form the majority, but that should not be labeled as acts of Islam. As Muslims we have allowed the tyrants to use the “Islam” label to do their things which is similar to the Neocons conduct; to annihilate and oppress the dissent. It is a catch 22, if the Muslim majority spoke, things will be alright, but the tyrants know how to single out the voices and drown them. This is not the characteristics of Muslim rulers alone; it is the case with all rulers be it in Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia or even in the bastions of democracy like the United States and the United Kingdom. The majority remained silent when the Neocons duped them about WMD’s and went on about destruction, and the Americans who spoke out were hounded by the Neocons as unpatriotic.
The following article about Islam and democracy is an ongoing propaganda to malign Islam; it’s the business of the Neocons. (Neocons are extremists who wear every faith label and whose modus operandi is destruction of the ones who differ to solve the world problems) I wish we had an organization set up who did not thing but investigate the funding source for these articles and their motivation and counter them with facts.
President Obama’s initiatives in Middle East has all the elements of bringing security to the Jewish population in Israel and hope to the Palestinians, both peoples deserve it. I believe that would be the aspirations of majority of the Jews and Palestinians from that area. However, the Neocons supported by the lobby with the attitudes of “annihilating or oppressing the other” seek peace through destruction. They have figured out how do derail President Obama’s initiatives, you will see the beginning of an onslaught of articles like this and a mass production of documentaries and movies to debilitate the religion. It pays them well, as long as the suckers pay, the Neocons will produce phobias and keep cashing on it.
I hope people will wake up and fund those organizations that seek to mitigate conflicts and not the ones that aggravate the conflicts.
The article starts with the dumbest quote, like asking the fox to guard the hen. Why would King Fahad say that democracy is suitable to his country? Then there is a quote from Hugronje that Islam has never favored democratic tendencies. Has this agency taken the time to paint the full honest picture of Muslims or Islam? Nearly 3/4ths of Muslim population lives in democracies, and the rest would opt for democracy if they have the choice or if the western Neocons do not support the dictators, monarchs or oppressive regimes.
There are several flaws in the following article and I hope I can respond to some but urge the people, not to present their point of view to show the flaws in it.
One of the major flaws quoted here “In Saudi Arabia, following a tradition of Muhammad who said “Two religions cannot exist in the country of Arabia “. Who are they selling this to? How did these guys cook this up?
On the other hand the Prophet initiated and co-signed the Madinah pact with Jews, Christians and others about co-existence and pluralism. It is an acknowledgment of the otherness of other.
Look at the façade they carry with the organizations names they have set up to give the impression that they are fair and honest research organizations. They are all paid to paint a negative picture of Muslims just as their forefathers did with deliberately mistranslating Qur’aan in the 11th and 14th Centuries.
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer, Moderator and a Blogger on Pluralism, Interfaith, Terrorism, Peace, Islam, India and civil societies, He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television networks offering a pluralistic perspective on issues of the day. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net Mike is a conflict mitigater and a goodwill nurturer.
# # #
Is Islam Compatible With Democracy and Human Rights?
http://europenews.dk/en/node/24250
" Islam has never favoured democratic tendencies..." Hurgronje [277]
" The Democratic system that is predominant in the world is not a suitable system for the peoples of our region... The system of free elections is not suitable to our country" King Fahd of Saudi Arabia
Is Islam Compatible With Democracy and Human Rights?
http://europenews.dk/en/node/24250
Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society 22 June 2009
" Islam has never favoured democratic tendencies..." Hurgronje [277]
" The Democratic system that is predominant in the world is not a suitable system for the peoples of our region... The system of free elections is not suitable to our country" King Fahd of Saudi Arabia
At least King Fahd has had the honesty to admit the incompatibility of Islam and Democracy. Meanwhile Western Islamic apologists and modernising Muslims continue to look for democratic principles in Islam and Islamic history.
[A] Human Rights and Islam
Let us look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and compare it to Islamic law and doctrine.
Article 1 " All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood ".
Article 2 " Everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status ".
Article 3 " Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person "
Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms "
Comments: (1) Women are inferior under Islamic law; their testimony in a court of law is worth half that of a man; their movement is strictly restricted, they cannot marry a non-Muslim
(2) Non - Muslims living in Muslim countries have inferior status under Islamic law, they may not testify against a Muslim. In Saudi Arabia, following a tradition of Muhammed who said " Two religions cannot exist in the country of Arabia ", non _ Muslims are forbidden to practice their religion, build churches, possess Bibles etc.
(3) Non-believers -- atheists (surely the most neglected minority in history) -- in Muslim countries do not have "the right to life ". They are to be killed. Muslim doctors of law generally divide sins into great sins and little sins. Of the seventeen great sins, unbelief is the greatest, more heinous than murder, theft, adultery etc..
(4) Slavery is recognised in the Koran. Muslims are allowed to cohabit with any of their female slaves (Sura iv.3); they are allowed to take possession of married women if they are slaves (Sura iv.28); the helpless position of the slave as regard his master illustrates the helpless position of the false gods of Arabia in the presence of their Creator (Sura xvi.77).
Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Comments (1) We have seen what punishments are in store for the transgressers of the Holy Law: amputations, crucifixion, stoning to death, floggings. I suppose a Muslim could argue that these were not unusual for a Muslim country, but what of their inhumanity? Again a Muslim could contend that they are of divine origin and must not be judged by human criteria. By human standards, they ARE inhuman.
Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
The whole notion of a person who can make choice, and can be held morally responsible is lacking in Islam; as is the entire notion of human rights.
Articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 deal with the rights of an accused person to a fair trial.
Comments (1) As Schacht has shown under the Sharia considerations of good faith, fairness, justice, truth, and so on play only a subordinate role. The idea of criminal guilt is lacking.
(2) Revenge for a killing is officially sanctioned, though a money recompense is also possible.
(3) The legal procedure, under Islam, can hardly be called impartial or fair, for in the matter of witnesses all sorts of injustices emerge. A non _Muslim may not testify against a Muslim. For example, a Muslim may rob a non _Muslim in his home with impunity if there are no witnesses except the non_ Muslim himself. The evidence of Muslim women is admitted only very exceptionally and then only from twice the number required of men.
Article 16 deals with the rights of marriage of men and women
Comment (1) As we shall see in our chapter on women, women under Islam do not have equal rights: they are not free to marry whom they wish, the rights of divorce are not equal.
Article 18 " Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance ".
Comments (1) Quite clearly under Islam, one does not have the right to change one's religion, if one is born into a Muslim family. Applying double standards, Muslims are quite happy to accept converts to their religion, but a Muslim may not convert to another religion, this would be apostasy which is punishable by death. Here is how the great commentator Baydawi (c.1291) sees the matter:
" Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever you find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard ".
Comment (2) Statistics on conversions from Islam to Christianity, and therefore apostasy, are hard to establish for obvious reasons. There is, however, a myth that Muslims are impossible to convert. On the contrary we do have enough evidence of literally thousands of Muslims abandoning Islam for Christ from the Middle Ages to Modern Times; the most spectacular cases being, amongst others, those of Moroccan and Tunisian princes in the 17th century, of the monk Constantin the African. Count Rudt - Collenberg has found evidence at the Casa dei Catecumeni at Rome of 1087 conversions between 1614 and 1798.According to A.T. Willis and others between two or three million Muslims converted to Christianity after the massacres of the communists in Indonesia, in 1965, described earlier [chapter x] In France alone, in the 1990s, there are two or three hundred converts to Christianity from Islam, EACH YEAR. According to Ann Mayer, in Egypt conversions have been " occurring with enough frequency to anger Muslim clerics and to mobilize conservative Muslim opinion behind proposals to enact a law imposing the death penalty for apostasy "[Mayer177]. Ms. Mayer points out that, in the past, many women have been to tempted to convert from Islam to ameliorate their lot.
Comment (3) Those who convert to Christianity and choose to stay in the Muslim country do so at great personal danger. The convert has most of his rights denied him, identity papers are often refused him, so that he has difficulties leaving his country; his marriage is declared null and void, his children are taken away from him to be brought up by Muslims, and he forfeits his rights of inheritance. Often the family will take matters into their own hands and simply assassinate the apostate; the family are, of course, not punished. [Gaudeul]
Article 19 " Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers ".
Comments (1) The rights enshrined in articles 18 and 19 have been consistently violated in Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In all three countries, the rights of their Bahai, Ahmadi and Shia minorities respectively have been denied. All three countries justify their actions by reference to Sharia. Christians in these countries are frequently arrested on charges of blasphemy and their rights denied.
Here is how Amnesty International describes the scene in Saudi Arabia: " Hundreds of Christians, including women and children have been arrested and detained over the past three years, most without charge or trial, solely for the peaceful expression of their religious beliefs. Scores have been tortured, some by flogging, while in detention... The possession of non_ Islamic religious objects - including Bibles, rosary beads, crosses and pictures of Jesus Christ __ is prohibited and such items may be confiscated. " AINO 62 JUly / Aug 1993
Similarly scores of Shia Muslims have been harassed, arrested, tortured and in some cases, beheaded. For example, on September 3, 1992 Sadiq Abdul Karim Malallah was publicly beheaded in al- Qatif after being convicted of apostasy and blasphemy. Sadiq, a Shia Muslim, was arrested in 1988 and charged with throwing stones at a police station, then of smuggling a Bible into the country. He was kept in solitary confinement, where he was tortured.
The situation of Ahmadis in Pakistan is somewhat similar. The Ahmadiyya movement was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed (died 1908), who is regarded as a prophet by his followers Amnesty International [ASA / 33 / 15 / 91] summed up their situation in this manner:
"Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims but they are regarded by orthodox Muslims as heretical because they call the founder of the movement al- Masih [the Messiah]: this is taken to imply that Mohammad is not the final seal of the prophets as orthodox Islam holds, i.e. the prophet who carried the final message from God to humanity. According to Ahmadis their faith does not involve the denial of the Prophet Mohammad's status because Mirza Ghulam Ahmed did not claim to bring a new revelation of divine law which could add to, replace or supersede the Koran. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed considered himself a mahdi, a reappearance of the Prophet Mohammad, and thought it his task to revive Islam. As a result of these divergences, Ahmadis have been subjected to discrimination and persecution in some Islamic countries. In the mid- 1970s, the Saudi Arabia-based World Muslim League called on Muslim governments worldwide to take action against Ahmadis. Ahmadis are since then banned in Saudi Arabia."
Throughout Pakistan's history, the Ahmadis have been subjected to harassment, which has, on occasion, led to serious bloodshed. Things got worse for them, when President Zia - ul Haq came to power in 1977 after a military coup. He introduced a policy of Islamization, and imposed severe restrictions on the Ahmadis. In 1984, further legislation was introduced aimed explicitly at these so - called heretics. Henceforth, the Ahmadis could no longer call themselves Muslims. Since then, scores of Ahmadis have been charged and sentenced severely under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code. Thus Ahmadis can be imprisoned and even sentenced to death solely for the exercise of their right to freedom of religion including the right to express their religion. Again, it is important to realise that such attitudes to " heretics " is a logical consequence of the orthodox Muslim position that Muhammad is the seal of the Prophets, that Islam is the most perfect and final expression of God's purpose for all mankind, and that salvation outside Islam is not possible.
Comment (2) Blasphemy towards God and the Prophet are punishable by death under Islam. In modern times, blasphemy has simply become a tool for Muslim governments to silence opposition; or for individuals to settle personal scores; or, as we saw earlier, to seek out and punish " heresy ". A report in the Economist points out the manipulation of "blasphemy " in Pakistan: " A judgment by the High Court in Lahore is worrying Pakistan's Christians. The court decided recently that Pakistan's blasphemy laws are applicable to all the prophets of Islam. Jesus is a prophet in Islamic teaching. By worshipping Jesus as the son of God, Christians are, it could be argued, committing a blasphemy....There are about 1.2 [million] Christians in Pakistan, out of a population of 120 [million]. Many of them are of low caste, doing menial jobs. Some have suffered for their beliefs. Tahir Iqbal, a mechanic in the air force who converted to Christianity and was charged with blasphemy, mysteriously died in prison while awaiting trial. Manzoor Masih was accused of blasphemy, given bail and shot dead in the street.... Human -rights watchers say there is often sectarian and political rivalry, a dispute over property or competition for jobs " [May 7, 1994]
Article 23.1 Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Comment (1) Women are not free to choose their work under Islam, certain jobs are forbidden to them, even in so - called liberal Muslim countries. Orthodox Islam forbids women from working outside the home. [see Chapter x]
Comment (2) Non - Muslims are not free to choose their work in Muslim countries, or rather certain posts are not permitted them. A recent example from Saudi Arabia makes the point. A group of Muslims working in a company owned by a Muslim were shocked when the Muslim owner appointed a new manager, who was a Christian. The Muslims demanded a religious ruling asking whether it was permissible under Islam to have a Christian in authority over them. Sheikh Mannaa K. Al Qubtan at the Islamic Law College of Riyadh declared that it was intolerable under Islam that a non - Muslim should wield authority over Muslims. He pointed to two verses from the Koran to back up his argument: Sura iv. 141: " Allah will not give the disbelievers triumph over the believers " Sura lxxiii.8: Force and power belong to God, and to His Prophet, and to believers "
Article 26 deals with the right of education.
Comment (1) Again certain fields of learning are denied to women (see chapter x)
Conclusion: It is clear that Islamic militants are quite aware of the incompatibility of Islam and The 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. For these militants met in Paris in 1981 to draw up an Islamic Declaration of Human Rights which left out all freedoms that contradicted Islamic law. Even more worrying is the fact that under pressure from Muslim countries in November 1981, the United Nations Declaration on the elimination of religious discrimination was revised, and references to the right "to adopt "(Article 18, above) and, therefore to " change " one's religion were deleted, and only the right " to have " a religion was retained [FI Spring 1984 p 22].
[B] Democracy and Islam
" Western ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state often have little resonance in Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist or Orthodox cultures "
Samuel P. Huntington, " The Clash of Civilisations? "
The values and principles of Democracy are defined and enshrined in the British and American Constitutions, and both the British (1688) and American Bill of Rights (proposed 1789 and ratified 1791).
Separation of Church and State
One of the fundamental principles of Democracy is the separation of church and state (Amendment I of the American Bill of Rights: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...").We have seen, that in Islam there is no such separation, instead, we have, what Thomas Paine calls, the adulterous connection of church and state. Why is this separation so essential? If Muslims are sincere in espousing the cause of Democracy in their own countries, then they must learn the profound reasons underlying the adoption of this separation. They must then decide whether these underlying principles are at all compatible with Islam, or whether they entail too many compromises with the orthodox tenets of their creed. This is not the time for moral, intellectual and doctrinal evasiveness.
[1] The idea of a separation of church and state has been formulated by many Western philosophers: Locke, Spinoza and the "philosophes" of the Enlightenment. In his " A Letter Concerning Toleration ", Locke gives three reasons for adopting this principle:
(1) " First, because the care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate [i.e. the state], any more than to other men. It is not committed unto him, I say, by God; because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another, as to compel any one to his religion. Nor can any such power be vested in the magistrate [state] by the consent of the people; because no man can so far abandon the care of his own salvation as blindly to leave it to the choice of any other, whether prince or subject, to prescribe to him what faith or worship he shall embrace. For no man can, if he would, conform his faith to the dictates of another. All the life and power of true religion consists in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing. "
(2) " In the second place, the care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate , because his power consists only in outward force: but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of the understanding, that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force.... It may indeed be alleged that the magistrate may make use of arguments... But it is one thing to persuade, another to command; one thing to press with arguments, another with penalties... The magistrate's power extends not to the establishing of any articles of faith, or forms of worship, by the force of his laws."
(3) "... There being but one truth, one way to heaven; what hope is there that more men would be led into it, if they had no other rule to follow but the religion of the court, and were put under a necessity to quit the light of their own reason, to oppose the dictates of their own consciences, and blindly to resign up themselves to the will of their governors, and to the religion, which either ignorance, ambition, or superstition had chanced to establish in the countries where they were born? In the variety and contradiction of opinions in religion, wherein the princes of the world are as much divided as in their secular interests, the narrow way would be much straitened; one country alone would be in the right, and the rest of the world put under an obligation of following their princes in the ways that lead to destruction..."
In other words, it is not the business of the state to interfere with the freedom of conscience and thought of its citizens, it cannot make people religious by force; at best, there may be outward observance, but at the cost of sincerity of belief. Locke 's third point above, a point also made by Kant, is that by behaving in the above manner one is cutting one self and an entire age or generation off from further enlightenment and progress. As Kant put it:
"... To unite in a permanent religious institution which is not to be subject to doubt before the public -- that is absolutely forbidden ". That is to abdicate reason, renounce enlightenment and trample on the rights of mankind. Locke further argues that we must get away from the notion that we are " born Muslims" or " born Christians " and that we cannot do anything about it. We should be free to enter or leave any particular creed, otherwise there would be no progress, freedom or reform. Once the principle of the separation of church and state is admitted, there should follow a free discussion of religion without fear of torture. However, of course, this is precisely what theocratic governments or religious autocrats fear -- free-thought. As Paine put it, " The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it has taken place, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], has so effectually prohibited by pains and penalties every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priestcraft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more ". 04.03
Following the example set by Locke, the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution, especially Madison, defended religious freedom by adopting the Bill of Rights, which, of course, includes the separation of state and church. It has played such an important role in safeguarding the rights of religious minorities, dissenters and heretics. Hitherto, the latter had suffered persecution, intolerance, disenfranchisement and discrimination.
In his " Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments " of 1785, Madison wrote: " The Religion...of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. The same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christianity in exclusion of all other Sects. Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to have the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us ".
Madison's greatness can be seen in his generous attitude to non-believers. Even the great Locke was intolerant of atheists. Madison's words written at the occasion of the Virginia Ratification Convention of 1788 are even more relevant in this age of multifaith and multi-ethnic societies: Is a bill of rights security for religion,...If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest... There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom."
What the separation of church and state means in modern terms was clearly explained by the Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in the 1947 Everson ruling:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organisations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
Authoritarianism, Democracy, and Islam
As soon as you have an established religious institution which is beyond doubt, then, as Kant and Paine (quoted above) showed, you have tyranny, thought police, an absence of the critical sense that hinders intellectual and moral progress. In the Islamic theocracy, God is the absolute ruler whose words must be obeyed absolutely, without discussion, without doubt, without questions; we cannot plea bargain with God; nor can we override God's veto. The Islamic God is not a Democrat; we cannot get rid of Him as we can a human representative elected by the people in a Representative Democracy. If power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely.
While one historian of religion, writing in 1942, finds the fact that the career of Muhammad, the Prophet, presents " certain analogies to that of a nationalist leader nearer to our own day ", disturbing, so many others in the West find this very absoluteness, self-confidence and authoritarianism of Islam appealing.. For example in a remarkable passage from a book written in about 1910, J. M. Kennedy first deplores the quietism of the Buddhists and the theosophists, castigates the Jews for being too soft, and then accuses Christianity of
" inoculating as much of the world as it can reach with the degenerate principles of humanitarianism, let us be thankful that there are many millions of Moslems to show us a religion which is not afraid to acknowledge the manly virtues of war, courage, strength, and daring __ a religion which does not seek new followers by means of cunning dialectics, but which boldly makes converts with the sword."
In recent years, Western apologists of Islam have also argued for " principled autocracy ", as exemplified by Franco in Spain. In terms similar to Kennedy, Martin Lings shows his essential contempt for democracy and his advocacy for a kind of Islamic theocracy in such works as " The Eleventh Hour: the Spiritual Crisis of the Modern World in The Light of Tradition and Prophecy, " 1987.
Indeed autocracy and Islam are far more natural bedfellows than Islam and democracy. Democracy depends on freedom of thought and free discussion, whereas Islamic Law explicitly forbids the discussions of decisions arrived at by the infallible consensus of the ulama. The whole notion of infallibility whether of a " Book " or a group of people is profoundly undemocratic and unscientific. Democracy functions by critical discussion, rational thought, by listening to another point of view, by compromise, by changing one's mind, by tentative proposals which are submitted to criticism, by testing of theories by trying to refute them. Islamic law is not legislated but divinely revealed and infallible, and, as T.H. Huxley noted (see motto to chapter x), the notion of infallibility, in all shapes, lay or clerical, has done endless mischief, and has been responsible for bigotry, cruelty and superstition.
Why Islam is Incompatible With Democracy and Human Rights:
A Summary:
(1) Islamic law tries to legislate for every single aspect of an individual's life, the individual is not at liberty to think or decide for himself, he has but to accept God's rulings as interpreted infallibly by the doctors of law. The fact is we do not have, nor can such a complete ethical code exist in a liberal democracy; we do not and cannot have an all -embracing, all-inclusive scale of values.
(2) The measure of any culture's level of democracy is the the rights and position it accords to women and its minorities. Islamic law denies the rights of women, and non- Muslim religious minorities. Pagans or non-believers are shown no tolerance: death or conversion. Jews and Christians are treated as second class citizens. Because of the Islamic doctrine of Muhammad being the last of the true prophets and Islam being the final and most complete word of God, " Muslim sects " such as the Ahmadis are persecuted, harassed and physically attacked. Muslims have yet to appreciate that democracy is not " majority rule ", that the tyranny of the majority must be guarded against, every democratic society must be wary of imposing "its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them ".
As I discuss both the case of women and non-Muslims under Islam elsewhere, I shall only summarise their legal status here.
Women are considered inferior to men, and they have less rights and duties from the religious point of view. As regards blood-money, evidence, and inheritance, a woman is counted as half a man; equally in regard to marriage and divorce her position is less advantageous than that of the man; her husband may even beat her, in certain cases. [Schacht 126 127].
Here is Schacht ' s summary of the legal position of non-Muslims: " The basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; they must be either converted or subjugated or killed (excepting women, children, and slaves); the third alternative, in general, occurs only if the first two are refused. As an exception, the Arab pagans are given the choice only between conversion to Islam or death. Apart from this, prisoners of war are either made slaves or killed or left alive as free dhimmis or exchanged for Muslim prisoners of war...". Under a treaty of surrender, the non-Muslim is given protection and called a dhimmi. " This treaty necessarily provides for the surrender of the non_ Muslims with all duties deriving from it, in particular the payment of tribute, i.e. the fixed poll-tax (jizya) and the land tax (kharaj)...The non-Muslim must wear distinctive clothing and must mark their houses, which must not be built higher than those of the Muslims, by distinctive signs; they must not ride horses or bear arms, and they must yield the way to Muslims; they must not scandalize the Muslims by openly performing their worship or their distinctive customs, such as drinking wine; they must not build new churches, synagogues, and hermitages; they must pay the poll-tax under humiliating conditions. It goes without saying that they are excluded from the specifically Muslim privileges...". The dhimmi cannot be a witness against a Muslim, he cannot be the guardian of his child who is a Muslim. [Schacht 130-132] In the U.S. Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment says:"...no State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Originally intended to end discrimination against black Americans, it was later extended to provide protection against discrimination on other criteria than race, and many minorities felt protected for the first time.
(3) Islam continuously manifests hostility towards human reason, rationality, critical discussion without which democracy, and scientific and moral progress are not possible. Again, I treat this subject elsewhere.
(4) The notion of an individual -- a moral person -- who is capable of taking rational decisions and accepting moral responsibility for his free acts is lacking in Islam. Ethics is reduced to obeying orders. Of course, there is the notion of an individual who has legal obligations, but not in the sense of an individual who may freely set the goals and contents of his life, of the individual who may decide what meaning he wants to give to his life. Under Islam, it is God and the Holy Law which set limits as to the possible agenda of your life.
It is worth emphasizing that the American Bill of Rights is essential for safeguarding the civil and political rights of an individual against the government, as Jefferson put it: "... A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference ". Individuals have rights that no mythical or mystical collective goal or will can justifiably deny. To quote Von Hayek: " individual freedom cannot be reconciled with the supremacy of one single purpose to which the whole society must be entirely and permanently subordinated ".The First Ten Amendments, and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution limit the power of the governments, they protect individuals from unfair actions by the government, they protect individuals' rights of freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and peaceful assembly, and the rights of persons accused of crimes against state abuses. They prevent a state from depriving anyone of civil liberties. Liberal democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom and attaches all possible value to each man or woman. Individualism is not a recognisable feature of Islam, instead the collective will of the Muslim people is constantly emphasised, there is certainly no notion of individual rights which only developed in the West, especially during the 18th century. The constant injunction to obey the Caliph who is God's Shadow on Earth is hardly inducive to creating a rights based individualist philosophy. The hostility to individual rights is manifest in this excerpt from a recent Muslim thinker who has written on human rights from an Islamic perspective, A.K.Brohi, a former Minister of Law and Religious Affairs in Pakistan:
" Human duties and rights have been vigorously defined and their orderly enforcement is the duty of the whole of organized communities and the task is specifically entrusted to the law enforcement organs of the state.The individual if necessary has to be sacrificed in order that the life of the organism be saved. Collectivity has a special sanctity attached to it in Islam.
"[In Islam] there are no "human rights or "freedoms" admissible to man in the sense in which modern man's thought, belief and practice understand them: in essence, the believer owes obligation or duties to God if only because he is called upon to obey the Divine Law and such Human rights as he is made to acknowledge seem to stem from his primary duty to obey God."
The totalitarian nature of this philosophy is evident, and further underlined by the line, " By accepting to live in Bondage to this Divine Law, man learns to be free ", which frighteningly reminds one of Orwell's " Freedom is Slavery ".
Another Muslim thinker wrote in 1979:
"The Western liberal emphasis upon freedom from restraint is alien to Islam....Personal freedom [in Islam] lies in surrendering to the Divine Will....It cannot be realized through liberation from external sources of restraint... individual freedom ends where the freedom of the community begins.... Human rights exist only in relation to human obligations....Those individuals who do not accept these obligations have no rights... Much of Muslim theology tends toward a totalitarian voluntarism ".
Here, at least, the author admits the totalitarian nature of Islam.
(5) The notion of the infallibility of a group and a "book" are impediments to moral, political and scientific progress
(6) A Muslim doesnot have the right to change his religion. Apostasy is punishable by death.
(7) Freedom of thought is discouraged in various forms and guises, any innovation is likely to be branded " blasphemy" which is punishable by death. Perhaps one of the greatest obstacles in Islam to a progress towards a liberal democracy is its emphasis that it is the final word of God, the ultimate code of conduct: ISLAM NEVER ALLOWS THE POSSIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES.By contrast, in a liberal democracy,what is meant by the freedom of thought, speech and press is the right to argue, the freedom to present another side of an argument, anyone may present an alternative philosophy, the majority do not have the right to prevent a minority from expressing its dissent, criticism or difference.
(8) Human Rights
The idea that there is good reason for ascribing rights to human beings simply because they are human beings is something which developed in Western civilisation. Some would trace the idea back to Plato and Aristotle, others to at least, the Stoics who maintained that there was a natural law, distinct from the laws of Athens or Rome, a law binding upon all men in such a manner that " whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature ". [quoted in Melden 1] Some philosophers have tried to ground these rights in human nature or the nature of man; while others, not happy with talk of human nature, since what we sometimes take to be human nature turns out to be a particularity of one specific culture or civilisation, prefer to talk of human rights in consequentialist terms. However, modern discussions by western philosophers of human rights nowhere appeal to God or Divine Will, but only to human reason, rational arguments and critical thought.
Most philosophers would agree that the notion of human rights involves the accompanying ideas of self-respect, moral dignity, free-agents, moral choice, person, the right to equal concern and respect. Since Locke's further development of the idea of human rights in the 17th century, modern advocates claim at least three things: (1) " that these rights are fundamental in the sense that without them there could not be any of the specific rights that are grounded in the specific social circumstances in which individuals live, (2) that just these rights cannot be relinquished, transferred, or forfeited (i.e., they cannot be alienated from them by anything that they or anyone else may do), since (3) they are rights that human beings have simply because they are human beings, and quite independently of their varying social circumstances and degrees of merit " [Melden 3].In other words, they are universal and not culturally bound or relative.
Under Islam, nothing like the above ideas has ever developed. Human beings have duties, duties towards God; only God has rights. Under Islam, there is no such thing as " the equal right of all men to be free ". Nowhere in modern Muslim discussions is there a clear account as to how " human rights " can be derived from " human duties" as described in the Sharia.
Lewis on "Islam and Liberal Democracy."
In an important article, " Islam and Liberal Democracy ", Bernard Lewis explains very well why Liberal Democracy never developed in Islam. Like many scholars of Islam, Lewis deplores the use of the term " Islamic Fundamentalist " as being inappropriate. I agree. I have already pointed out that, unlike Protestants, who have moved away from the literal interpretation of the Bible, Muslims, all Muslims, still take The Koran literally. Hence, in my view, there IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAM AND ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM Islam is deeply embedded in every Muslim society, and "fundamentalism" is simply the excess of this culture.
Lewis himself tells us that the Islamic fundamentalists intend " to govern by Islamic rules if they gain power ".The Islamic fundamentalists will apply Islam -- the Islam of Islamic Law, and all that it entails. Lewis also tells us that " their creed and political program are not compatible with liberal democracy ". I also agree. But now we see immediately why Lewis and Islamic apologists, in fact, find this term," Islamic fundamentalist ", so convenient, while, at the same time, deploring it. It is an extremely useful and face-saving device for those unable to face up to the fact that Islam itself is incompatible with democracy, and not just something we call " Islamic fundamentalism ". To repeat, Lewis himself says the latter will apply " Islamic rules ", now if their creed is incompatible with democracy, then these " Islamic rules " themselves must be incompatible with democracy. Thus " Islamic fundamentalist " enables the apologists to set up a specious distinction, a distinction without any justification.
The curious fact is that Lewis himself shows in his article why, by its very nature, Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy. The West developed certain characteristic institutions which were essential for the emergence of democracy. One such institution was the council or representative assembly, whose effective functioning was made possible by the principle embodied in Roman Law, that of the legal person -- a corporate entity that for legal purposes is treated as an individual, able to buy and sell, enter into contracts, appear as a defendant etc. There was no Islamic equivalent of the Roman senate or assembly or parliament. Islam simply lacked the legal recognition of corporate persons. (As Schacht put it, " Islam does not recognize juristic persons; not even the public treasury is construed as an institution... " [Schacht 125])
One of the major functions of these Western assemblies was legislative. But there was no legislative function in the Islamic state, and thus no need for legislative institutions. The Islamic state was a theocracy, in the literal sense of a polity ruled by God. For pious Muslims, legitimate authority comes from God alone, and the ruler derives his power from God and the holy law, and not from the people. Rulers were merely applying or interpreting God's law as revealed to Muhammad. Lacking legislative bodies, Islam did not develop any principle of representation, any procedure for choosing representatives, any definition of the franchise or any electoral system. Therefore it is not surprising, concludes Lewis, if the history of the Islamic states is " one of unrelieved autocracy. The Muslim subject owed obedience to a legitimate Muslim ruler as a religious duty. That is to say, disobedience was a sin as well as a crime ".
Having clearly shown that Islam is incompatible with Liberal Democracy, Lewis then tries to show that there might, after all, be elements in the Islamic tradition which are not hostile to democracy. He particularly leans heavily on the the elective and contractual element in the Islamic institution of the Caliphate. Lewis himself admits that the Islamic caliphate was an " autocracy ", but he also insists that it was not a " despotism ".
Lewis waxes lyrical about the caliph, insisting that the relationship between the Caliph and his subjects is contractual: " The bay'a [denoting the ceremony at the inauguration of a new caliph] was thus conceived as a contract by which the subjects undertook to obey and the Caliph in return undertook to perform certain duties specified by the jurists. If a Caliph failed in those duties -- and Islamic history shows that this was by no means a purely theoretical point -- he could, subject to certain conditions, be removed from office."
First, an autocracy is not a democracy; the distinction between autocracy and despotism is a dangerous and bogus one, often used in the past to legitimise undemocratic rule, indeed T.W. Arnold calls the power of the Caliph " despotic " (see below). Second, as it was originally elaborated, the orthodox doctrine emphasised two essential characteristics: that the caliph must be of the tribe of the Kuraish, and that he must receive unhesitating obedience, for anyone who rebels against the Caliph rebels against God. This duty to obedience to the established authorities is constantly emphasised in the Koran, e.g. Sura iv.59: " O you who believe ! Obey God, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority " [See also Sura iv.83]
As T.W. Arnold says, " This claim on obedience to the DESPOTIC [my emphases] power of the Khalifa as a religious duty was impressed upon the faithful by the designations that were applied to him from an early date, -- Khalifa of God, and Shadow of God upon earth ". Neither of the above "essential characteristics is democratic. Third," the elective " characteristic of the institution was purely " theoretical ", for the office, in fact, became hereditary in the families of the Ummayad and the Abbasid, from the reign of Mu'awiya (661 _680) almost every caliph had nominated his successor. As Arnold says," the FICTION of election was preserved in the practice of bai'a (or bay'a)".
Finally the functions of the Caliph clearly emphasise the undemocratic nature of the office. Al Mawardi (died 1058) and Ibn Khaldun define these functions as follows: the defence of the religion and the application of the divinely inspired law or Sharia, to sort out legal disputes, appointment of officials, various administrative duties, the waging of holy war or jihad against those who refuse to accept Islam or submit to Muslim rule. According to Ibn Khaldun he must belong to the tribe of Kuraish, and be of the male sex, again, not a democratic principle. Much has also been made of the Islamic principle of "consultation ". But Lewis dismisses this fairly briskly: " This principle has never been institutionalized, nor even formulated in the treaties of the holy law, though naturally rulers have from time to time consulted with their senior officials, more particularly in Ottoman times ".
Lewis lays a great store by Islamic pluralism and tolerance. But as I show in the next chapter, there never was an inter- faith utopia (to use Lewis' own phrase). Lewis also says: " Sectarian strife and religious persecution are not unknown in Islamic history, but they are rare and atypical..." And yet, earlier in the same article Lewis himself tells us: " But Islamic fundamentalism is just one stream among many.
In the fourteen centuries that have passed since the mission of the Prophet, there have been several such movements -- fanatical, intolerant, aggressive, and violent ". If Lewis is not formally contradicting himself, he is certainly seen to be wanting it both ways -- "several such movements" as opposed to "rare and atypical".
Conclusion:
The truth of the matter is that Islam will never achieve democracy and human rights if it insists on the application of the Sharia; and so long as there is no separation of church and state. But as Muir put it: " A reformed faith that should question the divine authority on which they [the institutions of Islam] rest, or attempt by rationalistic selection or abatement to effect a change, would be Islam no longer ".
Many Islamic reformers wanting to adopt Western institutions have pretended to find Islamic antecedents for them in order to make these foreign institutions palatable to their own people. But this strategy has led to much intellectual dishonesty and has left the problem where it was __ " the real Islam treats women as equals ", the real Islam is democratic " etc.. The real problem, whether the Sharia is any longer acceptable, has been left untouched.
Nor is it necessary to invent Islamic antecedents to accept the principles of democracy, human rights, the separation of church and state. India adopted democracy in 1947, and it has lasted to this day; and as far as I am aware, no one wasted time looking through the copious holy literature to justify the decision to adopt a parliamentary system at independence. The only country in the Islamic world which can be said to be a democracy is Turkey; and, significantly, it is the only Muslim country which has formally adopted the separation of religion and state as law. Islam has been removed from the Constitution, and the Sharia is no longer a part of the law of the country. 04.04
Ann Elizabeth Mayer: Islam & Human Rights
I propose to examine Ms Mayer's very important book on Islam and Human Rights. Even though I have one fundamental reservation about her book, and to which I shall refer later, I find her analysis excellent and very persuasive. Ms. Mayer shows with the utmost clarity how in various Islamic Human Rights schemes, " distinctive ISLAMIC [my emphasis] criteria " have been used to cut back on the freedoms guaranteed in international law, how for many Muslims the international guarantees exceed the limits of rights and freedoms permitted in Islam.
Ms Mayer also shows how the official Islamization programmes in, especially, the Sudan, Pakistan and Iran, have led to serious violations of the human rights of women, non- Muslims, the Bahai, the Ahmadis and other religious minorities. In these countries Islamization, " did much to eliminate due process, to erode the independence of the judiciary, to place legal proceedings under the control of political leaders, and to convert courts into instruments of repression and intimidation. Thus, in all three countries Islamization became associated with a decline in the quality of the administration of justice." [35]
Ms. Mayer is refreshingly free of inhibitions when attacking the various Islamic Human Rights schemes from the perspective of International Human Rights, which she takes to be universally valid.(" The way governments of countries treat those they govern should not be ruled off-limits to critical scholarly inquiry, and judging Islamic schemes of human rights by the standards of the international human rights norms that they seek to replace is entirely appropriate " [21]
Rejecting cultural relativism (without giving any philosophical arguments), Ms Mayer points out that, as a matter of empirical fact, there are many Muslims throughout the world who have and are risking their lives to " stand up for the same human rights principles that cultural relativists would maintain are not suited for application in the Muslim because of its dissimilar culture. Cultural relativists may fail to perceive how rapid urbanization, industrialisation, and factors like the growing power of the state are creating awareness of the need for human rights guarantees in non-Western cultures ". [While writing this chapter, I heard the news of the murder of Youcef Fathallah, president of the Algerian League for Human Rights, by Islamicists, (Le Monde 21 June 1994)]
Ms. Mayer compares the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] of 1948 with the 1981 Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights [UIDHR]. The latter was prepared by several Muslim countries under the auspices of the Islamic Council, a private, London -based organization affiliated with the Muslim World League, an international, nongovernmental organization " that tends to represent the interests and views of conservative Muslims ". Other Islamic human rights schemes examined are the Azhar Draft Constitution, prepared by the Islamic Research Academy of Cairo, which is affiliated with Al - Azhar University, " the most internationally prestigious institution of higher education in Sunni Islam, and a center of conservative Islamic thought ", and the 1979 Iranian Constitution, and the works of Muslim thinkers such as Mawdudi and Tabandeh.[27]
Her conclusion is that " Islam is viewed in these schemes as a device for restricting individual freedoms and keeping the individual in a subordinate place vis-à-vis the government and society ".[91]
Ms Mayer shows how, using the Sharia as their justification, Muslim conservatives have refused to recognize women as full, equal human beings, who deserve the same rights and freedoms as men. Women under these Islamic schemes are expected to marry, obey their husbands, bring up their children, stay at home, and stay out of public life altogether. She is not permitted to develop as an individual in her own right, acquire an education or get a job. These Islamic schemes provide no real protection for the rights of religious minorities. " In fact, to the extent that they deal with question of the rights of religious minorities, they seem to endorse premodern Sharia rules that call for non-Muslims to be relegated to an inferior status if they qualify as members of the ahl al-kitab [the People of the Book] and for them to be treated as nonpersons if they do not qualify for such inclusion " [160].
These Islamic schemes afford no real protections for freedom of religion:
"The failure of a single one of these Islamic human rights schemes to take a position against the application of the shar'ia death penalty for apostasy means that the authors of these schemes have neglected to confront and resolve the main issues involved in harmonizing international human rights and sharia standards....The authors' unwillingness to repudiate the rule that a person should be executed over a question of religious belief reveals the enormous gap that exists between their mentalities and the modern philosophy of human rights." [187]
One Fundamental Objection to Ms. Mayer's Analysis
Like practically every single book and article published since February 1989, especially for the non-specialist reader, Ms Mayer's book is at pains to point out that
(1) " Islam " is not monolithic, that there is no such thing as THE Islamic tradition, or just "one correct Islam " or one correct interpretation;
(2) that, in the Islamic Human Rights schemes examined and found wanting in terms of International norms, it is not Islam which is at fault, it is, at most, one particular interpretation of it by traditionalists or Muslim conservatives;
(3) that there is no such thing as THE sharia, i.e. Islamic law did not freeze at some arbitrary point in the past
(4) that, deep-down, Islam may not be hostile to rights and democracy, after all.
The above four points are not really argued for, that is not the purpose of her book. She explicitly states that the " core doctrines of Islam " are not being subjected to critical assessment. However, a close reading of Ms Mayer's book reveals that she is only, after all, paying lip-service, for ecumenical harmony, to the notion that there is no such thing as "Islam" about which we can make valid generalisations. In reality, Ms Mayer is as prone to sweeping negative statements and huge unflattering generalisations about " Islam " as any writer who does believe that there are clearly identifiable ISLAMIC DOCTRINES, which are independent of any capricious or dubious interpretations of the Koran or the Hadith, and, furthermore, that these recognisable doctrines are inimical to human rights and their development.
Here are some such generalisations, all of them true, in my view, about Islam, Islamic civilisation, Islamic tradition, Islamic orthodoxy, Islamic law that contradict Ms Mayer's pious hopes set forth above, points (1) _ (4):
Quote 1 " As we have seen, the individualism characteristic of Western civilisation was a fundamental ingredient in the development of human rights concepts. Individualism, however, is not an established feature of Muslim societies or of Islamic culture, nor can one find a historical example of an Islamic school of thought that celebrated individualism as a virtue. Islamic civilisation did not create an intellectual climate that was conducive to according priority to the protection of individual rights and freedoms ".[47]
We might point out that while Ms. Mayer accuses many westerners of taking Islam as a monolithic system, she herself is quite happy to generalise in the above manner both about Islam, AND the West. Is there such a thing as " the West "?
Quote 2 " Orthodox theologians in Sunni Islam were generally suspicious of human reason, fearing that it would lead Muslims to stray from the truth of Revelation. The prevailing view in the Sunni world...has been that because of their divine inspiration, sharia laws supercede reason.... Given the dominance of this mainstream Islamic view, it naturally became difficult to realize an Islamic version of the Age of Reason " [49]
Quote 4 " The analysis will show how Islamic rights schemes express and confirm the premodern values and priorities that have predominated in orthodox Islamic thought for more than a millennium ". [58]
Quote 5 " In such a scheme any challenges that might be made to Islamic law on the grounds that it denies basic rights guaranteed under constitutions or international law are ruled out ab initio; human reason is deemed inadequate to criticise what are treated as divine edicts.This affirms the traditional orthodox view, that the tenets of the shari'a are perfect and just, because they represent the will of the Creator, being derived from divinely inspired sources." [58]
Quote 6 " One notes that Brohi is sometimes speaking of subordination to God and Islamic law, which is clearly required in the Islamic tradition ".[62]
Quote 7 " Since there was no human rights tradition in Islamic civilisation... " [73]
Quote 8 " Although in Islamic law one can discern elements that in some ways anticipate modern notions of equality, one does not find any counterpart of the principle of equal protection under the law." [98]
Quote 9 "...But Islamic clerics and Islamic institutions have by and large manifested strong opposition to allowing women to escape from their cloistered, subordinate, domestic roles " [112]
Occasionally, Ms Mayer's desperate attempts to exonerate Islam lead her to bad arguments and contradictions. In her preface, she writes:
" Even without studying the question of how Islam relates to human rights issues, my experience in work on behalf of the cause of human rights would have sufficed to convince me that Islam is not the cause of the human rights problems endemic to the Middle East. Human rights abuses are every bit as prevalent and just as severe in countries where Islamic law is in abeyance or consciously violated as in countries where it is, at least officially, the legal norm. "
References:
• Reformation of Islam "The St. Petersburg Declaration"
• UN Human Rights Council banned Discussion of religious questions • Incredulous UN Bans Criticism of Islam • Jihad Against Free Speech
Islamic states draw new battle lines over Freedom of ExpressionPetition for defence of individual rights at the UN Human Rights CouncilGrowing opposition to the concept of "defamation of religion"How Some Europeans and the UN Are Helping Islamists Undermine Freedom
The UN must not give in to Islamic criticismIn the name of Islamophobia, will the OIC soon ‘Rule the Waves’ at the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council?Religion and Freedom of Expression in the Human Rights Council
Criticism of religion is not blasphemyAn Islamic Blasphemy Law? Let’s Call Their BluffIslamic states draw new battle lines over Freedom of Expression
Creeping Dhimmitude at the United NationsWorld’s Press Criticises UN Human Rights CouncilIHEU "ambushed" at Human Rights Council
• Universal Human Rights and "Human Rights in Islam"• Universal Declaration of Human Rights• Islamic Law vs Human Rights• Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam - Diverges from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in key respects
Why Europeans Should Support Israel
1948, Israel, and the Palestinians - The True StoryThe Hamas Charter - The Covenant of the Hamas 1988New translation of Hamas charter contains anti-semitismArab anti-Semitism is strategic threat, says study
Islam’s Jew-Hating Hadith Matter TodayAntisemitism in the Qur’an: Motifs and Historical ManifestationsThe Legacy of Islamic AntisemitismHitler's Legacy: Islamic Antisemitism in the Middle East
Islam and democracy: The theory - and the practice?
ALGERIA: Political killings, Censorship, Harassment & Intimidation
BAHRAIN: Executions, Abuses of detainees & Censorship
EGYPT: Censorship, Limited Judicial Independence & Police Tortures
IRAN: Torture, Repressed Minorities, Discriminated Women, Unfair Trials, Censorship & Executions
LYBIA: Censorship, Killings of Demonstrators & Prisoners
MOROCCO: Discriminated Women, Abused Prisoners, Migrants & Refugees
OMAN: Discriminated Migrants, Abused Woman & Domestic Workers, Trafficking in Human Beings
IRAQ: Violence against women, Thousands of killed Civilians & Executions
KUWAIT: Torture, Abuse of Migrant Workers & Executions
QUATAR: Violence against Women, Human Trafficking, Torture & ill-Treatment
TUNISIA: Censorship, Limited Judicial Independence, Torture & ill-Treatment
SAUDI ARABIA: Violence against Women, Migrant worker Abuse, Torture, Unfair Trials, Censorship & Executions
SYRIA: Censorship, Torture, Arbitrary Detention, Discrimination of Woman & Minorities
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Stoning, Flogging, Death Penalties & Cruel Judicial Punishments
YEMEN: Executions, Censorship, Political Prisoners & Unfair Trials
Is Islam Compatible With Democracy and Human Rights?There are several flaws in societies where Muslims form the majority, but that should not be labeled as acts of Islam. As Muslims we have allowed the tyrants to use the “Islam” label to do their things which is similar to the Neocons conduct; to annihilate and oppress the dissent. It is a catch 22, if the Muslim majority spoke, things will be alright, but the tyrants know how to single out the voices and drown them. This is not the characteristics of Muslim rulers alone; it is the case with all rulers be it in Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia or even in the bastions of democracy like the United States and the United Kingdom. The majority remained silent when the Neocons duped them about WMD’s and went on about destruction, and the Americans who spoke out were hounded by the Neocons as unpatriotic.
The following article about Islam and democracy is an ongoing propaganda to malign Islam; it’s the business of the Neocons. (Neocons are extremists who wear every faith label and whose modus operandi is destruction of the ones who differ to solve the world problems) I wish we had an organization set up who did not thing but investigate the funding source for these articles and their motivation and counter them with facts.
President Obama’s initiatives in Middle East has all the elements of bringing security to the Jewish population in Israel and hope to the Palestinians, both peoples deserve it. I believe that would be the aspirations of majority of the Jews and Palestinians from that area. However, the Neocons supported by the lobby with the attitudes of “annihilating or oppressing the other” seek peace through destruction. They have figured out how do derail President Obama’s initiatives, you will see the beginning of an onslaught of articles like this and a mass production of documentaries and movies to debilitate the religion. It pays them well, as long as the suckers pay, the Neocons will produce phobias and keep cashing on it.
I hope people will wake up and fund those organizations that seek to mitigate conflicts and not the ones that aggravate the conflicts.
The article starts with the dumbest quote, like asking the fox to guard the hen. Why would King Fahad say that democracy is suitable to his country? Then there is a quote from Hugronje that Islam has never favored democratic tendencies. Has this agency taken the time to paint the full honest picture of Muslims or Islam? Nearly 3/4ths of Muslim population lives in democracies, and the rest would opt for democracy if they have the choice or if the western Neocons do not support the dictators, monarchs or oppressive regimes.
There are several flaws in the following article and I hope I can respond to some but urge the people, not to present their point of view to show the flaws in it.
One of the major flaws quoted here “In Saudi Arabia, following a tradition of Muhammad who said “Two religions cannot exist in the country of Arabia “. Who are they selling this to? How did these guys cook this up?
On the other hand the Prophet initiated and co-signed the Madinah pact with Jews, Christians and others about co-existence and pluralism. It is an acknowledgment of the otherness of other.
Look at the façade they carry with the organizations names they have set up to give the impression that they are fair and honest research organizations. They are all paid to paint a negative picture of Muslims just as their forefathers did with deliberately mistranslating Qur’aan in the 11th and 14th Centuries.
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer, Moderator and a Blogger on Pluralism, Interfaith, Terrorism, Peace, Islam, India and civil societies, He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television networks offering a pluralistic perspective on issues of the day. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net Mike is a conflict mitigater and a goodwill nurturer.
# # #
Is Islam Compatible With Democracy and Human Rights?
http://europenews.dk/en/node/24250
" Islam has never favoured democratic tendencies..." Hurgronje [277]
" The Democratic system that is predominant in the world is not a suitable system for the peoples of our region... The system of free elections is not suitable to our country" King Fahd of Saudi Arabia
Is Islam Compatible With Democracy and Human Rights?
http://europenews.dk/en/node/24250
Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society 22 June 2009
" Islam has never favoured democratic tendencies..." Hurgronje [277]
" The Democratic system that is predominant in the world is not a suitable system for the peoples of our region... The system of free elections is not suitable to our country" King Fahd of Saudi Arabia
At least King Fahd has had the honesty to admit the incompatibility of Islam and Democracy. Meanwhile Western Islamic apologists and modernising Muslims continue to look for democratic principles in Islam and Islamic history.
[A] Human Rights and Islam
Let us look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and compare it to Islamic law and doctrine.
Article 1 " All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood ".
Article 2 " Everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status ".
Article 3 " Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person "
Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms "
Comments: (1) Women are inferior under Islamic law; their testimony in a court of law is worth half that of a man; their movement is strictly restricted, they cannot marry a non-Muslim
(2) Non - Muslims living in Muslim countries have inferior status under Islamic law, they may not testify against a Muslim. In Saudi Arabia, following a tradition of Muhammed who said " Two religions cannot exist in the country of Arabia ", non _ Muslims are forbidden to practice their religion, build churches, possess Bibles etc.
(3) Non-believers -- atheists (surely the most neglected minority in history) -- in Muslim countries do not have "the right to life ". They are to be killed. Muslim doctors of law generally divide sins into great sins and little sins. Of the seventeen great sins, unbelief is the greatest, more heinous than murder, theft, adultery etc..
(4) Slavery is recognised in the Koran. Muslims are allowed to cohabit with any of their female slaves (Sura iv.3); they are allowed to take possession of married women if they are slaves (Sura iv.28); the helpless position of the slave as regard his master illustrates the helpless position of the false gods of Arabia in the presence of their Creator (Sura xvi.77).
Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Comments (1) We have seen what punishments are in store for the transgressers of the Holy Law: amputations, crucifixion, stoning to death, floggings. I suppose a Muslim could argue that these were not unusual for a Muslim country, but what of their inhumanity? Again a Muslim could contend that they are of divine origin and must not be judged by human criteria. By human standards, they ARE inhuman.
Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
The whole notion of a person who can make choice, and can be held morally responsible is lacking in Islam; as is the entire notion of human rights.
Articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 deal with the rights of an accused person to a fair trial.
Comments (1) As Schacht has shown under the Sharia considerations of good faith, fairness, justice, truth, and so on play only a subordinate role. The idea of criminal guilt is lacking.
(2) Revenge for a killing is officially sanctioned, though a money recompense is also possible.
(3) The legal procedure, under Islam, can hardly be called impartial or fair, for in the matter of witnesses all sorts of injustices emerge. A non _Muslim may not testify against a Muslim. For example, a Muslim may rob a non _Muslim in his home with impunity if there are no witnesses except the non_ Muslim himself. The evidence of Muslim women is admitted only very exceptionally and then only from twice the number required of men.
Article 16 deals with the rights of marriage of men and women
Comment (1) As we shall see in our chapter on women, women under Islam do not have equal rights: they are not free to marry whom they wish, the rights of divorce are not equal.
Article 18 " Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance ".
Comments (1) Quite clearly under Islam, one does not have the right to change one's religion, if one is born into a Muslim family. Applying double standards, Muslims are quite happy to accept converts to their religion, but a Muslim may not convert to another religion, this would be apostasy which is punishable by death. Here is how the great commentator Baydawi (c.1291) sees the matter:
" Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever you find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard ".
Comment (2) Statistics on conversions from Islam to Christianity, and therefore apostasy, are hard to establish for obvious reasons. There is, however, a myth that Muslims are impossible to convert. On the contrary we do have enough evidence of literally thousands of Muslims abandoning Islam for Christ from the Middle Ages to Modern Times; the most spectacular cases being, amongst others, those of Moroccan and Tunisian princes in the 17th century, of the monk Constantin the African. Count Rudt - Collenberg has found evidence at the Casa dei Catecumeni at Rome of 1087 conversions between 1614 and 1798.According to A.T. Willis and others between two or three million Muslims converted to Christianity after the massacres of the communists in Indonesia, in 1965, described earlier [chapter x] In France alone, in the 1990s, there are two or three hundred converts to Christianity from Islam, EACH YEAR. According to Ann Mayer, in Egypt conversions have been " occurring with enough frequency to anger Muslim clerics and to mobilize conservative Muslim opinion behind proposals to enact a law imposing the death penalty for apostasy "[Mayer177]. Ms. Mayer points out that, in the past, many women have been to tempted to convert from Islam to ameliorate their lot.
Comment (3) Those who convert to Christianity and choose to stay in the Muslim country do so at great personal danger. The convert has most of his rights denied him, identity papers are often refused him, so that he has difficulties leaving his country; his marriage is declared null and void, his children are taken away from him to be brought up by Muslims, and he forfeits his rights of inheritance. Often the family will take matters into their own hands and simply assassinate the apostate; the family are, of course, not punished. [Gaudeul]
Article 19 " Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers ".
Comments (1) The rights enshrined in articles 18 and 19 have been consistently violated in Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In all three countries, the rights of their Bahai, Ahmadi and Shia minorities respectively have been denied. All three countries justify their actions by reference to Sharia. Christians in these countries are frequently arrested on charges of blasphemy and their rights denied.
Here is how Amnesty International describes the scene in Saudi Arabia: " Hundreds of Christians, including women and children have been arrested and detained over the past three years, most without charge or trial, solely for the peaceful expression of their religious beliefs. Scores have been tortured, some by flogging, while in detention... The possession of non_ Islamic religious objects - including Bibles, rosary beads, crosses and pictures of Jesus Christ __ is prohibited and such items may be confiscated. " AINO 62 JUly / Aug 1993
Similarly scores of Shia Muslims have been harassed, arrested, tortured and in some cases, beheaded. For example, on September 3, 1992 Sadiq Abdul Karim Malallah was publicly beheaded in al- Qatif after being convicted of apostasy and blasphemy. Sadiq, a Shia Muslim, was arrested in 1988 and charged with throwing stones at a police station, then of smuggling a Bible into the country. He was kept in solitary confinement, where he was tortured.
The situation of Ahmadis in Pakistan is somewhat similar. The Ahmadiyya movement was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed (died 1908), who is regarded as a prophet by his followers Amnesty International [ASA / 33 / 15 / 91] summed up their situation in this manner:
"Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims but they are regarded by orthodox Muslims as heretical because they call the founder of the movement al- Masih [the Messiah]: this is taken to imply that Mohammad is not the final seal of the prophets as orthodox Islam holds, i.e. the prophet who carried the final message from God to humanity. According to Ahmadis their faith does not involve the denial of the Prophet Mohammad's status because Mirza Ghulam Ahmed did not claim to bring a new revelation of divine law which could add to, replace or supersede the Koran. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed considered himself a mahdi, a reappearance of the Prophet Mohammad, and thought it his task to revive Islam. As a result of these divergences, Ahmadis have been subjected to discrimination and persecution in some Islamic countries. In the mid- 1970s, the Saudi Arabia-based World Muslim League called on Muslim governments worldwide to take action against Ahmadis. Ahmadis are since then banned in Saudi Arabia."
Throughout Pakistan's history, the Ahmadis have been subjected to harassment, which has, on occasion, led to serious bloodshed. Things got worse for them, when President Zia - ul Haq came to power in 1977 after a military coup. He introduced a policy of Islamization, and imposed severe restrictions on the Ahmadis. In 1984, further legislation was introduced aimed explicitly at these so - called heretics. Henceforth, the Ahmadis could no longer call themselves Muslims. Since then, scores of Ahmadis have been charged and sentenced severely under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code. Thus Ahmadis can be imprisoned and even sentenced to death solely for the exercise of their right to freedom of religion including the right to express their religion. Again, it is important to realise that such attitudes to " heretics " is a logical consequence of the orthodox Muslim position that Muhammad is the seal of the Prophets, that Islam is the most perfect and final expression of God's purpose for all mankind, and that salvation outside Islam is not possible.
Comment (2) Blasphemy towards God and the Prophet are punishable by death under Islam. In modern times, blasphemy has simply become a tool for Muslim governments to silence opposition; or for individuals to settle personal scores; or, as we saw earlier, to seek out and punish " heresy ". A report in the Economist points out the manipulation of "blasphemy " in Pakistan: " A judgment by the High Court in Lahore is worrying Pakistan's Christians. The court decided recently that Pakistan's blasphemy laws are applicable to all the prophets of Islam. Jesus is a prophet in Islamic teaching. By worshipping Jesus as the son of God, Christians are, it could be argued, committing a blasphemy....There are about 1.2 [million] Christians in Pakistan, out of a population of 120 [million]. Many of them are of low caste, doing menial jobs. Some have suffered for their beliefs. Tahir Iqbal, a mechanic in the air force who converted to Christianity and was charged with blasphemy, mysteriously died in prison while awaiting trial. Manzoor Masih was accused of blasphemy, given bail and shot dead in the street.... Human -rights watchers say there is often sectarian and political rivalry, a dispute over property or competition for jobs " [May 7, 1994]
Article 23.1 Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Comment (1) Women are not free to choose their work under Islam, certain jobs are forbidden to them, even in so - called liberal Muslim countries. Orthodox Islam forbids women from working outside the home. [see Chapter x]
Comment (2) Non - Muslims are not free to choose their work in Muslim countries, or rather certain posts are not permitted them. A recent example from Saudi Arabia makes the point. A group of Muslims working in a company owned by a Muslim were shocked when the Muslim owner appointed a new manager, who was a Christian. The Muslims demanded a religious ruling asking whether it was permissible under Islam to have a Christian in authority over them. Sheikh Mannaa K. Al Qubtan at the Islamic Law College of Riyadh declared that it was intolerable under Islam that a non - Muslim should wield authority over Muslims. He pointed to two verses from the Koran to back up his argument: Sura iv. 141: " Allah will not give the disbelievers triumph over the believers " Sura lxxiii.8: Force and power belong to God, and to His Prophet, and to believers "
Article 26 deals with the right of education.
Comment (1) Again certain fields of learning are denied to women (see chapter x)
Conclusion: It is clear that Islamic militants are quite aware of the incompatibility of Islam and The 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. For these militants met in Paris in 1981 to draw up an Islamic Declaration of Human Rights which left out all freedoms that contradicted Islamic law. Even more worrying is the fact that under pressure from Muslim countries in November 1981, the United Nations Declaration on the elimination of religious discrimination was revised, and references to the right "to adopt "(Article 18, above) and, therefore to " change " one's religion were deleted, and only the right " to have " a religion was retained [FI Spring 1984 p 22].
[B] Democracy and Islam
" Western ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state often have little resonance in Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist or Orthodox cultures "
Samuel P. Huntington, " The Clash of Civilisations? "
The values and principles of Democracy are defined and enshrined in the British and American Constitutions, and both the British (1688) and American Bill of Rights (proposed 1789 and ratified 1791).
Separation of Church and State
One of the fundamental principles of Democracy is the separation of church and state (Amendment I of the American Bill of Rights: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...").We have seen, that in Islam there is no such separation, instead, we have, what Thomas Paine calls, the adulterous connection of church and state. Why is this separation so essential? If Muslims are sincere in espousing the cause of Democracy in their own countries, then they must learn the profound reasons underlying the adoption of this separation. They must then decide whether these underlying principles are at all compatible with Islam, or whether they entail too many compromises with the orthodox tenets of their creed. This is not the time for moral, intellectual and doctrinal evasiveness.
[1] The idea of a separation of church and state has been formulated by many Western philosophers: Locke, Spinoza and the "philosophes" of the Enlightenment. In his " A Letter Concerning Toleration ", Locke gives three reasons for adopting this principle:
(1) " First, because the care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate [i.e. the state], any more than to other men. It is not committed unto him, I say, by God; because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another, as to compel any one to his religion. Nor can any such power be vested in the magistrate [state] by the consent of the people; because no man can so far abandon the care of his own salvation as blindly to leave it to the choice of any other, whether prince or subject, to prescribe to him what faith or worship he shall embrace. For no man can, if he would, conform his faith to the dictates of another. All the life and power of true religion consists in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing. "
(2) " In the second place, the care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate , because his power consists only in outward force: but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of the understanding, that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force.... It may indeed be alleged that the magistrate may make use of arguments... But it is one thing to persuade, another to command; one thing to press with arguments, another with penalties... The magistrate's power extends not to the establishing of any articles of faith, or forms of worship, by the force of his laws."
(3) "... There being but one truth, one way to heaven; what hope is there that more men would be led into it, if they had no other rule to follow but the religion of the court, and were put under a necessity to quit the light of their own reason, to oppose the dictates of their own consciences, and blindly to resign up themselves to the will of their governors, and to the religion, which either ignorance, ambition, or superstition had chanced to establish in the countries where they were born? In the variety and contradiction of opinions in religion, wherein the princes of the world are as much divided as in their secular interests, the narrow way would be much straitened; one country alone would be in the right, and the rest of the world put under an obligation of following their princes in the ways that lead to destruction..."
In other words, it is not the business of the state to interfere with the freedom of conscience and thought of its citizens, it cannot make people religious by force; at best, there may be outward observance, but at the cost of sincerity of belief. Locke 's third point above, a point also made by Kant, is that by behaving in the above manner one is cutting one self and an entire age or generation off from further enlightenment and progress. As Kant put it:
"... To unite in a permanent religious institution which is not to be subject to doubt before the public -- that is absolutely forbidden ". That is to abdicate reason, renounce enlightenment and trample on the rights of mankind. Locke further argues that we must get away from the notion that we are " born Muslims" or " born Christians " and that we cannot do anything about it. We should be free to enter or leave any particular creed, otherwise there would be no progress, freedom or reform. Once the principle of the separation of church and state is admitted, there should follow a free discussion of religion without fear of torture. However, of course, this is precisely what theocratic governments or religious autocrats fear -- free-thought. As Paine put it, " The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it has taken place, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], has so effectually prohibited by pains and penalties every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priestcraft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more ". 04.03
Following the example set by Locke, the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution, especially Madison, defended religious freedom by adopting the Bill of Rights, which, of course, includes the separation of state and church. It has played such an important role in safeguarding the rights of religious minorities, dissenters and heretics. Hitherto, the latter had suffered persecution, intolerance, disenfranchisement and discrimination.
In his " Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments " of 1785, Madison wrote: " The Religion...of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. The same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christianity in exclusion of all other Sects. Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to have the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us ".
Madison's greatness can be seen in his generous attitude to non-believers. Even the great Locke was intolerant of atheists. Madison's words written at the occasion of the Virginia Ratification Convention of 1788 are even more relevant in this age of multifaith and multi-ethnic societies: Is a bill of rights security for religion,...If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest... There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom."
What the separation of church and state means in modern terms was clearly explained by the Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in the 1947 Everson ruling:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organisations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
Authoritarianism, Democracy, and Islam
As soon as you have an established religious institution which is beyond doubt, then, as Kant and Paine (quoted above) showed, you have tyranny, thought police, an absence of the critical sense that hinders intellectual and moral progress. In the Islamic theocracy, God is the absolute ruler whose words must be obeyed absolutely, without discussion, without doubt, without questions; we cannot plea bargain with God; nor can we override God's veto. The Islamic God is not a Democrat; we cannot get rid of Him as we can a human representative elected by the people in a Representative Democracy. If power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely.
While one historian of religion, writing in 1942, finds the fact that the career of Muhammad, the Prophet, presents " certain analogies to that of a nationalist leader nearer to our own day ", disturbing, so many others in the West find this very absoluteness, self-confidence and authoritarianism of Islam appealing.. For example in a remarkable passage from a book written in about 1910, J. M. Kennedy first deplores the quietism of the Buddhists and the theosophists, castigates the Jews for being too soft, and then accuses Christianity of
" inoculating as much of the world as it can reach with the degenerate principles of humanitarianism, let us be thankful that there are many millions of Moslems to show us a religion which is not afraid to acknowledge the manly virtues of war, courage, strength, and daring __ a religion which does not seek new followers by means of cunning dialectics, but which boldly makes converts with the sword."
In recent years, Western apologists of Islam have also argued for " principled autocracy ", as exemplified by Franco in Spain. In terms similar to Kennedy, Martin Lings shows his essential contempt for democracy and his advocacy for a kind of Islamic theocracy in such works as " The Eleventh Hour: the Spiritual Crisis of the Modern World in The Light of Tradition and Prophecy, " 1987.
Indeed autocracy and Islam are far more natural bedfellows than Islam and democracy. Democracy depends on freedom of thought and free discussion, whereas Islamic Law explicitly forbids the discussions of decisions arrived at by the infallible consensus of the ulama. The whole notion of infallibility whether of a " Book " or a group of people is profoundly undemocratic and unscientific. Democracy functions by critical discussion, rational thought, by listening to another point of view, by compromise, by changing one's mind, by tentative proposals which are submitted to criticism, by testing of theories by trying to refute them. Islamic law is not legislated but divinely revealed and infallible, and, as T.H. Huxley noted (see motto to chapter x), the notion of infallibility, in all shapes, lay or clerical, has done endless mischief, and has been responsible for bigotry, cruelty and superstition.
Why Islam is Incompatible With Democracy and Human Rights:
A Summary:
(1) Islamic law tries to legislate for every single aspect of an individual's life, the individual is not at liberty to think or decide for himself, he has but to accept God's rulings as interpreted infallibly by the doctors of law. The fact is we do not have, nor can such a complete ethical code exist in a liberal democracy; we do not and cannot have an all -embracing, all-inclusive scale of values.
(2) The measure of any culture's level of democracy is the the rights and position it accords to women and its minorities. Islamic law denies the rights of women, and non- Muslim religious minorities. Pagans or non-believers are shown no tolerance: death or conversion. Jews and Christians are treated as second class citizens. Because of the Islamic doctrine of Muhammad being the last of the true prophets and Islam being the final and most complete word of God, " Muslim sects " such as the Ahmadis are persecuted, harassed and physically attacked. Muslims have yet to appreciate that democracy is not " majority rule ", that the tyranny of the majority must be guarded against, every democratic society must be wary of imposing "its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them ".
As I discuss both the case of women and non-Muslims under Islam elsewhere, I shall only summarise their legal status here.
Women are considered inferior to men, and they have less rights and duties from the religious point of view. As regards blood-money, evidence, and inheritance, a woman is counted as half a man; equally in regard to marriage and divorce her position is less advantageous than that of the man; her husband may even beat her, in certain cases. [Schacht 126 127].
Here is Schacht ' s summary of the legal position of non-Muslims: " The basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; they must be either converted or subjugated or killed (excepting women, children, and slaves); the third alternative, in general, occurs only if the first two are refused. As an exception, the Arab pagans are given the choice only between conversion to Islam or death. Apart from this, prisoners of war are either made slaves or killed or left alive as free dhimmis or exchanged for Muslim prisoners of war...". Under a treaty of surrender, the non-Muslim is given protection and called a dhimmi. " This treaty necessarily provides for the surrender of the non_ Muslims with all duties deriving from it, in particular the payment of tribute, i.e. the fixed poll-tax (jizya) and the land tax (kharaj)...The non-Muslim must wear distinctive clothing and must mark their houses, which must not be built higher than those of the Muslims, by distinctive signs; they must not ride horses or bear arms, and they must yield the way to Muslims; they must not scandalize the Muslims by openly performing their worship or their distinctive customs, such as drinking wine; they must not build new churches, synagogues, and hermitages; they must pay the poll-tax under humiliating conditions. It goes without saying that they are excluded from the specifically Muslim privileges...". The dhimmi cannot be a witness against a Muslim, he cannot be the guardian of his child who is a Muslim. [Schacht 130-132] In the U.S. Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment says:"...no State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Originally intended to end discrimination against black Americans, it was later extended to provide protection against discrimination on other criteria than race, and many minorities felt protected for the first time.
(3) Islam continuously manifests hostility towards human reason, rationality, critical discussion without which democracy, and scientific and moral progress are not possible. Again, I treat this subject elsewhere.
(4) The notion of an individual -- a moral person -- who is capable of taking rational decisions and accepting moral responsibility for his free acts is lacking in Islam. Ethics is reduced to obeying orders. Of course, there is the notion of an individual who has legal obligations, but not in the sense of an individual who may freely set the goals and contents of his life, of the individual who may decide what meaning he wants to give to his life. Under Islam, it is God and the Holy Law which set limits as to the possible agenda of your life.
It is worth emphasizing that the American Bill of Rights is essential for safeguarding the civil and political rights of an individual against the government, as Jefferson put it: "... A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference ". Individuals have rights that no mythical or mystical collective goal or will can justifiably deny. To quote Von Hayek: " individual freedom cannot be reconciled with the supremacy of one single purpose to which the whole society must be entirely and permanently subordinated ".The First Ten Amendments, and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution limit the power of the governments, they protect individuals from unfair actions by the government, they protect individuals' rights of freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and peaceful assembly, and the rights of persons accused of crimes against state abuses. They prevent a state from depriving anyone of civil liberties. Liberal democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom and attaches all possible value to each man or woman. Individualism is not a recognisable feature of Islam, instead the collective will of the Muslim people is constantly emphasised, there is certainly no notion of individual rights which only developed in the West, especially during the 18th century. The constant injunction to obey the Caliph who is God's Shadow on Earth is hardly inducive to creating a rights based individualist philosophy. The hostility to individual rights is manifest in this excerpt from a recent Muslim thinker who has written on human rights from an Islamic perspective, A.K.Brohi, a former Minister of Law and Religious Affairs in Pakistan:
" Human duties and rights have been vigorously defined and their orderly enforcement is the duty of the whole of organized communities and the task is specifically entrusted to the law enforcement organs of the state.The individual if necessary has to be sacrificed in order that the life of the organism be saved. Collectivity has a special sanctity attached to it in Islam.
"[In Islam] there are no "human rights or "freedoms" admissible to man in the sense in which modern man's thought, belief and practice understand them: in essence, the believer owes obligation or duties to God if only because he is called upon to obey the Divine Law and such Human rights as he is made to acknowledge seem to stem from his primary duty to obey God."
The totalitarian nature of this philosophy is evident, and further underlined by the line, " By accepting to live in Bondage to this Divine Law, man learns to be free ", which frighteningly reminds one of Orwell's " Freedom is Slavery ".
Another Muslim thinker wrote in 1979:
"The Western liberal emphasis upon freedom from restraint is alien to Islam....Personal freedom [in Islam] lies in surrendering to the Divine Will....It cannot be realized through liberation from external sources of restraint... individual freedom ends where the freedom of the community begins.... Human rights exist only in relation to human obligations....Those individuals who do not accept these obligations have no rights... Much of Muslim theology tends toward a totalitarian voluntarism ".
Here, at least, the author admits the totalitarian nature of Islam.
(5) The notion of the infallibility of a group and a "book" are impediments to moral, political and scientific progress
(6) A Muslim doesnot have the right to change his religion. Apostasy is punishable by death.
(7) Freedom of thought is discouraged in various forms and guises, any innovation is likely to be branded " blasphemy" which is punishable by death. Perhaps one of the greatest obstacles in Islam to a progress towards a liberal democracy is its emphasis that it is the final word of God, the ultimate code of conduct: ISLAM NEVER ALLOWS THE POSSIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES.By contrast, in a liberal democracy,what is meant by the freedom of thought, speech and press is the right to argue, the freedom to present another side of an argument, anyone may present an alternative philosophy, the majority do not have the right to prevent a minority from expressing its dissent, criticism or difference.
(8) Human Rights
The idea that there is good reason for ascribing rights to human beings simply because they are human beings is something which developed in Western civilisation. Some would trace the idea back to Plato and Aristotle, others to at least, the Stoics who maintained that there was a natural law, distinct from the laws of Athens or Rome, a law binding upon all men in such a manner that " whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature ". [quoted in Melden 1] Some philosophers have tried to ground these rights in human nature or the nature of man; while others, not happy with talk of human nature, since what we sometimes take to be human nature turns out to be a particularity of one specific culture or civilisation, prefer to talk of human rights in consequentialist terms. However, modern discussions by western philosophers of human rights nowhere appeal to God or Divine Will, but only to human reason, rational arguments and critical thought.
Most philosophers would agree that the notion of human rights involves the accompanying ideas of self-respect, moral dignity, free-agents, moral choice, person, the right to equal concern and respect. Since Locke's further development of the idea of human rights in the 17th century, modern advocates claim at least three things: (1) " that these rights are fundamental in the sense that without them there could not be any of the specific rights that are grounded in the specific social circumstances in which individuals live, (2) that just these rights cannot be relinquished, transferred, or forfeited (i.e., they cannot be alienated from them by anything that they or anyone else may do), since (3) they are rights that human beings have simply because they are human beings, and quite independently of their varying social circumstances and degrees of merit " [Melden 3].In other words, they are universal and not culturally bound or relative.
Under Islam, nothing like the above ideas has ever developed. Human beings have duties, duties towards God; only God has rights. Under Islam, there is no such thing as " the equal right of all men to be free ". Nowhere in modern Muslim discussions is there a clear account as to how " human rights " can be derived from " human duties" as described in the Sharia.
Lewis on "Islam and Liberal Democracy."
In an important article, " Islam and Liberal Democracy ", Bernard Lewis explains very well why Liberal Democracy never developed in Islam. Like many scholars of Islam, Lewis deplores the use of the term " Islamic Fundamentalist " as being inappropriate. I agree. I have already pointed out that, unlike Protestants, who have moved away from the literal interpretation of the Bible, Muslims, all Muslims, still take The Koran literally. Hence, in my view, there IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISLAM AND ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM Islam is deeply embedded in every Muslim society, and "fundamentalism" is simply the excess of this culture.
Lewis himself tells us that the Islamic fundamentalists intend " to govern by Islamic rules if they gain power ".The Islamic fundamentalists will apply Islam -- the Islam of Islamic Law, and all that it entails. Lewis also tells us that " their creed and political program are not compatible with liberal democracy ". I also agree. But now we see immediately why Lewis and Islamic apologists, in fact, find this term," Islamic fundamentalist ", so convenient, while, at the same time, deploring it. It is an extremely useful and face-saving device for those unable to face up to the fact that Islam itself is incompatible with democracy, and not just something we call " Islamic fundamentalism ". To repeat, Lewis himself says the latter will apply " Islamic rules ", now if their creed is incompatible with democracy, then these " Islamic rules " themselves must be incompatible with democracy. Thus " Islamic fundamentalist " enables the apologists to set up a specious distinction, a distinction without any justification.
The curious fact is that Lewis himself shows in his article why, by its very nature, Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy. The West developed certain characteristic institutions which were essential for the emergence of democracy. One such institution was the council or representative assembly, whose effective functioning was made possible by the principle embodied in Roman Law, that of the legal person -- a corporate entity that for legal purposes is treated as an individual, able to buy and sell, enter into contracts, appear as a defendant etc. There was no Islamic equivalent of the Roman senate or assembly or parliament. Islam simply lacked the legal recognition of corporate persons. (As Schacht put it, " Islam does not recognize juristic persons; not even the public treasury is construed as an institution... " [Schacht 125])
One of the major functions of these Western assemblies was legislative. But there was no legislative function in the Islamic state, and thus no need for legislative institutions. The Islamic state was a theocracy, in the literal sense of a polity ruled by God. For pious Muslims, legitimate authority comes from God alone, and the ruler derives his power from God and the holy law, and not from the people. Rulers were merely applying or interpreting God's law as revealed to Muhammad. Lacking legislative bodies, Islam did not develop any principle of representation, any procedure for choosing representatives, any definition of the franchise or any electoral system. Therefore it is not surprising, concludes Lewis, if the history of the Islamic states is " one of unrelieved autocracy. The Muslim subject owed obedience to a legitimate Muslim ruler as a religious duty. That is to say, disobedience was a sin as well as a crime ".
Having clearly shown that Islam is incompatible with Liberal Democracy, Lewis then tries to show that there might, after all, be elements in the Islamic tradition which are not hostile to democracy. He particularly leans heavily on the the elective and contractual element in the Islamic institution of the Caliphate. Lewis himself admits that the Islamic caliphate was an " autocracy ", but he also insists that it was not a " despotism ".
Lewis waxes lyrical about the caliph, insisting that the relationship between the Caliph and his subjects is contractual: " The bay'a [denoting the ceremony at the inauguration of a new caliph] was thus conceived as a contract by which the subjects undertook to obey and the Caliph in return undertook to perform certain duties specified by the jurists. If a Caliph failed in those duties -- and Islamic history shows that this was by no means a purely theoretical point -- he could, subject to certain conditions, be removed from office."
First, an autocracy is not a democracy; the distinction between autocracy and despotism is a dangerous and bogus one, often used in the past to legitimise undemocratic rule, indeed T.W. Arnold calls the power of the Caliph " despotic " (see below). Second, as it was originally elaborated, the orthodox doctrine emphasised two essential characteristics: that the caliph must be of the tribe of the Kuraish, and that he must receive unhesitating obedience, for anyone who rebels against the Caliph rebels against God. This duty to obedience to the established authorities is constantly emphasised in the Koran, e.g. Sura iv.59: " O you who believe ! Obey God, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority " [See also Sura iv.83]
As T.W. Arnold says, " This claim on obedience to the DESPOTIC [my emphases] power of the Khalifa as a religious duty was impressed upon the faithful by the designations that were applied to him from an early date, -- Khalifa of God, and Shadow of God upon earth ". Neither of the above "essential characteristics is democratic. Third," the elective " characteristic of the institution was purely " theoretical ", for the office, in fact, became hereditary in the families of the Ummayad and the Abbasid, from the reign of Mu'awiya (661 _680) almost every caliph had nominated his successor. As Arnold says," the FICTION of election was preserved in the practice of bai'a (or bay'a)".
Finally the functions of the Caliph clearly emphasise the undemocratic nature of the office. Al Mawardi (died 1058) and Ibn Khaldun define these functions as follows: the defence of the religion and the application of the divinely inspired law or Sharia, to sort out legal disputes, appointment of officials, various administrative duties, the waging of holy war or jihad against those who refuse to accept Islam or submit to Muslim rule. According to Ibn Khaldun he must belong to the tribe of Kuraish, and be of the male sex, again, not a democratic principle. Much has also been made of the Islamic principle of "consultation ". But Lewis dismisses this fairly briskly: " This principle has never been institutionalized, nor even formulated in the treaties of the holy law, though naturally rulers have from time to time consulted with their senior officials, more particularly in Ottoman times ".
Lewis lays a great store by Islamic pluralism and tolerance. But as I show in the next chapter, there never was an inter- faith utopia (to use Lewis' own phrase). Lewis also says: " Sectarian strife and religious persecution are not unknown in Islamic history, but they are rare and atypical..." And yet, earlier in the same article Lewis himself tells us: " But Islamic fundamentalism is just one stream among many.
In the fourteen centuries that have passed since the mission of the Prophet, there have been several such movements -- fanatical, intolerant, aggressive, and violent ". If Lewis is not formally contradicting himself, he is certainly seen to be wanting it both ways -- "several such movements" as opposed to "rare and atypical".
Conclusion:
The truth of the matter is that Islam will never achieve democracy and human rights if it insists on the application of the Sharia; and so long as there is no separation of church and state. But as Muir put it: " A reformed faith that should question the divine authority on which they [the institutions of Islam] rest, or attempt by rationalistic selection or abatement to effect a change, would be Islam no longer ".
Many Islamic reformers wanting to adopt Western institutions have pretended to find Islamic antecedents for them in order to make these foreign institutions palatable to their own people. But this strategy has led to much intellectual dishonesty and has left the problem where it was __ " the real Islam treats women as equals ", the real Islam is democratic " etc.. The real problem, whether the Sharia is any longer acceptable, has been left untouched.
Nor is it necessary to invent Islamic antecedents to accept the principles of democracy, human rights, the separation of church and state. India adopted democracy in 1947, and it has lasted to this day; and as far as I am aware, no one wasted time looking through the copious holy literature to justify the decision to adopt a parliamentary system at independence. The only country in the Islamic world which can be said to be a democracy is Turkey; and, significantly, it is the only Muslim country which has formally adopted the separation of religion and state as law. Islam has been removed from the Constitution, and the Sharia is no longer a part of the law of the country. 04.04
Ann Elizabeth Mayer: Islam & Human Rights
I propose to examine Ms Mayer's very important book on Islam and Human Rights. Even though I have one fundamental reservation about her book, and to which I shall refer later, I find her analysis excellent and very persuasive. Ms. Mayer shows with the utmost clarity how in various Islamic Human Rights schemes, " distinctive ISLAMIC [my emphasis] criteria " have been used to cut back on the freedoms guaranteed in international law, how for many Muslims the international guarantees exceed the limits of rights and freedoms permitted in Islam.
Ms Mayer also shows how the official Islamization programmes in, especially, the Sudan, Pakistan and Iran, have led to serious violations of the human rights of women, non- Muslims, the Bahai, the Ahmadis and other religious minorities. In these countries Islamization, " did much to eliminate due process, to erode the independence of the judiciary, to place legal proceedings under the control of political leaders, and to convert courts into instruments of repression and intimidation. Thus, in all three countries Islamization became associated with a decline in the quality of the administration of justice." [35]
Ms. Mayer is refreshingly free of inhibitions when attacking the various Islamic Human Rights schemes from the perspective of International Human Rights, which she takes to be universally valid.(" The way governments of countries treat those they govern should not be ruled off-limits to critical scholarly inquiry, and judging Islamic schemes of human rights by the standards of the international human rights norms that they seek to replace is entirely appropriate " [21]
Rejecting cultural relativism (without giving any philosophical arguments), Ms Mayer points out that, as a matter of empirical fact, there are many Muslims throughout the world who have and are risking their lives to " stand up for the same human rights principles that cultural relativists would maintain are not suited for application in the Muslim because of its dissimilar culture. Cultural relativists may fail to perceive how rapid urbanization, industrialisation, and factors like the growing power of the state are creating awareness of the need for human rights guarantees in non-Western cultures ". [While writing this chapter, I heard the news of the murder of Youcef Fathallah, president of the Algerian League for Human Rights, by Islamicists, (Le Monde 21 June 1994)]
Ms. Mayer compares the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] of 1948 with the 1981 Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights [UIDHR]. The latter was prepared by several Muslim countries under the auspices of the Islamic Council, a private, London -based organization affiliated with the Muslim World League, an international, nongovernmental organization " that tends to represent the interests and views of conservative Muslims ". Other Islamic human rights schemes examined are the Azhar Draft Constitution, prepared by the Islamic Research Academy of Cairo, which is affiliated with Al - Azhar University, " the most internationally prestigious institution of higher education in Sunni Islam, and a center of conservative Islamic thought ", and the 1979 Iranian Constitution, and the works of Muslim thinkers such as Mawdudi and Tabandeh.[27]
Her conclusion is that " Islam is viewed in these schemes as a device for restricting individual freedoms and keeping the individual in a subordinate place vis-à-vis the government and society ".[91]
Ms Mayer shows how, using the Sharia as their justification, Muslim conservatives have refused to recognize women as full, equal human beings, who deserve the same rights and freedoms as men. Women under these Islamic schemes are expected to marry, obey their husbands, bring up their children, stay at home, and stay out of public life altogether. She is not permitted to develop as an individual in her own right, acquire an education or get a job. These Islamic schemes provide no real protection for the rights of religious minorities. " In fact, to the extent that they deal with question of the rights of religious minorities, they seem to endorse premodern Sharia rules that call for non-Muslims to be relegated to an inferior status if they qualify as members of the ahl al-kitab [the People of the Book] and for them to be treated as nonpersons if they do not qualify for such inclusion " [160].
These Islamic schemes afford no real protections for freedom of religion:
"The failure of a single one of these Islamic human rights schemes to take a position against the application of the shar'ia death penalty for apostasy means that the authors of these schemes have neglected to confront and resolve the main issues involved in harmonizing international human rights and sharia standards....The authors' unwillingness to repudiate the rule that a person should be executed over a question of religious belief reveals the enormous gap that exists between their mentalities and the modern philosophy of human rights." [187]
One Fundamental Objection to Ms. Mayer's Analysis
Like practically every single book and article published since February 1989, especially for the non-specialist reader, Ms Mayer's book is at pains to point out that
(1) " Islam " is not monolithic, that there is no such thing as THE Islamic tradition, or just "one correct Islam " or one correct interpretation;
(2) that, in the Islamic Human Rights schemes examined and found wanting in terms of International norms, it is not Islam which is at fault, it is, at most, one particular interpretation of it by traditionalists or Muslim conservatives;
(3) that there is no such thing as THE sharia, i.e. Islamic law did not freeze at some arbitrary point in the past
(4) that, deep-down, Islam may not be hostile to rights and democracy, after all.
The above four points are not really argued for, that is not the purpose of her book. She explicitly states that the " core doctrines of Islam " are not being subjected to critical assessment. However, a close reading of Ms Mayer's book reveals that she is only, after all, paying lip-service, for ecumenical harmony, to the notion that there is no such thing as "Islam" about which we can make valid generalisations. In reality, Ms Mayer is as prone to sweeping negative statements and huge unflattering generalisations about " Islam " as any writer who does believe that there are clearly identifiable ISLAMIC DOCTRINES, which are independent of any capricious or dubious interpretations of the Koran or the Hadith, and, furthermore, that these recognisable doctrines are inimical to human rights and their development.
Here are some such generalisations, all of them true, in my view, about Islam, Islamic civilisation, Islamic tradition, Islamic orthodoxy, Islamic law that contradict Ms Mayer's pious hopes set forth above, points (1) _ (4):
Quote 1 " As we have seen, the individualism characteristic of Western civilisation was a fundamental ingredient in the development of human rights concepts. Individualism, however, is not an established feature of Muslim societies or of Islamic culture, nor can one find a historical example of an Islamic school of thought that celebrated individualism as a virtue. Islamic civilisation did not create an intellectual climate that was conducive to according priority to the protection of individual rights and freedoms ".[47]
We might point out that while Ms. Mayer accuses many westerners of taking Islam as a monolithic system, she herself is quite happy to generalise in the above manner both about Islam, AND the West. Is there such a thing as " the West "?
Quote 2 " Orthodox theologians in Sunni Islam were generally suspicious of human reason, fearing that it would lead Muslims to stray from the truth of Revelation. The prevailing view in the Sunni world...has been that because of their divine inspiration, sharia laws supercede reason.... Given the dominance of this mainstream Islamic view, it naturally became difficult to realize an Islamic version of the Age of Reason " [49]
Quote 4 " The analysis will show how Islamic rights schemes express and confirm the premodern values and priorities that have predominated in orthodox Islamic thought for more than a millennium ". [58]
Quote 5 " In such a scheme any challenges that might be made to Islamic law on the grounds that it denies basic rights guaranteed under constitutions or international law are ruled out ab initio; human reason is deemed inadequate to criticise what are treated as divine edicts.This affirms the traditional orthodox view, that the tenets of the shari'a are perfect and just, because they represent the will of the Creator, being derived from divinely inspired sources." [58]
Quote 6 " One notes that Brohi is sometimes speaking of subordination to God and Islamic law, which is clearly required in the Islamic tradition ".[62]
Quote 7 " Since there was no human rights tradition in Islamic civilisation... " [73]
Quote 8 " Although in Islamic law one can discern elements that in some ways anticipate modern notions of equality, one does not find any counterpart of the principle of equal protection under the law." [98]
Quote 9 "...But Islamic clerics and Islamic institutions have by and large manifested strong opposition to allowing women to escape from their cloistered, subordinate, domestic roles " [112]
Occasionally, Ms Mayer's desperate attempts to exonerate Islam lead her to bad arguments and contradictions. In her preface, she writes:
" Even without studying the question of how Islam relates to human rights issues, my experience in work on behalf of the cause of human rights would have sufficed to convince me that Islam is not the cause of the human rights problems endemic to the Middle East. Human rights abuses are every bit as prevalent and just as severe in countries where Islamic law is in abeyance or consciously violated as in countries where it is, at least officially, the legal norm. "
References:
• Reformation of Islam "The St. Petersburg Declaration"
• UN Human Rights Council banned Discussion of religious questions • Incredulous UN Bans Criticism of Islam • Jihad Against Free Speech
Islamic states draw new battle lines over Freedom of ExpressionPetition for defence of individual rights at the UN Human Rights CouncilGrowing opposition to the concept of "defamation of religion"How Some Europeans and the UN Are Helping Islamists Undermine Freedom
The UN must not give in to Islamic criticismIn the name of Islamophobia, will the OIC soon ‘Rule the Waves’ at the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council?Religion and Freedom of Expression in the Human Rights Council
Criticism of religion is not blasphemyAn Islamic Blasphemy Law? Let’s Call Their BluffIslamic states draw new battle lines over Freedom of Expression
Creeping Dhimmitude at the United NationsWorld’s Press Criticises UN Human Rights CouncilIHEU "ambushed" at Human Rights Council
• Universal Human Rights and "Human Rights in Islam"• Universal Declaration of Human Rights• Islamic Law vs Human Rights• Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam - Diverges from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in key respects
Why Europeans Should Support Israel
1948, Israel, and the Palestinians - The True StoryThe Hamas Charter - The Covenant of the Hamas 1988New translation of Hamas charter contains anti-semitismArab anti-Semitism is strategic threat, says study
Islam’s Jew-Hating Hadith Matter TodayAntisemitism in the Qur’an: Motifs and Historical ManifestationsThe Legacy of Islamic AntisemitismHitler's Legacy: Islamic Antisemitism in the Middle East
Islam and democracy: The theory - and the practice?
ALGERIA: Political killings, Censorship, Harassment & Intimidation
BAHRAIN: Executions, Abuses of detainees & Censorship
EGYPT: Censorship, Limited Judicial Independence & Police Tortures
IRAN: Torture, Repressed Minorities, Discriminated Women, Unfair Trials, Censorship & Executions
LYBIA: Censorship, Killings of Demonstrators & Prisoners
MOROCCO: Discriminated Women, Abused Prisoners, Migrants & Refugees
OMAN: Discriminated Migrants, Abused Woman & Domestic Workers, Trafficking in Human Beings
IRAQ: Violence against women, Thousands of killed Civilians & Executions
KUWAIT: Torture, Abuse of Migrant Workers & Executions
QUATAR: Violence against Women, Human Trafficking, Torture & ill-Treatment
TUNISIA: Censorship, Limited Judicial Independence, Torture & ill-Treatment
SAUDI ARABIA: Violence against Women, Migrant worker Abuse, Torture, Unfair Trials, Censorship & Executions
SYRIA: Censorship, Torture, Arbitrary Detention, Discrimination of Woman & Minorities
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Stoning, Flogging, Death Penalties & Cruel Judicial Punishments
YEMEN: Executions, Censorship, Political Prisoners & Unfair Trials
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Your brain on religion
This is your brain on Religion
I am pleased to share the following article "this is your your brain on religion" published in the USA Today. Article follows my commentary.
As an individual researcher committed to Religious Pluralism and Pluralistic governance, I am in sync with the author, indeed, I have just written an article on essence of God, religion and pluralism. A few excerpts from the article;
Even though the claims of the self appointed guardians of religion tend to be based in arrogance, religion itself is opposed to arrogance. Indeed, religion is about humility. The claims of truth are fine, but when that truth is based on denying other versions of the truth, then it is sheer arrogance and strips the humility from religion and becomes dirty politics. Furthermore, claims like the best, the oldest, the wisest, the peaceful, the non-violent are all colored with arrogance and goes against the very grain of the religion; humility. We need to go back to the basics and do the research and give credit to God’s wisdom; let’s not lock up God and confine his words to mean exclusive benefits to us. God cannot be a small guy in his outlook towards his creation.
As a religious individual I know that God loves the “forgiver” the most and likes the “arrogant” the least. For it is the arrogance that breeds conflicts and disturbs peace and balance in the society. The ones who care about (God’s) creation; life and environment are blessed with serene happiness, while others have to earn it. This is indeed the wisdom of religion, every religion.
The frustration comes when we cannot find answers for many questions in our own faith, and sometimes the grass looks greener on the other side. I urge you to spend the time in learning about your own faith; you will find the beauty and wisdom in it. If you do not get the right answers from the clergy, it does not mean there is deficiency in your faith, it simply means neither one has understood it.
When you find at peace with yourselves and what is around you, when you feel that you do not hate any one, do not cultivate ill-will towards others and do not look down upon others, then you have become a peace maker yourselves. You have understood the wisdom of your own faith, and you would have earned the capacity to be a contributor towards peace and balance towards what is around you. You cannot be secure and safe when others around you are not. As beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I would say, faith is in the heart of the believer. Your faith is beautiful, stick with it, however, you should have complete freedom to chose what appeals to your religion bud.
Each one of us is dear to the creator and it is our individual and collective responsibility to keep that ecological, social, moral or spiritual balance within us and with what surrounds us; life and environment. Those of us who sin, i.e., creating an imbalance in the society through murder, theft, falsities or taking advantage of others, will pay a price for it in terms of un-settling emotions and discomfort within. Those who work for keeping that balance intact will rejoice a balanced tranquil life.
BOTTOM LINE:
Arrogance, malice, ill-will or hate towards others knocks off your God given spiritual balance and takes away your peace of mind. You are responsible for your happiness, and not your Imam, Rabbi, Pastor, Pundit or clergy. Most of them have a business to run and resort to putting down other faiths, as if God has signed a deal with them behind other’s back. No, God is not a sneaky thing, and he will not to that.
To be religious is to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill indeed that is the purpose of all spiritual systems from Atheism to Zoroastrianism and every tradition in between.
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer, Moderator and a Blogger on Pluralism, Interfaith, civil societies, Terrorism, Peace, Islam, and India. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television networks offering a pluralistic perspective on issues of the day. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/ Mike is a conflict mitigator and a goodwill nurturer. The theme is consistent in his speeches, writings and workshops he conducts.
# # #
This is your brain on religion
Published in the USA Today, Today June 21, 2009
Faith can bring out the best in people (love, generosity, compassion) — and the worst (fear, hatred, violence). Whether people are the former or the latter depends on how they view the God they worship.
By Andrew Newberg
When I was in high school, I dated a girl whose family regarded themselves as "born-again" Christians. It was my first encounter with devoutly religious people who strongly disagreed with my perspective on faith. They were always pleasant to me, but they were quite clear that in their view I had deeply sinned by not turning to Jesus. Oh, and because of this, I was going to hell.
(Illustration by Web Bryant./USA TODAY)
It's tough enough being a teenager, but this was too much. The family's judgment disturbed me on two levels. First, I didn't like the thought of going to hell, but at the same time, their beliefs also challenged me to evaluate my own beliefs vigorously.
Distress and anxiety followed, and I realized that this was the first time that I had ever experienced such strong negative feelings about religion. And 30 years later, this episode still resonates as I conduct extensive research on religious practices and beliefs and their impact on the human person.
The research that I have come across, if not definitive, seems clear: Religion and spiritual practices generally have a positive effect on one's physical, emotional and neurological health. People who engage in religious activities tend to cope better with emotional problems, have fewer addictions and better overall health. They might even live longer than those who lead more secular lives. Indeed, many studies document that religious and spiritual individuals find more meaning in life.
Our studies at Penn's Center for Spirituality and the Mind (in conjunction with colleague Mark Waldman) of the effects of different spiritual practices, such as meditation and prayer, also reveal significant improvements in memory, cognition and compassion while simultaneously reducing anxiety, depression, irritability and stress (even when done in a non-theological context). One might come to the conclusion, then, that being religious or spiritual is a good thing. Perhaps God is great.
But not so fast. We also discovered that religion's influence on people depends very much on how they view their God.
Which God?
There seems to be little question that when people view God as loving, forgiving, compassionate and supportive, this more likely results in a very positive view of themselves, and of the world around them. But when God is viewed as dispassionate, vengeful and unforgiving, this can have deleterious effects on one's physical and mental health. Again, the research is clear: If you ruminate on negative emotions, they activate the areas of the brain that are involved in anger, fear and stress. This can ultimately damage important parts of the brain and the body. What's worse, negative emotions can spill over into outward behaviors that generate fear, distrust, hatred, animosity and violence toward people who hold different or opposing beliefs. Thus, it becomes more easy to believe that "I, and my religion, is right and you, and your religion, are wrong." It is this destructive religious rhetoric that atheists are quick to point their fingers at when focusing on the negative qualities of faith. In fact, reading some of the following quotes could be bad for your brain if it evokes a fearful, anxious or hateful response:
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good. … Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country." — Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, one of the more extreme anti-abortion groups, 1993.
"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions, but I don't have to be nice to them." — Televangelist Pat Robertson, 1991.
Fortunately, surveys suggest that only a small percentage of Americans hold such hostile beliefs. Unfortunately, this minority often attracts the greatest amount of camera time and ink, too. But what is truly frightening is the fact that 1% translates into 3 million potentially violent citizens in our country alone. And this certainly plays out on the global stage, as beliefs conflict and terrorism fosters fear, hatred and ultimately violence.
There is another potential dark side to religion. As I have witnessed at the hospital in which I work, when people feel that they contracted a disease because God is punishing them, such individuals may not follow doctor's orders, keep appointments or take medications as directed. After all, why try to get better when God is trying to punish you? Research confirms that people who hold a punitive image of God can compromise their immune system and psychological health, thus prolonging their suffering and illness. Currently I, along with researchers at other universities, am developing simple strategies to show people how they can turn negative religious attitudes into a more positive framework that will help them deal more effectively with their health problems, and thus improve their quality of life.
So how can a person of faith guard against the negative side of religiosity and spirituality? Our research findings suggest that all one needs to do is to stay intensely focused on positive and loving concepts — of ourselves, others and our deepest values and beliefs. Obsessively focusing on any form of negativity — be it religious, political, or interpersonal — damages social empathy and cooperation.
In this sense, one can argue that religious and spiritual activities might not only be beneficial, they also might be necessary for helping people find more compassionate approaches toward themselves and toward others. God only knows that politicians and CEOs aren't doing much to generate compassion these days. So it is easy to argue, from a sociological perspective, that religion serves an essential role by directing people into their deepest values concerning life. In this way, God may be good, if not great, at helping people to be compassionate, forgiving and loving.
Battle in the brain
Virtually every religion — including the most conservative sects — preaches positive concepts, such as "love thy neighbor" and "to forgive is divine." Religions often encourage us to seek positive emotions such as joy, peace and hope. But we must always be aware of the eternal battle between those parts of the brain that are prone to push others away, and the parts that are inclined to build cooperative alliances with our fellow human beings in times of need.
In this sense, whether we embrace spiritual or secular values, the ultimate goal is the same. For as Albert Einstein stated when he described the similarities between spiritual and scientific epiphanies, it is the overwhelming awe and beauty of the universe and the deep sense of connectedness to the world that we all seek, if not crave.
At their best, both science and religion can evoke inspirational meaning in our lives, and when this occurs, God and science are great.
But we always have to watch out for the times when God, religion, or science can turn a blind eye toward others. We have a brain that is filled with both loving and hateful ideas. We can turn to religion and spirituality as a way to foster the good in us, except, of course, when we don't.
Andrew Newberg is associate professor of radiology and psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. He and Mark Waldman are co-authors of the new book How God Changes Your Brain. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/this-is-your-brain-on-religion-.html#more
# # #
I am pleased to share the following article "this is your your brain on religion" published in the USA Today. Article follows my commentary.
As an individual researcher committed to Religious Pluralism and Pluralistic governance, I am in sync with the author, indeed, I have just written an article on essence of God, religion and pluralism. A few excerpts from the article;
Even though the claims of the self appointed guardians of religion tend to be based in arrogance, religion itself is opposed to arrogance. Indeed, religion is about humility. The claims of truth are fine, but when that truth is based on denying other versions of the truth, then it is sheer arrogance and strips the humility from religion and becomes dirty politics. Furthermore, claims like the best, the oldest, the wisest, the peaceful, the non-violent are all colored with arrogance and goes against the very grain of the religion; humility. We need to go back to the basics and do the research and give credit to God’s wisdom; let’s not lock up God and confine his words to mean exclusive benefits to us. God cannot be a small guy in his outlook towards his creation.
As a religious individual I know that God loves the “forgiver” the most and likes the “arrogant” the least. For it is the arrogance that breeds conflicts and disturbs peace and balance in the society. The ones who care about (God’s) creation; life and environment are blessed with serene happiness, while others have to earn it. This is indeed the wisdom of religion, every religion.
The frustration comes when we cannot find answers for many questions in our own faith, and sometimes the grass looks greener on the other side. I urge you to spend the time in learning about your own faith; you will find the beauty and wisdom in it. If you do not get the right answers from the clergy, it does not mean there is deficiency in your faith, it simply means neither one has understood it.
When you find at peace with yourselves and what is around you, when you feel that you do not hate any one, do not cultivate ill-will towards others and do not look down upon others, then you have become a peace maker yourselves. You have understood the wisdom of your own faith, and you would have earned the capacity to be a contributor towards peace and balance towards what is around you. You cannot be secure and safe when others around you are not. As beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I would say, faith is in the heart of the believer. Your faith is beautiful, stick with it, however, you should have complete freedom to chose what appeals to your religion bud.
Each one of us is dear to the creator and it is our individual and collective responsibility to keep that ecological, social, moral or spiritual balance within us and with what surrounds us; life and environment. Those of us who sin, i.e., creating an imbalance in the society through murder, theft, falsities or taking advantage of others, will pay a price for it in terms of un-settling emotions and discomfort within. Those who work for keeping that balance intact will rejoice a balanced tranquil life.
BOTTOM LINE:
Arrogance, malice, ill-will or hate towards others knocks off your God given spiritual balance and takes away your peace of mind. You are responsible for your happiness, and not your Imam, Rabbi, Pastor, Pundit or clergy. Most of them have a business to run and resort to putting down other faiths, as if God has signed a deal with them behind other’s back. No, God is not a sneaky thing, and he will not to that.
To be religious is to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill indeed that is the purpose of all spiritual systems from Atheism to Zoroastrianism and every tradition in between.
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer, Moderator and a Blogger on Pluralism, Interfaith, civil societies, Terrorism, Peace, Islam, and India. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television networks offering a pluralistic perspective on issues of the day. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/ Mike is a conflict mitigator and a goodwill nurturer. The theme is consistent in his speeches, writings and workshops he conducts.
# # #
This is your brain on religion
Published in the USA Today, Today June 21, 2009
Faith can bring out the best in people (love, generosity, compassion) — and the worst (fear, hatred, violence). Whether people are the former or the latter depends on how they view the God they worship.
By Andrew Newberg
When I was in high school, I dated a girl whose family regarded themselves as "born-again" Christians. It was my first encounter with devoutly religious people who strongly disagreed with my perspective on faith. They were always pleasant to me, but they were quite clear that in their view I had deeply sinned by not turning to Jesus. Oh, and because of this, I was going to hell.
(Illustration by Web Bryant./USA TODAY)
It's tough enough being a teenager, but this was too much. The family's judgment disturbed me on two levels. First, I didn't like the thought of going to hell, but at the same time, their beliefs also challenged me to evaluate my own beliefs vigorously.
Distress and anxiety followed, and I realized that this was the first time that I had ever experienced such strong negative feelings about religion. And 30 years later, this episode still resonates as I conduct extensive research on religious practices and beliefs and their impact on the human person.
The research that I have come across, if not definitive, seems clear: Religion and spiritual practices generally have a positive effect on one's physical, emotional and neurological health. People who engage in religious activities tend to cope better with emotional problems, have fewer addictions and better overall health. They might even live longer than those who lead more secular lives. Indeed, many studies document that religious and spiritual individuals find more meaning in life.
Our studies at Penn's Center for Spirituality and the Mind (in conjunction with colleague Mark Waldman) of the effects of different spiritual practices, such as meditation and prayer, also reveal significant improvements in memory, cognition and compassion while simultaneously reducing anxiety, depression, irritability and stress (even when done in a non-theological context). One might come to the conclusion, then, that being religious or spiritual is a good thing. Perhaps God is great.
But not so fast. We also discovered that religion's influence on people depends very much on how they view their God.
Which God?
There seems to be little question that when people view God as loving, forgiving, compassionate and supportive, this more likely results in a very positive view of themselves, and of the world around them. But when God is viewed as dispassionate, vengeful and unforgiving, this can have deleterious effects on one's physical and mental health. Again, the research is clear: If you ruminate on negative emotions, they activate the areas of the brain that are involved in anger, fear and stress. This can ultimately damage important parts of the brain and the body. What's worse, negative emotions can spill over into outward behaviors that generate fear, distrust, hatred, animosity and violence toward people who hold different or opposing beliefs. Thus, it becomes more easy to believe that "I, and my religion, is right and you, and your religion, are wrong." It is this destructive religious rhetoric that atheists are quick to point their fingers at when focusing on the negative qualities of faith. In fact, reading some of the following quotes could be bad for your brain if it evokes a fearful, anxious or hateful response:
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good. … Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country." — Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, one of the more extreme anti-abortion groups, 1993.
"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions, but I don't have to be nice to them." — Televangelist Pat Robertson, 1991.
Fortunately, surveys suggest that only a small percentage of Americans hold such hostile beliefs. Unfortunately, this minority often attracts the greatest amount of camera time and ink, too. But what is truly frightening is the fact that 1% translates into 3 million potentially violent citizens in our country alone. And this certainly plays out on the global stage, as beliefs conflict and terrorism fosters fear, hatred and ultimately violence.
There is another potential dark side to religion. As I have witnessed at the hospital in which I work, when people feel that they contracted a disease because God is punishing them, such individuals may not follow doctor's orders, keep appointments or take medications as directed. After all, why try to get better when God is trying to punish you? Research confirms that people who hold a punitive image of God can compromise their immune system and psychological health, thus prolonging their suffering and illness. Currently I, along with researchers at other universities, am developing simple strategies to show people how they can turn negative religious attitudes into a more positive framework that will help them deal more effectively with their health problems, and thus improve their quality of life.
So how can a person of faith guard against the negative side of religiosity and spirituality? Our research findings suggest that all one needs to do is to stay intensely focused on positive and loving concepts — of ourselves, others and our deepest values and beliefs. Obsessively focusing on any form of negativity — be it religious, political, or interpersonal — damages social empathy and cooperation.
In this sense, one can argue that religious and spiritual activities might not only be beneficial, they also might be necessary for helping people find more compassionate approaches toward themselves and toward others. God only knows that politicians and CEOs aren't doing much to generate compassion these days. So it is easy to argue, from a sociological perspective, that religion serves an essential role by directing people into their deepest values concerning life. In this way, God may be good, if not great, at helping people to be compassionate, forgiving and loving.
Battle in the brain
Virtually every religion — including the most conservative sects — preaches positive concepts, such as "love thy neighbor" and "to forgive is divine." Religions often encourage us to seek positive emotions such as joy, peace and hope. But we must always be aware of the eternal battle between those parts of the brain that are prone to push others away, and the parts that are inclined to build cooperative alliances with our fellow human beings in times of need.
In this sense, whether we embrace spiritual or secular values, the ultimate goal is the same. For as Albert Einstein stated when he described the similarities between spiritual and scientific epiphanies, it is the overwhelming awe and beauty of the universe and the deep sense of connectedness to the world that we all seek, if not crave.
At their best, both science and religion can evoke inspirational meaning in our lives, and when this occurs, God and science are great.
But we always have to watch out for the times when God, religion, or science can turn a blind eye toward others. We have a brain that is filled with both loving and hateful ideas. We can turn to religion and spirituality as a way to foster the good in us, except, of course, when we don't.
Andrew Newberg is associate professor of radiology and psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. He and Mark Waldman are co-authors of the new book How God Changes Your Brain. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/this-is-your-brain-on-religion-.html#more
# # #
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Kamala Das, A Pluralist passes.
Dear Friends,
A legend passes away in the state of Kerala, India. She was a pluralist who honored and respected every faith. I am pleased to attach a note from Madhav Nallapath, who is a friend and visited us here in Dallas, he was a former editor of Times of India and a legend himself in human rights and civil societies. He is aslo a good friend of Jerry Middents.
I was able to understand a few words in Malyalam language, but not able to translate. I hope some one can find an English version of the Youtube for the world wide audience.
Mike Ghouse
Amma = Mother
Trivandrum = A Major City in the state of Kerala, India
Kerala is the only state in India with highest literacy rate
# # #
Mike Please check the net, including YouTube, for details on the passing of my mother Kamala Das,who - as you know, declared her allegience to Islam in 1999. Amma was laid to rest at the Palayam Mosque,Trivandrum,with full state honours. Although the mosque is considered Wahabbi,her Hindu daughters-in-law helped bathe her before the funeral,while her sons stood at the front on the congregation during the prayers.Women and men of all faiths - including the Halleguas, a Jewish family that has lived in Trivandrum for hundreds of years - attended the prayers at the mosque. Subsequently,the mosque has permitted those of any faith to visit its grounds and say a silent prayer at the gravesite. Amma believed this tolerance was Islam. In front of live television,the Muslims of the state of Kerala showed that she was right Cleo Paskal ( me@cleopaskal.com) was witness to this evidence that the clash of civilisations need not be an inevitability regards Madhav
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybavPVA6TUw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOfEUVZssY4
People from all walks of life, including poets, writers and political leaders, on Tuseday paid homage to well-known poetess Kamala Surayya during the interment at Palayam Juma Masjid, Trivandrum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iGBbNAZSe8&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybavPVA6TUw&feature=related
A legend passes away in the state of Kerala, India. She was a pluralist who honored and respected every faith. I am pleased to attach a note from Madhav Nallapath, who is a friend and visited us here in Dallas, he was a former editor of Times of India and a legend himself in human rights and civil societies. He is aslo a good friend of Jerry Middents.
I was able to understand a few words in Malyalam language, but not able to translate. I hope some one can find an English version of the Youtube for the world wide audience.
Mike Ghouse
Amma = Mother
Trivandrum = A Major City in the state of Kerala, India
Kerala is the only state in India with highest literacy rate
# # #
Mike Please check the net, including YouTube, for details on the passing of my mother Kamala Das,who - as you know, declared her allegience to Islam in 1999. Amma was laid to rest at the Palayam Mosque,Trivandrum,with full state honours. Although the mosque is considered Wahabbi,her Hindu daughters-in-law helped bathe her before the funeral,while her sons stood at the front on the congregation during the prayers.Women and men of all faiths - including the Halleguas, a Jewish family that has lived in Trivandrum for hundreds of years - attended the prayers at the mosque. Subsequently,the mosque has permitted those of any faith to visit its grounds and say a silent prayer at the gravesite. Amma believed this tolerance was Islam. In front of live television,the Muslims of the state of Kerala showed that she was right Cleo Paskal ( me@cleopaskal.com) was witness to this evidence that the clash of civilisations need not be an inevitability regards Madhav
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybavPVA6TUw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOfEUVZssY4
People from all walks of life, including poets, writers and political leaders, on Tuseday paid homage to well-known poetess Kamala Surayya during the interment at Palayam Juma Masjid, Trivandrum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iGBbNAZSe8&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybavPVA6TUw&feature=related
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Muslims Condemn display of hate at Holocaust Museum
.
Muslims Condemn display of hate at Holocaust Museum As Americans and as Muslims, we condemn this expression of hate; killing innocent people at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC.
Continued: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2009/06/muslims-condemn-display-of-hate-at.html
#
Muslims Condemn display of hate at Holocaust Museum As Americans and as Muslims, we condemn this expression of hate; killing innocent people at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC.
Continued: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2009/06/muslims-condemn-display-of-hate-at.html
#
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Buddhism & Islam, a fascinating look
Buddhism and Islam: A fascinating look at their relationship through
centuries
I am pleased to share the following article on Buddhism and Islam. A while back I wrote a piece on the subject and indeed a few times I have given a talk on Buddhism and Islam. There are quite a lot of things we can see occurring in both the traditions.
When Buddha was asked some 2500 years ago by his disciples, as to which path is better; the ascetic one or the worldly one – in the former you renounce every pleasure of life and in the latter you are driven by it. The enlightened one says follow the middle path.
Prophet Muhammad some 1200 years later tells one of his associates to quit praying all times and go attend to the family matters and advised all his followers to choose moderation or the middle path.
The concept of God can come close – In Islam God is not a being, not a male, not a female and not a body, it is the energy, the light and the Noor, where as in Buddhism God is a non-entity.
In both the traditions the focus is on one’s deed to achieve salvation. Buddha laid out 8 truths, following which brings one freedom from the bondage of pleasures and pain and accomplishes Nirvana, where as the Prophet said to his daughter – it is your deeds that will earn you the entrance to paradise.
A few people in each faith are afraid to learn about other faiths, they fear that their already weak faith may dissipate, so don’t learn other faiths, lest I may choose the other. Friends, each faith is beautiful to the believer, and studying other faiths does not mean disloyalty to your own, rather the search will enhance one’s own faith – knowing that every faith brings peace of mind and a greater understanding of creation without negating the other.
May the causer of the universe bless us all to open our hearts and mind towards the fellow beings?
Mike Ghouse is a Dallas based Speaker, Writer, Thinker and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and television networks offering pluralistic perspectives on issues of the day including Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, Peace, India and Civic issues. His comments, news analysis and opinions are on the Blogs listed at his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/. Mike is a Dallasite for three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at Ghousemike@gmail.com
# # #
Buddhism and Islam:
A fascinating look at their relationship through centuries
By Juhi Shahin
Montreal: Buddhism and Islam are two religions we do not hear mentioned in
one breath very often. So it was with great anticipation that I went to
attend the conference, Buddhism & Islam - Encounters, Histories, Dialogue
and Representation held at McGill University, May 29 and 30, 2009. The
conference indeed turned out to be eye-opening.
Not many know that the encounters and relationship between the two
religions commenced almost at the very beginning of Islamic history. The
first panellist, Xinru Liu, opened the conference with her research on
Tukharistan (northern Afghanistan), Sogdiana (southern Uzbekistan) from
6th to 8th century, which was the junction on the Silk Route for routes
going east and west and north and south. This region was Buddhist and
Zoroastrian before the Muslims came in as invaders and traders. There was
not a sudden conversion because of the fear of the Muslim armies as is
generally believed, but close collaboration and cooperation in the region.
The people there greatly appreciated the opportunities that came with
joining the Islamic culture and civilization. For some, it was also
convenient to be Muslim under the Muslim regime and pay no taxes, since in
Umayyad times Muslims did not need to pay taxes. However, once Muslim,
they continued to be so and the region produced many philosophers,
scientists and mathematicians who took Islamic civilization to new
heights, while as Liu argues, also preserving their pre-Islamic local
cultural traditions.
Equally interesting in this panel was Alexandre Papas' paper in which he
discussed the writings of two Ottoman travellers to China in the early
twentieth century. The dialogue between the Muslim authors and Buddhist
monks was discussed. It was interesting to see that they discussed the
similarities and dissimilarities between the two religions as well as
political issues with both their countries facing Western domination.
However, the highlight of the day was Georgios Halkias' paper on "Muslim
Queens of Buddhist Kingdoms," which was about the practice of bride
exchange in Ladakh and Baltistan. According to Halkias, "the Muslim Queens
of the Himalayas stand witness to a rich cultural fusion, an old blend of
Arab, Persian, Mongol, Indian and Tibetan elements. Ever since the
conversion of the Baltis to Islam in the fourteenth century the Muslim
princess-brides stood as promises of unity and peace and as a means of
alleviating conflict between the warring houses of Baltistan and the
Buddhist kingdoms of Ladakh." Interestingly, these Muslim queens ruled the
Buddhist kingdoms as well, longest rule having been of thirteen years, and
were patrons of both Buddhist monasteries and mosques. Muslim and Buddhist
interactions in Tibet discussed by José Ignacio Cabezón, was also quite
absorbing. According to him, "Muslims - both Muslims of Kashmiri origin
and ethnic Chinese Muslims - have lived among Tibetans for centuries."
However, he argues that the "Chinese annexation of the Tibetan plateau has
exacerbated the tensions between these two groups."
The two papers presented on Buddhism in Muslim Indonesia by Karel
Steenbrink and Hudaya Kandahjaya were complementary and explained a unique
situation really well. Buddhism and Islam have lived together in the
region since the arrival of Islam in 1200, Buddhism these days being
mainly represented by the Chinese community. Indonesia, in spite of having
the largest Muslim population in the world, does not call itself an
Islamic state. Six religions are recognized by the state of Indonesia.
However, people of all religious communities have to accept the Pancasila
ideology, one of its principles being, "belief in the one and high
divinity." This leads to the development of a unique situation for the
Buddhists, since in their belief, the presence or absence of God is left
undefined. Some Buddhists in compliance with Pancashila and also because
of Muslim influence are using the concept of Adi Buddha, a form of
divinity. This is seen as problematic by others who perceive it as forming
a new kind of theistic Buddhism.
The two papers on Thailand brought about two contrasting pictures of the
region. Charles Keyes of University of Washington gave more of a
historical perspective telling us that by the beginning of twentieth
century, Muslims were a distinct minority in Thailand, they came from
South Asia, China, Malaysia and some were also ethnic Thais. However, with
the restructuring of the state in the late nineteenth century and growth
of nationalist feelings, promotion of Buddhism became fundamental to
Thailand. The result of this being that the Muslims then became the
"others" or what is called khaek in Thailand. This rhetoric of difference
has led to "some Muslims, especially Malay-speaking Muslims, have embraced
fundamentalist versions of Islam and some Thai politicians and Buddhist
leaders have accentuated Buddhist nationalism."
On the other hand, Alexander Horstmann's paper focused on the small
village of Ban Tamot in Southern Thailand, where the Muslims are mainly
concentrated. He talked about an ancestor-worshipping ritual held in the
cemetery, in which local Imams as well as Buddhist monks participate. Very
interestingly, "the basis of this ritual is the mutual bond of kinship
relations that criss-cross through the religious communities and the local
elites. Thus, the Imam of Ban Klong Nui is related to the old Buddhist
abbot of Wat Tamot. Second, the village spirit is believed to be of
Malay-Muslim origin ... Thus, while not explicitly announced, the
participation of Muslims is crucial to the ritual."
An interesting project on Islam in Tibet has just been finished by the
Warburg Institute of the University of London. Two of the papers presented
on Rashid al-Din's (1247-1318) 'Life of the Buddha' were part of the
project. Rashid al-Din's book is considered the oldest World History book,
in which he dedicates a separate section on the life of the Buddha. Ronit
Yoeli-Tlalim highlighted the aspects from Tibetan Buddhism that are
present in the work and also attempted to give evidence of the presence of
Buddhists in the Ilkhanid court. Commenting on the same text, Anna Akasoy
brought out the use of Islamic terminology by Muslims in trying to
understand Buddhist concepts. This is what the two scholars called a
"cultural translation", where Buddhists concepts were Islamicized in order
to be understood.
The conference ended with another interesting panel on Religion and
Local/Global Identities, where an effort was made to understand how one
community perceives another in various places, Japan, India, Thailand and
Malaysia. And how contemporary scenarios like the 9/11 affect relations,
although needless to say, do not alter them completely. This conference
gave a much needed comparative religious perspective. More such efforts
are needed to bring out the fact that most religious people when left to
themselves are able to live together in a collaborative and cooperative
way, enriching all the cultures and religions involved. This "cultural
translation" is an ongoing process, in spite of the hoopla surrounding
fundamentalisms of all sorts today.
Juhi Shahin, the author of The War Within Islam: Niyaz Fatehpuri's
Struggle Against The Fundamentalists, is a PhD student at Tufts
University, Boston, USA
URL of this page:
http://www.newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1442
centuries
I am pleased to share the following article on Buddhism and Islam. A while back I wrote a piece on the subject and indeed a few times I have given a talk on Buddhism and Islam. There are quite a lot of things we can see occurring in both the traditions.
When Buddha was asked some 2500 years ago by his disciples, as to which path is better; the ascetic one or the worldly one – in the former you renounce every pleasure of life and in the latter you are driven by it. The enlightened one says follow the middle path.
Prophet Muhammad some 1200 years later tells one of his associates to quit praying all times and go attend to the family matters and advised all his followers to choose moderation or the middle path.
The concept of God can come close – In Islam God is not a being, not a male, not a female and not a body, it is the energy, the light and the Noor, where as in Buddhism God is a non-entity.
In both the traditions the focus is on one’s deed to achieve salvation. Buddha laid out 8 truths, following which brings one freedom from the bondage of pleasures and pain and accomplishes Nirvana, where as the Prophet said to his daughter – it is your deeds that will earn you the entrance to paradise.
A few people in each faith are afraid to learn about other faiths, they fear that their already weak faith may dissipate, so don’t learn other faiths, lest I may choose the other. Friends, each faith is beautiful to the believer, and studying other faiths does not mean disloyalty to your own, rather the search will enhance one’s own faith – knowing that every faith brings peace of mind and a greater understanding of creation without negating the other.
May the causer of the universe bless us all to open our hearts and mind towards the fellow beings?
Mike Ghouse is a Dallas based Speaker, Writer, Thinker and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and television networks offering pluralistic perspectives on issues of the day including Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, Peace, India and Civic issues. His comments, news analysis and opinions are on the Blogs listed at his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/. Mike is a Dallasite for three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at Ghousemike@gmail.com
# # #
Buddhism and Islam:
A fascinating look at their relationship through centuries
By Juhi Shahin
Montreal: Buddhism and Islam are two religions we do not hear mentioned in
one breath very often. So it was with great anticipation that I went to
attend the conference, Buddhism & Islam - Encounters, Histories, Dialogue
and Representation held at McGill University, May 29 and 30, 2009. The
conference indeed turned out to be eye-opening.
Not many know that the encounters and relationship between the two
religions commenced almost at the very beginning of Islamic history. The
first panellist, Xinru Liu, opened the conference with her research on
Tukharistan (northern Afghanistan), Sogdiana (southern Uzbekistan) from
6th to 8th century, which was the junction on the Silk Route for routes
going east and west and north and south. This region was Buddhist and
Zoroastrian before the Muslims came in as invaders and traders. There was
not a sudden conversion because of the fear of the Muslim armies as is
generally believed, but close collaboration and cooperation in the region.
The people there greatly appreciated the opportunities that came with
joining the Islamic culture and civilization. For some, it was also
convenient to be Muslim under the Muslim regime and pay no taxes, since in
Umayyad times Muslims did not need to pay taxes. However, once Muslim,
they continued to be so and the region produced many philosophers,
scientists and mathematicians who took Islamic civilization to new
heights, while as Liu argues, also preserving their pre-Islamic local
cultural traditions.
Equally interesting in this panel was Alexandre Papas' paper in which he
discussed the writings of two Ottoman travellers to China in the early
twentieth century. The dialogue between the Muslim authors and Buddhist
monks was discussed. It was interesting to see that they discussed the
similarities and dissimilarities between the two religions as well as
political issues with both their countries facing Western domination.
However, the highlight of the day was Georgios Halkias' paper on "Muslim
Queens of Buddhist Kingdoms," which was about the practice of bride
exchange in Ladakh and Baltistan. According to Halkias, "the Muslim Queens
of the Himalayas stand witness to a rich cultural fusion, an old blend of
Arab, Persian, Mongol, Indian and Tibetan elements. Ever since the
conversion of the Baltis to Islam in the fourteenth century the Muslim
princess-brides stood as promises of unity and peace and as a means of
alleviating conflict between the warring houses of Baltistan and the
Buddhist kingdoms of Ladakh." Interestingly, these Muslim queens ruled the
Buddhist kingdoms as well, longest rule having been of thirteen years, and
were patrons of both Buddhist monasteries and mosques. Muslim and Buddhist
interactions in Tibet discussed by José Ignacio Cabezón, was also quite
absorbing. According to him, "Muslims - both Muslims of Kashmiri origin
and ethnic Chinese Muslims - have lived among Tibetans for centuries."
However, he argues that the "Chinese annexation of the Tibetan plateau has
exacerbated the tensions between these two groups."
The two papers presented on Buddhism in Muslim Indonesia by Karel
Steenbrink and Hudaya Kandahjaya were complementary and explained a unique
situation really well. Buddhism and Islam have lived together in the
region since the arrival of Islam in 1200, Buddhism these days being
mainly represented by the Chinese community. Indonesia, in spite of having
the largest Muslim population in the world, does not call itself an
Islamic state. Six religions are recognized by the state of Indonesia.
However, people of all religious communities have to accept the Pancasila
ideology, one of its principles being, "belief in the one and high
divinity." This leads to the development of a unique situation for the
Buddhists, since in their belief, the presence or absence of God is left
undefined. Some Buddhists in compliance with Pancashila and also because
of Muslim influence are using the concept of Adi Buddha, a form of
divinity. This is seen as problematic by others who perceive it as forming
a new kind of theistic Buddhism.
The two papers on Thailand brought about two contrasting pictures of the
region. Charles Keyes of University of Washington gave more of a
historical perspective telling us that by the beginning of twentieth
century, Muslims were a distinct minority in Thailand, they came from
South Asia, China, Malaysia and some were also ethnic Thais. However, with
the restructuring of the state in the late nineteenth century and growth
of nationalist feelings, promotion of Buddhism became fundamental to
Thailand. The result of this being that the Muslims then became the
"others" or what is called khaek in Thailand. This rhetoric of difference
has led to "some Muslims, especially Malay-speaking Muslims, have embraced
fundamentalist versions of Islam and some Thai politicians and Buddhist
leaders have accentuated Buddhist nationalism."
On the other hand, Alexander Horstmann's paper focused on the small
village of Ban Tamot in Southern Thailand, where the Muslims are mainly
concentrated. He talked about an ancestor-worshipping ritual held in the
cemetery, in which local Imams as well as Buddhist monks participate. Very
interestingly, "the basis of this ritual is the mutual bond of kinship
relations that criss-cross through the religious communities and the local
elites. Thus, the Imam of Ban Klong Nui is related to the old Buddhist
abbot of Wat Tamot. Second, the village spirit is believed to be of
Malay-Muslim origin ... Thus, while not explicitly announced, the
participation of Muslims is crucial to the ritual."
An interesting project on Islam in Tibet has just been finished by the
Warburg Institute of the University of London. Two of the papers presented
on Rashid al-Din's (1247-1318) 'Life of the Buddha' were part of the
project. Rashid al-Din's book is considered the oldest World History book,
in which he dedicates a separate section on the life of the Buddha. Ronit
Yoeli-Tlalim highlighted the aspects from Tibetan Buddhism that are
present in the work and also attempted to give evidence of the presence of
Buddhists in the Ilkhanid court. Commenting on the same text, Anna Akasoy
brought out the use of Islamic terminology by Muslims in trying to
understand Buddhist concepts. This is what the two scholars called a
"cultural translation", where Buddhists concepts were Islamicized in order
to be understood.
The conference ended with another interesting panel on Religion and
Local/Global Identities, where an effort was made to understand how one
community perceives another in various places, Japan, India, Thailand and
Malaysia. And how contemporary scenarios like the 9/11 affect relations,
although needless to say, do not alter them completely. This conference
gave a much needed comparative religious perspective. More such efforts
are needed to bring out the fact that most religious people when left to
themselves are able to live together in a collaborative and cooperative
way, enriching all the cultures and religions involved. This "cultural
translation" is an ongoing process, in spite of the hoopla surrounding
fundamentalisms of all sorts today.
Juhi Shahin, the author of The War Within Islam: Niyaz Fatehpuri's
Struggle Against The Fundamentalists, is a PhD student at Tufts
University, Boston, USA
URL of this page:
http://www.newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1442
God's Changing Moods
The following article " Decoding God's Changing Moods" is a well reseached peice and gives a lot of hope to mankind in their pursuit of happiness and co-existence. I have made a few comments before and after the article.The article is an evidence of Pluralism taking root with all the writers now; it is good news to the world and hope for mankind.
The writer Robert Wright has taken the time to find the Zero sum play in all the faiths, and my hats off to the writer to equalize the tense verses to wash off the claims of superiority of one over the other; a source of conflict. The vacillations between tolerance and intolerance may have a different explanation than the Zero sum approach the writer has taken.
The singular drive to push the people into monotheistic belief is amazing and I do not believe it was God commanded, but a cover up for the insecurities of the kings to prevent insurgencies and protect from the risk of getting beheaded or get thrown out of the crown. Indeed, that was the sole business of kings at that time, usurp the land of next door king, take their women and rob the wealth of a neighbor. No wonder the Ten Commandments addressed those issues squarely.
Mike Ghouse
# # #
Decoding God's Changing Moods
By ROBERT WRIGHT Monday, Jun. 15, 2009
Symbols of the three Monotheistic religions.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1902851-3,00.html
Jun. 15, 2009
Decoding God's Changing Moods
By ROBERT WRIGHT
The ancient Israelites got straightforward guidance from Scripture on how to handle people who didn't worship Israel's god, Yahweh. "You shall annihilate them — the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites — just as the Lord your God has commanded."
The point of this exercise, explained the Book of Deuteronomy, was to make sure the "abhorrent" religions of nearby peoples didn't rub off on Israelites.
Yet sometimes the Israelites were happy to live in peace with neighbors who worshipped alien gods. In the Book of Judges, an Israelite military leader proposes a live-and-let-live arrangement with the Ammonites: "Should you not possess what your god Chemosh gives you to possess? And should we not be the ones to possess everything that our god Yahweh has conquered for our benefit?" (See pictures of spiritual healing around the world.)
The Bible isn't the only Scripture with such vacillations between belligerence and tolerance. Muslims, who like Christians and Jews worship the God who revealed himself to Abraham, are counseled in one part of the Koran to "kill the polytheists wherever you find them." But another part prescribes a different stance toward unbelievers, "To you be your religion; to me my religion."
You'd think the Abrahamic God would make up his mind — Can he live with other gods or not? What's with the random mood fluctuations?
But the fluctuations aren't really random. If you juxtapose the Abrahamic Scriptures with what scholars have learned about the circumstances surrounding their creation, a pattern appears. Certain kinds of situations inspired tolerance, and other kinds inspired the opposite. You might even say this pattern is a kind of code, a code that is hidden in the Scriptures and that, once revealed, unlocks the secret of God's changing moods.
And maybe this code could unlock more than that. Maybe knowing what circumstances made the authors of Scripture open-minded can help make modern-day believers open-minded. Maybe the hidden code in the Bible and the Koran, the code that links Scriptural content to context, could even help mend the most dangerous of intra-Abrahamic fault lines, the one between Muslims and Jews.
The first step in seeing this code is to look to the world that gave us the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament) and the Koran — the world that embedded the code in them. There we'll see how consequential God's mood changes could be — how, indeed, a burst of vengeful intolerance helped give us monotheism itself; we'll see that the birth of monotheism left us with what you might call a bad God.
But we'll also see that this God then had bursts of moral growth — within both Judaism and Islam — and that the proven ingredients of that growth are around today, just when another such burst is needed.
In the beginning — or near the beginning — was King Solomon. Israel's third King, he reigned in the 10th century B.C.E. (before the common era). In addition to being famously wise, he was flagrantly polytheistic. The Bible handles this awkward fact by blaming it on his many wives of foreign extraction, who "turned away his heart after other gods."
The Bible has the logic backward. In ancient times, when a man of royal blood married a foreign woman of royal blood, it wasn't on a romantic whim. It was part of foreign policy, a way to cement relations with another nation. And that cement was strengthened by paying respect to the nation's gods. Solomon's many wives didn't lead to his many gods; his politics led to both the wives and the gods.
Solomon believed Israel could benefit — economically and otherwise — by staying on good terms with nearby nations. As game theorists say, he saw relations with other nations as non-zero-sum; the fortunes of Israel and other nations were positively correlated, so outcomes could be win-win or lose-lose. His warmth toward those religions was a way of making the win-win outcome more likely.
Again and again in the Bible, this perception of non-zero-sumness underlies religious tolerance. This doesn't mean religious tolerance is always consciously calculated. The human mind does lots of subterranean work to pave the way for social success. But whether the calculation is conscious or not, people are more open to the religious beliefs of other people if they sense a non-zero-sum dynamic.
See people finding God on YouTube.
See pictures of John 3:16 in pop culture.
The flip side is that perceptions of a zero-sum dynamic — of a game in which one side will win and one side lose — can foster intolerance of other religions and their gods. Indeed, a close look at the Bible shows how this worldview helped move Israel from the polytheism of Solomon's time toward monotheism — a monotheism that (contrary to the standard story of Christians and Jews) doesn't seem to have taken root until the middle of the first millennium B.C.E.
Paving the way for this eventual triumph of monotheism was a series of prophets who cried out for exclusive devotion to Yahweh, railing against the polytheistic ways of Israel. These prophets aren't necessarily monotheists; they don't deny the existence of gods other than Yahweh. They seem to be what scholars call monolatrists, insisting that Israelites worship only one God.
(See the top 10 religion stories of 2008.)
Among the earliest of these prophets is Hosea, who is thought to have written in the 8th century B.C.E. Rejecting a Solomonic view — that immersion in the larger world could make Israel richer — Hosea insists the game is zero-sum: when Israel "mixes himself with the peoples ... foreigners devour his strength." Hosea's suspicion of the foreign isn't surprising. Israel, a small nation in a tough neighborhood, often did get pushed around.
The monolatrous prophets gained a following, but they had trouble winning consistent support from Israel's leaders. So in the early part of the 7th century B.C.E., decades after Hosea issued his sermons, Israel was still awash in religious pluralism. The Jerusalem Temple itself, according to the Bible, was home not just to Yahweh but also to Asherah, a goddess who, scholars increasingly believe, was Yahweh's consort. And there were "vessels made for Baal," the Canaanite God.
Then, in 640 B.C.E. came an intense Israelite King named Josiah who would lend brutal support to the monolatrist cause and push Israel closer to monotheism. He took the figure of Asherah out of the Temple and "beat it to dust." The vessels for Baal didn't fare well either.
Was Josiah, too, driven by a zero-sum worldview in which the worshippers of gods other than Yahweh looked like enemies?
Apparently, but in his case the enemies included Israelites — domestic political rivals — not just foreigners. In ancient times, political power flowed from the divine. Prophets who could claim to speak for a god with a large following thus had influence. If that god was Yahweh, these prophets would be concentrated in the King's court, since Yahweh was Israel's national God. But prophets of other gods were less amenable to the King's control and so a threat to his power.
And so long as polytheism reigned, there were lots of those prophets. At one point, Israel contained "400 prophets of Asherah" and "450 prophets of Baal," the Bible reports darkly. Josiah's cleansing of the Temple was good strategy in a zero-sum game: the less influence these prophets had, the more he had.
Josiah was probably a monolatrist, not a monotheist. But within a few decades of his death, true monotheism would finally emerge. In 586 B.C.E., Israelite élites were exiled to Babylon after conquest by the neo-Babylonian Empire. In passages from Isaiah that are thought to have been written during the exile, Yahweh says unequivocally, "Besides me there is no god." Does this extreme intolerance of other gods — the denial of their very existence — flow from a zero-sum view of Israel's environs?
It would seem so. The author of these monotheistic passages (known by scholars as second Isaiah, to distinguish him from the author of earlier chapters in Isaiah) sees an Israel long tormented by "oppressors" who are due for a comeuppance. The punishment that Isaiah envisions for these enemies seems to include subjugation and, as a bonus, the news that their gods don't exist. Isaiah's God promises the Israelites that, come the apocalypse, people from Egypt and elsewhere will "come over in chains and bow down to you. They will make supplication to you, saying, 'God is with you alone, and there is no other; there is no God besides him.'" So there.
Happily, after the exile, life got more non-zero-sum. The Babylonians who had conquered Israel were in turn conquered by the Persians, who returned the exiles to their homeland. Israel was no longer in a bad neighborhood. Nearby nations were now fellow members of the Persian Empire and so no longer threats. And, predictably, books of the Bible typically dated as postexilic, such as Ruth and Jonah, strike a warm tone toward peoples — Moabites and Assyrians — that in pre-exilic times had been vilified.
See pictures of a drive-in church.
See pictures of Pope Benedict XVI visiting America.
A more inclusive view is also found in a biblical author (or authors) thought by many scholars to be writing shortly after the exile — the priestly source. The priestly source, or P, uses internationally communal language and writes not just of God's covenant with Israel but of an "everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth."
A zero-sum, isolationist worldview had moved Israel from polytheism to belligerent monotheism, but now, as Israel's environment grew less threatening, belligerence was turning out not to be an intrinsic part of monotheism. Between second Isaiah's angry exilic exclamations and P's more congenial voice, Israel had segued from an exclusive to an inclusive monotheism.
A millennium later, this same dynamic — swings between zero-sum and non-zero-sum — would have a similar impact on Islamic monotheism, moving it back and forth between belligerence and tolerance.
Muhammad's preaching career started in Mecca around 613 C.E., and he seems to have had hopes of drawing Jews and Christians into a common faith. In the Koran — which Muslims consider the word of God as spoken by Muhammad — the Prophet's followers are told to say to fellow Abrahamics, "Our God and your God is one."
This hope of playing a win-win game shows up in overtures to Jews in particular, made mainly after Muhammad moved to the city of Medina and became its political and religious leader. Muhammad decided his followers should have an annual 24-hour fast, as Jews did on Yom Kippur. He even called it Yom Kippur — at least he used the term some Arabian Jews were using for Yom Kippur. The Jewish ban on eating pork was mirrored in a Muslim ban. Muhammad also told his followers to pray facing Jerusalem. He said God, in his "prescience," chose "the children of Israel ... above all peoples."
As for Christians: having denounced polytheists who believed Allah had daughters, Muhammad couldn't now embrace the idea that Jesus was God's son. But he came close. He said Jesus was "the Messiah ... the Messenger of God, and His Word ... a Spirit from Him." God, according to the Koran, gave Jesus the Gospel and "put into the hearts of those who followed him kindness and compassion."
Muhammad's ecumenical mission seems to have failed. Certainly, he sensed rejection from Christians and Jews. A Koranic verse captures his disillusionment. "O Believers! Take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another's friends." Once you're convinced that non-zero-sum collaboration isn't in the cards, the bonhomie dries up.
In his new, zero-sum mode, Muhammad changed the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca. According to Islamic tradition, he expelled three tribes of Jews from Medina — and killed the adult males in the third tribe, which was suspected of collaborating with Meccans in a battle against Medina.
Still, in the end, Christians and Jews get a favored place in Islamic tradition as "people of the Book." The Koran repeatedly says they're eligible for salvation.
Within years of Muhammad's death in 632, Islamic leaders started conquering lands far and wide. This imperial expansion gave birth to the doctrine of jihad, which mandates battle against unbelievers with the aim of conversion.
But once the conquering was done, Muslim leaders found that trying to compel uniform belief in a multinational empire was a lose-lose game. Doctrines granting freedom of worship to Christians and Jews emerged promptly. And later, such freedom would also be granted to Buddhists and polytheists.
Meanwhile, the doctrine of jihad would be dulled through amendment. And the notion of a "greater jihad" — struggle within oneself toward goodness — would arise and be attributed to Muhammad himself. As in Israel after the exile, the Abrahamic God, having found himself in a multiethnic milieu rife with non-zero-sumness, underwent moral growth.
In neither case had the growth been smoothly progressive, and in both cases, there would be backsliding. Still, in both cases, God spent enough time in benevolent mode to leave the Scriptures littered with odes to tolerance and understanding, verses that modern believers can focus on, should they choose.
Will they so choose? Maybe the code embedded in the Scriptures can help. The key, it suggests, is to arrange things so that relations between Muslims and Jews are conspicuously non-zero-sum.
Sometimes this may mean engineering the non-zero-sumness — for example, strengthening commerce between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Other times it will mean highlighting a non-zero-sum dynamic that already exists — emphasizing, for example, that continued strife between Israelis and Palestinians will be lose-lose (as would escalated tensions between the "Muslim world" and the "West" more broadly). Enduring peace would be win-win.
This peace would also have been foretold. Isaiah (first Isaiah, not the Isaiah of the exile) envisioned a day when God "shall arbitrate for many peoples" and "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." And in a Koranic verse dated by scholars to the final years of Muhammad's life, God tells humankind that he has "made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another."
This happy ending is hardly assured. It can take time for people, having seen that they are playing a non-zero-sum game, to adjust their attitudes accordingly. And this adaptation may never happen if barriers of mistrust persist.
But at least we can quit talking as if this adaptation were impossible — as if intolerance and violence were inevitable offshoots of monotheism. At least we can quit asking whether Islam — or Judaism or any other religion — is a religion of peace. The answer is no. And yes. It says so in the Bible, and in the Koran.
See pictures of spiritual healing around the world.
See the top 10 religion stories of 2008.
_______________________________________
Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1902851,00.html
My Comments continue:
Wright quotes Qur’aan "kill the polytheists wherever you find them." I wish he had done justice by just reading two lines before and after the verse. It would have given him a different idea, the reference was made to those individuals who were chasing them and persecuting them and then it continues, if they stop butchering you, you must stop retaliation immediately and reconcile. I have written about it at: http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2007/12/slay-idolaters-95.htmland http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2007/12/ruthless-to-infidels-4829.html
As far as the relations between Jews and Muslims go, all of us need to work on it. If we can find solutions to the Palestine and Israel issue, the conflicts will fade and solutions will emerge. As Muslims we have taken initiatives that have never done before; we have commemorated the Holocaust event twice in Dallas, to be human in each others pain and suffering and we have continued to build bridges.
Thank God the end time for the extremists among Jews and Muslims is on the horizon, where the few bad guys were lying to their constituents to keep the conflict on and were cashing in on their fears. Films were shown at the Muslim and Jewish centers to frighten the crap out of Muslims and Jews respectively and of course, collect funds to protect’ them. Heck no, to frighten them more. People should stop paying these rascals who deepen the chasm and prolong the conflicts, and instead pay to support efforts that mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill which is good for all. People are waking up to this idea now.
The frightened European kings in the 11th century deliberately mistranslated Qur’aan to paint Muslims as bad guys, and a Muslim have done the same after the fall of Ottoman empire. Most of the non-Muslim Islamic experts today are brainwashed with that false foundation; it enriches them to sow hatred between the peoples. (http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/01/unlike-jews-or-christians-17.html ).
We the people should not be a victim of these thugs and instead work on mitigating conflicts and nurturing goodwill. What is good for me has got to be good for you and vice versa for it to sustain.
I believe the role of religion is to bring a balance to an individual and what surrounds him or her; the people and the environment. A religious person is one who mitigates conflicts and nurtures goodwill.
Mike Ghouse is a Dallas based Speaker, Writer, Thinker and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and television networks offering pluralistic perspectives on issues of the day including Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, Peace, India and Civic issues. His comments, news analysis and opinions are on the Blogs listed at his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/. Mike is a Dallasite for three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at Ghousemike@gmail.com
Please feel free to leave your comments below,thank you.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Hell fire & Non-believers
HELL FIRE, NON-BELEIVERS AND INFIDELS
Aaron Zelinsky has done an honest job of researching every critical sentence that the President used in his speech, regardless of whether it was referred in Bible, Qur'aan or Torah.
As a Pluralist thinker and as a Muslim, the phrase "hell fire" was interesting to me to study and think about its implications.
Every word starts out with a certain meaning, and over a period of time, it gets narrowed or broadened. Then what the hell the phrase “hell fire” really means? To a lot of people it conjures up the image of real fire which is hot, unbearable and painful. That is how Jewish, Christian, Islamic and Hindu parishioners have put it out for consumption; Hell, Jahannam & Naraka in English, Arabic and Sanskrit respectively. Although the description is not there in Buddhist, Jain and several other scriptures, the cultural belief is out there in the society at large. Did those masters have an experience watching any one burning? Do they relate burning as the ultimate pain?
I wonder if God would have chosen a different language to describe the punishment. (Per the faith they are the words of God) Had God delivered that message in Texas, would he have used "electric chair" instead? Given the rope to hang in Nigeria? Or ordered incarceration in Europe or stoning to death in Afghanistan or something else in other parts of the world? God only knows.
The phrase "hell fire" is looked down upon as primitive, without giving a regard to what it means; punishment for wrong doing. The threat of punishment to the violators of the law of the land is consistent in every society. Without the threat of punishment, the society will become chaotic and no one will feel secure and safe. Imagine a day where our Criminal laws say - "there shall be no punishment for murderers" and the "rapists go free". Think about it, the phrase "hell fire" may simply mean severe punishment and may not be the imaginary fire.
Non-believer and the hell fire; religion is an instrument of peace, following which brings tranquility to individuals and peace and orderliness in the society. Non-believers are not those who do not subscribe to a particular format of God, but those who do not believe in the laws of the society designed to keep law and order leading to justice and peace.
It is a paradigm change for many believers, but we have to start finding means to create societies where all of us can co-exist despite our differences. The societies are not exclusive any more; the day is not far where no neighborhood will have exclusive faith, race or ethnicity. All of God's creation will live in every neighborhood. God's words are larger and we need to expand our brains to embrace that largeness of the creator.
Punishment is indeed a deterrent to a larger extent in any given society, an overwhelming majority of people are law abiding, and for the ones one margin, punishment is a deterrent. However a small fraction of (Less than1/10th of 1% of any group) the population will commit the crimes and nothing deters them.
The hallmark of civil societies is to take the responsibility for creating a better society. We know that physiological and psychological make up of an individual is usually responsible for the crime he or she commits. We need to take some responsibility for that make up, and instead of putting them on electric chair, we need to work on rehabilitating them and bring them back into the society as productive members. Condemning the individual is the last thing we need to do.
Mike Ghouse is a Dallas based Speaker, Writer, Thinker and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and television networks offering pluralistic perspectives on issues of the day including Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, Peace, India and Civic issues. His comments, news analysis and opinions are on the Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. Mike is a Dallasite for three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at Ghousemike@gmail.com
###
Cooperation and Conflict - Cairo speech
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-zelinsky/conflict-and-cooperation_b_211678.html
In Cairo, President Obama employed a variety of historical, liturgical, and political references to express America's hope for a new beginning with the Islamic world.
Obama also noted that, "The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars." His speech's references embody this tension, containing potential for both cooperation and conflict.
Here are ten critical lines from Obama's Cairo speech and the potential for cooperation and conflict they embody:
1. "I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum."
Obama opens by invoking the customary greeting, "Peace be upon you," and he uses the appropriate plural ending. He also sets the cooperative tone of the speech, in which he hopes for a new beginning of peace.
2. "As the Holy Koran tells us, 'Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.' That is what I will try to do - to speak the truth as best I can[.]"
This line, from Surah al-Ahzaab, illustrates the admirable desire to speak freely and frankly. However, the Al-Ahzaab focuses on the confederacy of the non-believers that the Muslim armies fought. Surrounding passages describe the "Fire" awaiting non-believers and the leaders who have misled their people.
3." I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, 'The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.'"
The history of the Treaty of Tripoli exemplifies the history of cooperation and conflict between America and the Islamic world. On the cooperative front, the Treaty's signature line reads: "Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211--corresponding with the 3d day of January, 1797."
However, Obama quoted only the second half of the first sentence of Article 11 of the Treaty, likely because of the contemporary domestic conflict the full sentence would engender. The first sentence of Article 11 reads in full: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Mussulmen." Mindful of the domestic conflict the opening line may bring, Obama avoids its discussion.
Additionally, Obama does not provide the Treaty's complete title: "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary." There are at least two reasons for Obama's truncation. First, the full title is too cumbersome. Second, and more significantly, the complete title reflects the troubled aftermath of the Treaty: The Barbary War against the Barbary Pirates. In 1801, the Treaty was broken by the Pasha of Tripoli, and Thomas Jefferson responded with war. The conflict lives on in the opening lines of the Marines' Hymn: ""From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli."
4. "We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: 'Out of many, one.'"
These words appear on every coin minted since 1873 and on the Seal of the United States. While the phrase originally referred to the political unification of the thirteen disparate colonies into one nation, Obama employs it to reference the pluralistic and multicultural nature of America. The famous phrase echoes a tension between cooperation and conflict present in both federalism and pluralism: How much must the individual surrender to become part of the collective? How much power should states retain, and what restrictions can society place on individual autonomy?
5. "The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind."
Here, Obama quotes a famous passage from Surah Al-Maidah, This Surah is also cited by extremists, who point to the later verse: "Surely (as for) those who disbelieve, even if they had what is in the earth, all of it, and the like of it with it, that they might ransom themselves with it from the punishment of the day of resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them, and they shall have a painful punishment."
6. "Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: 'I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.'"
The preceding line in Jefferson's letter of June 12, 1815 is more ominous and less multilateral: "Not in our day, but at no distant one, we may shake a rod over the heads of all, which may make the stoutest of them tremble."
7. "All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when . . . when the Holy Land [is] . . . a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer."
The Isra is documented in the Surah Al-Isra, and is more widely explicated in the Hadith, the Islamic oral tradition. The Isra (together with the Mi'raj) is known more widely in English as the Night Journey, when Mohammed's journeyed from Mecca to Jerusalem, ascended to heaven, and returned in a single night. The Surah Al-Isra also contains the more divisive phrase: "And that (as for) those who do not believe in the hereafter, We have prepared for them a painful punishment."
8. "There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew."
Here, Obama references Luke 6:31: "Do to others as you would have them do to you," which he also referenced at Notre Dame. Luke 6:49 is less supportive: "But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built a house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great."
9. "The Holy Koran tells us, 'O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.'
"The Talmud tells us: 'The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.'
"The Holy Bible tells us, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.'"
First, Obama quotes the Surah Al-Hujurat, which earlier declares: "He has made hateful to you unbelief and transgression and disobedience." Second, Obama references Talmud Gittin, which, on the proceeding page, refers to Solomon's execution of his teacher, Shimei Ben Gera. Finally, Obama references the Book of Matthew, which contains harsher words later in the chapter: "But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."
10. The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.
Obama ends the speech with the English translation of his opening "assalaamu alaykum," which is also the traditional departing greeting. Thus, while Obama's speech contains the echoes of cooperation and conflict, he opens and closes with an unambiguous hope for a new beginning of peace, cooperation, and co-existence.
Full disclosure: I have checked all Aramaic, English, Hebrew, and Latin references myself; for the references to the Koran I have used an English translation.
.
Aaron Zelinsky has done an honest job of researching every critical sentence that the President used in his speech, regardless of whether it was referred in Bible, Qur'aan or Torah.
As a Pluralist thinker and as a Muslim, the phrase "hell fire" was interesting to me to study and think about its implications.
Every word starts out with a certain meaning, and over a period of time, it gets narrowed or broadened. Then what the hell the phrase “hell fire” really means? To a lot of people it conjures up the image of real fire which is hot, unbearable and painful. That is how Jewish, Christian, Islamic and Hindu parishioners have put it out for consumption; Hell, Jahannam & Naraka in English, Arabic and Sanskrit respectively. Although the description is not there in Buddhist, Jain and several other scriptures, the cultural belief is out there in the society at large. Did those masters have an experience watching any one burning? Do they relate burning as the ultimate pain?
I wonder if God would have chosen a different language to describe the punishment. (Per the faith they are the words of God) Had God delivered that message in Texas, would he have used "electric chair" instead? Given the rope to hang in Nigeria? Or ordered incarceration in Europe or stoning to death in Afghanistan or something else in other parts of the world? God only knows.
The phrase "hell fire" is looked down upon as primitive, without giving a regard to what it means; punishment for wrong doing. The threat of punishment to the violators of the law of the land is consistent in every society. Without the threat of punishment, the society will become chaotic and no one will feel secure and safe. Imagine a day where our Criminal laws say - "there shall be no punishment for murderers" and the "rapists go free". Think about it, the phrase "hell fire" may simply mean severe punishment and may not be the imaginary fire.
Non-believer and the hell fire; religion is an instrument of peace, following which brings tranquility to individuals and peace and orderliness in the society. Non-believers are not those who do not subscribe to a particular format of God, but those who do not believe in the laws of the society designed to keep law and order leading to justice and peace.
It is a paradigm change for many believers, but we have to start finding means to create societies where all of us can co-exist despite our differences. The societies are not exclusive any more; the day is not far where no neighborhood will have exclusive faith, race or ethnicity. All of God's creation will live in every neighborhood. God's words are larger and we need to expand our brains to embrace that largeness of the creator.
Punishment is indeed a deterrent to a larger extent in any given society, an overwhelming majority of people are law abiding, and for the ones one margin, punishment is a deterrent. However a small fraction of (Less than1/10th of 1% of any group) the population will commit the crimes and nothing deters them.
The hallmark of civil societies is to take the responsibility for creating a better society. We know that physiological and psychological make up of an individual is usually responsible for the crime he or she commits. We need to take some responsibility for that make up, and instead of putting them on electric chair, we need to work on rehabilitating them and bring them back into the society as productive members. Condemning the individual is the last thing we need to do.
Mike Ghouse is a Dallas based Speaker, Writer, Thinker and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and television networks offering pluralistic perspectives on issues of the day including Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, Peace, India and Civic issues. His comments, news analysis and opinions are on the Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. Mike is a Dallasite for three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at Ghousemike@gmail.com
###
Cooperation and Conflict - Cairo speech
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-zelinsky/conflict-and-cooperation_b_211678.html
In Cairo, President Obama employed a variety of historical, liturgical, and political references to express America's hope for a new beginning with the Islamic world.
Obama also noted that, "The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars." His speech's references embody this tension, containing potential for both cooperation and conflict.
Here are ten critical lines from Obama's Cairo speech and the potential for cooperation and conflict they embody:
1. "I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum."
Obama opens by invoking the customary greeting, "Peace be upon you," and he uses the appropriate plural ending. He also sets the cooperative tone of the speech, in which he hopes for a new beginning of peace.
2. "As the Holy Koran tells us, 'Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.' That is what I will try to do - to speak the truth as best I can[.]"
This line, from Surah al-Ahzaab, illustrates the admirable desire to speak freely and frankly. However, the Al-Ahzaab focuses on the confederacy of the non-believers that the Muslim armies fought. Surrounding passages describe the "Fire" awaiting non-believers and the leaders who have misled their people.
3." I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, 'The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.'"
The history of the Treaty of Tripoli exemplifies the history of cooperation and conflict between America and the Islamic world. On the cooperative front, the Treaty's signature line reads: "Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211--corresponding with the 3d day of January, 1797."
However, Obama quoted only the second half of the first sentence of Article 11 of the Treaty, likely because of the contemporary domestic conflict the full sentence would engender. The first sentence of Article 11 reads in full: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Mussulmen." Mindful of the domestic conflict the opening line may bring, Obama avoids its discussion.
Additionally, Obama does not provide the Treaty's complete title: "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary." There are at least two reasons for Obama's truncation. First, the full title is too cumbersome. Second, and more significantly, the complete title reflects the troubled aftermath of the Treaty: The Barbary War against the Barbary Pirates. In 1801, the Treaty was broken by the Pasha of Tripoli, and Thomas Jefferson responded with war. The conflict lives on in the opening lines of the Marines' Hymn: ""From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli."
4. "We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: 'Out of many, one.'"
These words appear on every coin minted since 1873 and on the Seal of the United States. While the phrase originally referred to the political unification of the thirteen disparate colonies into one nation, Obama employs it to reference the pluralistic and multicultural nature of America. The famous phrase echoes a tension between cooperation and conflict present in both federalism and pluralism: How much must the individual surrender to become part of the collective? How much power should states retain, and what restrictions can society place on individual autonomy?
5. "The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind."
Here, Obama quotes a famous passage from Surah Al-Maidah, This Surah is also cited by extremists, who point to the later verse: "Surely (as for) those who disbelieve, even if they had what is in the earth, all of it, and the like of it with it, that they might ransom themselves with it from the punishment of the day of resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them, and they shall have a painful punishment."
6. "Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: 'I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.'"
The preceding line in Jefferson's letter of June 12, 1815 is more ominous and less multilateral: "Not in our day, but at no distant one, we may shake a rod over the heads of all, which may make the stoutest of them tremble."
7. "All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when . . . when the Holy Land [is] . . . a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer."
The Isra is documented in the Surah Al-Isra, and is more widely explicated in the Hadith, the Islamic oral tradition. The Isra (together with the Mi'raj) is known more widely in English as the Night Journey, when Mohammed's journeyed from Mecca to Jerusalem, ascended to heaven, and returned in a single night. The Surah Al-Isra also contains the more divisive phrase: "And that (as for) those who do not believe in the hereafter, We have prepared for them a painful punishment."
8. "There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew."
Here, Obama references Luke 6:31: "Do to others as you would have them do to you," which he also referenced at Notre Dame. Luke 6:49 is less supportive: "But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built a house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great."
9. "The Holy Koran tells us, 'O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.'
"The Talmud tells us: 'The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.'
"The Holy Bible tells us, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.'"
First, Obama quotes the Surah Al-Hujurat, which earlier declares: "He has made hateful to you unbelief and transgression and disobedience." Second, Obama references Talmud Gittin, which, on the proceeding page, refers to Solomon's execution of his teacher, Shimei Ben Gera. Finally, Obama references the Book of Matthew, which contains harsher words later in the chapter: "But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."
10. The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.
Obama ends the speech with the English translation of his opening "assalaamu alaykum," which is also the traditional departing greeting. Thus, while Obama's speech contains the echoes of cooperation and conflict, he opens and closes with an unambiguous hope for a new beginning of peace, cooperation, and co-existence.
Full disclosure: I have checked all Aramaic, English, Hebrew, and Latin references myself; for the references to the Koran I have used an English translation.
.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Muslims in America not for domination
Muslims are in America to live their American dream, and NOT to dominate or impose Sharia Laws.
$5000 REWARD
The Neocons* are fabricating and propagating the idea that Muslims are invading America to dominate and impose Sharia Laws without any substantiation. Cashing in on fears is Neocon modus operandi. They know how to scare the devil out of those few self proclaimed conservative Americans, and get them to open their check books, and the poor suckers pay the ransom.
Muslims have no ambitions of making Islam a dominant religion or imposing Sharia Laws in the United States. A few individual may say that for a few claps, but for every creep who runs his mouth with a Muslim label, you will find a lot more of them with other faith labels. The good news is that there are thousands of Muslims out there who will speak out against such non-sense and I am one.
Full article: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2009/05/5000-reward.html
Mike Ghouse
Sounding off the voices of a majority of Muslims.
Mike presides the World Muslim Congress, a think tank with a mission, what is good for Muslims has got to be good for the World and vice-versa to sustain it. He believes that to be a Muslim is to be a peacemaker, one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; life and mater. Indeed, that is the purpose of religion, any religion.
.
$5000 REWARD
The Neocons* are fabricating and propagating the idea that Muslims are invading America to dominate and impose Sharia Laws without any substantiation. Cashing in on fears is Neocon modus operandi. They know how to scare the devil out of those few self proclaimed conservative Americans, and get them to open their check books, and the poor suckers pay the ransom.
Muslims have no ambitions of making Islam a dominant religion or imposing Sharia Laws in the United States. A few individual may say that for a few claps, but for every creep who runs his mouth with a Muslim label, you will find a lot more of them with other faith labels. The good news is that there are thousands of Muslims out there who will speak out against such non-sense and I am one.
Full article: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2009/05/5000-reward.html
Mike Ghouse
Sounding off the voices of a majority of Muslims.
Mike presides the World Muslim Congress, a think tank with a mission, what is good for Muslims has got to be good for the World and vice-versa to sustain it. He believes that to be a Muslim is to be a peacemaker, one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; life and mater. Indeed, that is the purpose of religion, any religion.
.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Empathy and Democracy
Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy
Sunday 31 May 2009
by: George Lakoff, t r u t h o u t Perspective
The Sotomayor nomination has given radical conservatives new life. They have launched an attack that is nominally aimed at Judge Sotomayor. But it is really a coordinated stealth attack - on President Obama's central vision, on progressive thought itself, and on Republicans who might stray from the conservative hard line.
There are several fronts: empathy, feelings, racism, activist judges. Each one has a hidden dimension. And if progressives think conservative attacks are just about Sotomayor, they may wind up helping conservatives regroup.
Conservatives believe that Sotomayor will be confirmed, and so their attacks may seem irrational to Democrats, a last gasp, a grasping at straws, a sign that the party is breaking up.
Actually, something sneakier and possibly dangerous is going on.
Let's start with the attack on empathy. Why empathy? Isn't empathy a good thing?
Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the capacity to put oneself in the shoes of others - not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one's countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy extends well beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice.
Progressives care about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy - a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the president's stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works. No one can earn anything at all in this country without protection and empowerment by the government. All progressive legislation is made on this basis.
The president wrote of empathy in The Audacity of Hope, "It is at the heart of my moral code and it is how I understand the Golden Rule - not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes."
President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful? The answer is empathy. We care about our countrymen and have an obligation to act on that care, and to set up a government for the protection and empowerment of all. That is at the heart of everything he does.
The link between empathy and democracy has been established historically by Professor Lynn Hunt of UCLA in her important book, Inventing Human Rights. To hear her speak, go tohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZVD1G4q0bA.
The link between empathy and progressive thought is spelled out in my book Moral Politics and in my new book The Political Mind, just out in paperback (http://www.amazon.com/Political-Mind-Cognitive-Scientists-Politics/dp/0143115685).
In describing his ideal Supreme Court justice, President Obama cited empathy as a major desideratum. Why? Because that is what our democracy is about. A justice has to take empathy into account because his or her decisions will affect the lives of others. Before making a decision you have to put yourself in the shoes of those who your decision will affect. Similarly, in judging causation, fairness requires that social causes as well as individual causes be taken into account. Empathy forces you to notice what is crucial in so many Supreme Court cases: systemic and social causes and whom a decision can harm. As such, empathy correctly understood is crucial to judgment. A judge without empathy is a judge unfit for a democracy.
President Obama has described Justice Sotomayor in empathetic terms - a life story that would lead her to understand people who live through oppression and deprivation and what it does to them. In other words, a life story that would allow her to appreciate the consequences of judicial decisions and the causal effects of living in an unequal society.
Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of "justice." It is no surprise that empathy would be a major conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation.
But the target is not empathy as it really exists. Instead, the conservatives are reframing empathy to make it attackable. Their "empathy" is idiosyncratic, personal feeling for an individual, presumably the defendant in a legal case. With "empathy" reframed in this way, Charles Krauthammer can say, echoing Karl Rove, "Justice is not about empathy." The argument goes like this: Empathy is a matter of personal feelings. Personal feelings should not be the basis of a judicial decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, "justice is not about empathy." Reframe the word "empathy" and it not only disqualifies Sotomayor; it delegitimizes Obama's central moral principle, his approach to government, his understanding of the nature of our democracy, and progressive politics in general.
We cannot let conservatives get away with redefining empathy as irrational and idiosyncratic personal feeling. Empathy is the basis of our democracy, and its true meaning must be defended.
But the attack can be sneaky. Take David Brooks' column in The New York Times (May 29, 2009). He frames what he calls "The Empathy Issue" in terms of the use of emotions in decision-making. He is doing a conservative reframing of the issue. What is sneaky is that he starts by saying a number of true things about emotions. As Antonio Damasio pointed out in Descartes' Error, you can't make rational decisions without emotions. If you have a brain injury that wipes out your emotional capacity, you don't know what to want, since like and not-like mean nothing, and you can't tell what others will think of you. Here is Brooks:
People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don't know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.
Supreme Court justices, like all of us, are emotional intuitionists. They begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work, which have been idiosyncratically ingrained by genes, culture, education, parents and events. These models shape the way judges perceive the world.
Note the mixture of truth and non-truth. Yes, sensible decisions require emotions. Yes, people without empathy are sociopaths. Yes, we all make decisions based on models in our head of how the world works. That's basic cognitive science. Mixed in with it is conservative reframing. No, empathy is a lot more than a "social emotion." No, using models of the world in decision-making need not be a matter of emotion. It's just how real reason works. Then the conclusion:
But because we're emotional creatures in an idiosyncratic world, it's prudent to have judges who are cautious, incrementalist and minimalist. It's prudent to have judges who decide cases narrowly, who emphasize the specific context of each case, who value gradual change, small steps and modest self-restraint.
Right-leaning thinkers from Edmund Burke to Friedrich Hayek understood that emotion is prone to overshadow reason. They understood that emotion can be a wise guide in some circumstances and a dangerous deceiver in others. It's not whether judges rely on emotion and empathy, it's how they educate their sentiments within the discipline of manners and morals, tradition and practice.
Empathy here has been reframed as emotion that is "idiosyncratic" - personal - a danger to reason. "Sentiments," that is, emotions, must be "disciplined" to fit "manners and morals, tradition and practice"- in short, the existing social and political order. This is perfect radical conservatism in the guise of sweet, moderate reasonableness. Where Rove and Krauthammer have the iron fists, Brooks has the velvet glove.
The attack on empathy becomes an attack on feelings, with feelings as not merely at odds with justice, but at odds with good sense. Where Brooks' tone is sweetly reasonable, G. Gordon Liddy is outrageous:
Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/).
Liddy is saying what Brooks is saying: Emotion is irrational and dangerous. Only Liddy is not nicely-nicely. The attack on feelings is of a piece with the old attack on "bleeding-heart liberals." And one step away from Cheney's attack on Obama and defense of torture.
What about Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a racist? It is linked directly to the personal feeling argument: because of her personal feelings for her own kind - Latinos and women - she will discriminate against white men. It is to support that view that the New Haven firemen case keeps being brought up.
The real target here goes beyond Sotomayor. In the last election, conservative populists moved toward Obama. Conservative populists are working people, mostly white men, who have conservative views of the family, of masculinity, and of the military, and who have bought into the idea of the "liberal elite" as looking down on them. Right now, they are hurting economically, losing their jobs and their homes. Empathy is something they need. The racist card is an attempt to revive their fears of affirmative action, fears of their jobs - and their pride - being taken by minorities and women. The racist attack has a political purpose, holding onto conservative populists. The overt form of the old conservative argument is made regularly these days: liberalism is identity politics.
Incidentally, Democrats are walking into the Gingrich trap. I heard Ed Schultz defending Sotomayor by saying over and over why she was "not a racist," and using the word "racist" next to her name repeatedly. It was like Nixon saying, "I am not a crook." When Democrats make that mistake, I sometimes wonder why I bothered to write Don't Think of an Elephant!
The attack on Sotomayor as an "activist judge" completes the pattern of radical conservative reasoning: Because of her empathy, which is personal feeling, which in turn is a form of racism, she will interpret the constitution not rationally, blindly, and objectively, but to suit her emotions.
It is vital at this point to understand how conservatives get away with the "activist judge" ploy. As any cognitive linguist knows, there is no such thing as "strict construction" of the Constitution. The reason was given by, of all people, David Brooks, as we discussed above.
Supreme Court justices, like all of us,... begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work ... These models shape the way judges perceive the world.
These models also shape they way the most "strict constructionist" of judges read the Constitution. Such models are physically part of the brain and typically operate below the level of consciousness. Conservatives are thus as much "judicial activists" as anyone else.
So how do conservative Republicans get away with the "activist judge" ploy? Democrats hand it to them. Why? Because most Democrats grew up with and still believe a view of reason that has been shown in cognitive science and neuroscience to be false. The sciences of mind have shown that real reason is largely unconscious, requires emotion, uses "models" (frames, metaphors, narratives) and so does not fit the world directly.
But Democrats tend to believe that reason is conscious, can fit the world directly, and works by logic, not frames or metaphors. They thus believe that words have fixed literal meanings that fit the world in itself, regardless of models, frames, metaphors, or narratives. If you believe this, then original meaning could make sense. Democrats don't fight it when they should.
Democrats make another move that allows them to keep their view of reason. They adopt the view of the "living constitution," which opens them up to charges of "judicial activism," charges made by conservative judicial activists. The source of the problem lies in the Democrats lack of understanding of their own unconscious reasoning processes. One of many Democrats deepest beliefs contradicts the facts about the brain and the mind and allows conservative judges to be activists while claiming to be strict constructionists.
Taken together, the attacks on Sotomayor work as attacks on Obama and progressive thought. They are also attacks on "moderate" conservatives, who think with progressives on many issues. The attacks activate radical conservative ideas in the brains of those who voted for Bush and the 47 percent of the voters who voted for McCain.
Radical conservatives know that Sotomayor will be confirmed. They also know that their very understanding of the world is being threatened by Obama's success. But they have a major strength. They have their message machine intact, with trained spokespeople booked on TV and radio shows all over the country. Attacking Sotomayor, even when they know she will win, allows them to rally their forces and get swing-voting conservatives thinking their way again.
How should Democrats respond?
Democrats should go on offense. They need to rally behind empathy- real empathy, not empathy reframed as emotion and personal feeling. They need to speak regularly about empathy as being the basis of our democracy. They need to point out that empathy leads one to notice real social and systemic causes of our troubles and to notice when and how judicial decisions and legislation can harm the most vulnerable of our countrymen. And finally that empathy is the reason that we have the principles of freedom and fairness - which are necessary components of justice.
Above all, Democrats should be aware that the attack on Sotomayor is not just about Sotomayor. It is an attack on the basis of our democracy and must be answered.»
George Lakoff is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of "The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain." His latest book, "The Political Mind," appears in paperback on June 2. To contact George Lakoff, email him atlakoff@truthout.org.
Sunday 31 May 2009
by: George Lakoff, t r u t h o u t Perspective
The Sotomayor nomination has given radical conservatives new life. They have launched an attack that is nominally aimed at Judge Sotomayor. But it is really a coordinated stealth attack - on President Obama's central vision, on progressive thought itself, and on Republicans who might stray from the conservative hard line.
There are several fronts: empathy, feelings, racism, activist judges. Each one has a hidden dimension. And if progressives think conservative attacks are just about Sotomayor, they may wind up helping conservatives regroup.
Conservatives believe that Sotomayor will be confirmed, and so their attacks may seem irrational to Democrats, a last gasp, a grasping at straws, a sign that the party is breaking up.
Actually, something sneakier and possibly dangerous is going on.
Let's start with the attack on empathy. Why empathy? Isn't empathy a good thing?
Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the capacity to put oneself in the shoes of others - not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one's countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy extends well beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice.
Progressives care about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy - a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the president's stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works. No one can earn anything at all in this country without protection and empowerment by the government. All progressive legislation is made on this basis.
The president wrote of empathy in The Audacity of Hope, "It is at the heart of my moral code and it is how I understand the Golden Rule - not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes."
President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful? The answer is empathy. We care about our countrymen and have an obligation to act on that care, and to set up a government for the protection and empowerment of all. That is at the heart of everything he does.
The link between empathy and democracy has been established historically by Professor Lynn Hunt of UCLA in her important book, Inventing Human Rights. To hear her speak, go tohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZVD1G4q0bA.
The link between empathy and progressive thought is spelled out in my book Moral Politics and in my new book The Political Mind, just out in paperback (http://www.amazon.com/Political-Mind-Cognitive-Scientists-Politics/dp/0143115685).
In describing his ideal Supreme Court justice, President Obama cited empathy as a major desideratum. Why? Because that is what our democracy is about. A justice has to take empathy into account because his or her decisions will affect the lives of others. Before making a decision you have to put yourself in the shoes of those who your decision will affect. Similarly, in judging causation, fairness requires that social causes as well as individual causes be taken into account. Empathy forces you to notice what is crucial in so many Supreme Court cases: systemic and social causes and whom a decision can harm. As such, empathy correctly understood is crucial to judgment. A judge without empathy is a judge unfit for a democracy.
President Obama has described Justice Sotomayor in empathetic terms - a life story that would lead her to understand people who live through oppression and deprivation and what it does to them. In other words, a life story that would allow her to appreciate the consequences of judicial decisions and the causal effects of living in an unequal society.
Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of "justice." It is no surprise that empathy would be a major conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation.
But the target is not empathy as it really exists. Instead, the conservatives are reframing empathy to make it attackable. Their "empathy" is idiosyncratic, personal feeling for an individual, presumably the defendant in a legal case. With "empathy" reframed in this way, Charles Krauthammer can say, echoing Karl Rove, "Justice is not about empathy." The argument goes like this: Empathy is a matter of personal feelings. Personal feelings should not be the basis of a judicial decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, "justice is not about empathy." Reframe the word "empathy" and it not only disqualifies Sotomayor; it delegitimizes Obama's central moral principle, his approach to government, his understanding of the nature of our democracy, and progressive politics in general.
We cannot let conservatives get away with redefining empathy as irrational and idiosyncratic personal feeling. Empathy is the basis of our democracy, and its true meaning must be defended.
But the attack can be sneaky. Take David Brooks' column in The New York Times (May 29, 2009). He frames what he calls "The Empathy Issue" in terms of the use of emotions in decision-making. He is doing a conservative reframing of the issue. What is sneaky is that he starts by saying a number of true things about emotions. As Antonio Damasio pointed out in Descartes' Error, you can't make rational decisions without emotions. If you have a brain injury that wipes out your emotional capacity, you don't know what to want, since like and not-like mean nothing, and you can't tell what others will think of you. Here is Brooks:
People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don't know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.
Supreme Court justices, like all of us, are emotional intuitionists. They begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work, which have been idiosyncratically ingrained by genes, culture, education, parents and events. These models shape the way judges perceive the world.
Note the mixture of truth and non-truth. Yes, sensible decisions require emotions. Yes, people without empathy are sociopaths. Yes, we all make decisions based on models in our head of how the world works. That's basic cognitive science. Mixed in with it is conservative reframing. No, empathy is a lot more than a "social emotion." No, using models of the world in decision-making need not be a matter of emotion. It's just how real reason works. Then the conclusion:
But because we're emotional creatures in an idiosyncratic world, it's prudent to have judges who are cautious, incrementalist and minimalist. It's prudent to have judges who decide cases narrowly, who emphasize the specific context of each case, who value gradual change, small steps and modest self-restraint.
Right-leaning thinkers from Edmund Burke to Friedrich Hayek understood that emotion is prone to overshadow reason. They understood that emotion can be a wise guide in some circumstances and a dangerous deceiver in others. It's not whether judges rely on emotion and empathy, it's how they educate their sentiments within the discipline of manners and morals, tradition and practice.
Empathy here has been reframed as emotion that is "idiosyncratic" - personal - a danger to reason. "Sentiments," that is, emotions, must be "disciplined" to fit "manners and morals, tradition and practice"- in short, the existing social and political order. This is perfect radical conservatism in the guise of sweet, moderate reasonableness. Where Rove and Krauthammer have the iron fists, Brooks has the velvet glove.
The attack on empathy becomes an attack on feelings, with feelings as not merely at odds with justice, but at odds with good sense. Where Brooks' tone is sweetly reasonable, G. Gordon Liddy is outrageous:
Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/).
Liddy is saying what Brooks is saying: Emotion is irrational and dangerous. Only Liddy is not nicely-nicely. The attack on feelings is of a piece with the old attack on "bleeding-heart liberals." And one step away from Cheney's attack on Obama and defense of torture.
What about Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a racist? It is linked directly to the personal feeling argument: because of her personal feelings for her own kind - Latinos and women - she will discriminate against white men. It is to support that view that the New Haven firemen case keeps being brought up.
The real target here goes beyond Sotomayor. In the last election, conservative populists moved toward Obama. Conservative populists are working people, mostly white men, who have conservative views of the family, of masculinity, and of the military, and who have bought into the idea of the "liberal elite" as looking down on them. Right now, they are hurting economically, losing their jobs and their homes. Empathy is something they need. The racist card is an attempt to revive their fears of affirmative action, fears of their jobs - and their pride - being taken by minorities and women. The racist attack has a political purpose, holding onto conservative populists. The overt form of the old conservative argument is made regularly these days: liberalism is identity politics.
Incidentally, Democrats are walking into the Gingrich trap. I heard Ed Schultz defending Sotomayor by saying over and over why she was "not a racist," and using the word "racist" next to her name repeatedly. It was like Nixon saying, "I am not a crook." When Democrats make that mistake, I sometimes wonder why I bothered to write Don't Think of an Elephant!
The attack on Sotomayor as an "activist judge" completes the pattern of radical conservative reasoning: Because of her empathy, which is personal feeling, which in turn is a form of racism, she will interpret the constitution not rationally, blindly, and objectively, but to suit her emotions.
It is vital at this point to understand how conservatives get away with the "activist judge" ploy. As any cognitive linguist knows, there is no such thing as "strict construction" of the Constitution. The reason was given by, of all people, David Brooks, as we discussed above.
Supreme Court justices, like all of us,... begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work ... These models shape the way judges perceive the world.
These models also shape they way the most "strict constructionist" of judges read the Constitution. Such models are physically part of the brain and typically operate below the level of consciousness. Conservatives are thus as much "judicial activists" as anyone else.
So how do conservative Republicans get away with the "activist judge" ploy? Democrats hand it to them. Why? Because most Democrats grew up with and still believe a view of reason that has been shown in cognitive science and neuroscience to be false. The sciences of mind have shown that real reason is largely unconscious, requires emotion, uses "models" (frames, metaphors, narratives) and so does not fit the world directly.
But Democrats tend to believe that reason is conscious, can fit the world directly, and works by logic, not frames or metaphors. They thus believe that words have fixed literal meanings that fit the world in itself, regardless of models, frames, metaphors, or narratives. If you believe this, then original meaning could make sense. Democrats don't fight it when they should.
Democrats make another move that allows them to keep their view of reason. They adopt the view of the "living constitution," which opens them up to charges of "judicial activism," charges made by conservative judicial activists. The source of the problem lies in the Democrats lack of understanding of their own unconscious reasoning processes. One of many Democrats deepest beliefs contradicts the facts about the brain and the mind and allows conservative judges to be activists while claiming to be strict constructionists.
Taken together, the attacks on Sotomayor work as attacks on Obama and progressive thought. They are also attacks on "moderate" conservatives, who think with progressives on many issues. The attacks activate radical conservative ideas in the brains of those who voted for Bush and the 47 percent of the voters who voted for McCain.
Radical conservatives know that Sotomayor will be confirmed. They also know that their very understanding of the world is being threatened by Obama's success. But they have a major strength. They have their message machine intact, with trained spokespeople booked on TV and radio shows all over the country. Attacking Sotomayor, even when they know she will win, allows them to rally their forces and get swing-voting conservatives thinking their way again.
How should Democrats respond?
Democrats should go on offense. They need to rally behind empathy- real empathy, not empathy reframed as emotion and personal feeling. They need to speak regularly about empathy as being the basis of our democracy. They need to point out that empathy leads one to notice real social and systemic causes of our troubles and to notice when and how judicial decisions and legislation can harm the most vulnerable of our countrymen. And finally that empathy is the reason that we have the principles of freedom and fairness - which are necessary components of justice.
Above all, Democrats should be aware that the attack on Sotomayor is not just about Sotomayor. It is an attack on the basis of our democracy and must be answered.»
George Lakoff is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of "The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain." His latest book, "The Political Mind," appears in paperback on June 2. To contact George Lakoff, email him atlakoff@truthout.org.
Empathy and Democracy
Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy
Sunday 31 May 2009
by: George Lakoff, t r u t h o u t Perspective
The Sotomayor nomination has given radical conservatives new life. They have launched an attack that is nominally aimed at Judge Sotomayor. But it is really a coordinated stealth attack - on President Obama's central vision, on progressive thought itself, and on Republicans who might stray from the conservative hard line.
There are several fronts: empathy, feelings, racism, activist judges. Each one has a hidden dimension. And if progressives think conservative attacks are just about Sotomayor, they may wind up helping conservatives regroup.
Conservatives believe that Sotomayor will be confirmed, and so their attacks may seem irrational to Democrats, a last gasp, a grasping at straws, a sign that the party is breaking up.
Actually, something sneakier and possibly dangerous is going on.
Let's start with the attack on empathy. Why empathy? Isn't empathy a good thing?
Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the capacity to put oneself in the shoes of others - not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one's countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy extends well beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice.
Progressives care about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy - a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the president's stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works. No one can earn anything at all in this country without protection and empowerment by the government. All progressive legislation is made on this basis.
The president wrote of empathy in The Audacity of Hope, "It is at the heart of my moral code and it is how I understand the Golden Rule - not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes."
President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful? The answer is empathy. We care about our countrymen and have an obligation to act on that care, and to set up a government for the protection and empowerment of all. That is at the heart of everything he does.
The link between empathy and democracy has been established historically by Professor Lynn Hunt of UCLA in her important book, Inventing Human Rights. To hear her speak, go tohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZVD1G4q0bA.
The link between empathy and progressive thought is spelled out in my book Moral Politics and in my new book The Political Mind, just out in paperback (http://www.amazon.com/Political-Mind-Cognitive-Scientists-Politics/dp/0143115685).
In describing his ideal Supreme Court justice, President Obama cited empathy as a major desideratum. Why? Because that is what our democracy is about. A justice has to take empathy into account because his or her decisions will affect the lives of others. Before making a decision you have to put yourself in the shoes of those who your decision will affect. Similarly, in judging causation, fairness requires that social causes as well as individual causes be taken into account. Empathy forces you to notice what is crucial in so many Supreme Court cases: systemic and social causes and whom a decision can harm. As such, empathy correctly understood is crucial to judgment. A judge without empathy is a judge unfit for a democracy.
President Obama has described Justice Sotomayor in empathetic terms - a life story that would lead her to understand people who live through oppression and deprivation and what it does to them. In other words, a life story that would allow her to appreciate the consequences of judicial decisions and the causal effects of living in an unequal society.
Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of "justice." It is no surprise that empathy would be a major conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation.
But the target is not empathy as it really exists. Instead, the conservatives are reframing empathy to make it attackable. Their "empathy" is idiosyncratic, personal feeling for an individual, presumably the defendant in a legal case. With "empathy" reframed in this way, Charles Krauthammer can say, echoing Karl Rove, "Justice is not about empathy." The argument goes like this: Empathy is a matter of personal feelings. Personal feelings should not be the basis of a judicial decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, "justice is not about empathy." Reframe the word "empathy" and it not only disqualifies Sotomayor; it delegitimizes Obama's central moral principle, his approach to government, his understanding of the nature of our democracy, and progressive politics in general.
We cannot let conservatives get away with redefining empathy as irrational and idiosyncratic personal feeling. Empathy is the basis of our democracy, and its true meaning must be defended.
But the attack can be sneaky. Take David Brooks' column in The New York Times (May 29, 2009). He frames what he calls "The Empathy Issue" in terms of the use of emotions in decision-making. He is doing a conservative reframing of the issue. What is sneaky is that he starts by saying a number of true things about emotions. As Antonio Damasio pointed out in Descartes' Error, you can't make rational decisions without emotions. If you have a brain injury that wipes out your emotional capacity, you don't know what to want, since like and not-like mean nothing, and you can't tell what others will think of you. Here is Brooks:
People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don't know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.
Supreme Court justices, like all of us, are emotional intuitionists. They begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work, which have been idiosyncratically ingrained by genes, culture, education, parents and events. These models shape the way judges perceive the world.
Note the mixture of truth and non-truth. Yes, sensible decisions require emotions. Yes, people without empathy are sociopaths. Yes, we all make decisions based on models in our head of how the world works. That's basic cognitive science. Mixed in with it is conservative reframing. No, empathy is a lot more than a "social emotion." No, using models of the world in decision-making need not be a matter of emotion. It's just how real reason works. Then the conclusion:
But because we're emotional creatures in an idiosyncratic world, it's prudent to have judges who are cautious, incrementalist and minimalist. It's prudent to have judges who decide cases narrowly, who emphasize the specific context of each case, who value gradual change, small steps and modest self-restraint.
Right-leaning thinkers from Edmund Burke to Friedrich Hayek understood that emotion is prone to overshadow reason. They understood that emotion can be a wise guide in some circumstances and a dangerous deceiver in others. It's not whether judges rely on emotion and empathy, it's how they educate their sentiments within the discipline of manners and morals, tradition and practice.
Empathy here has been reframed as emotion that is "idiosyncratic" - personal - a danger to reason. "Sentiments," that is, emotions, must be "disciplined" to fit "manners and morals, tradition and practice"- in short, the existing social and political order. This is perfect radical conservatism in the guise of sweet, moderate reasonableness. Where Rove and Krauthammer have the iron fists, Brooks has the velvet glove.
The attack on empathy becomes an attack on feelings, with feelings as not merely at odds with justice, but at odds with good sense. Where Brooks' tone is sweetly reasonable, G. Gordon Liddy is outrageous:
Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/).
Liddy is saying what Brooks is saying: Emotion is irrational and dangerous. Only Liddy is not nicely-nicely. The attack on feelings is of a piece with the old attack on "bleeding-heart liberals." And one step away from Cheney's attack on Obama and defense of torture.
What about Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a racist? It is linked directly to the personal feeling argument: because of her personal feelings for her own kind - Latinos and women - she will discriminate against white men. It is to support that view that the New Haven firemen case keeps being brought up.
The real target here goes beyond Sotomayor. In the last election, conservative populists moved toward Obama. Conservative populists are working people, mostly white men, who have conservative views of the family, of masculinity, and of the military, and who have bought into the idea of the "liberal elite" as looking down on them. Right now, they are hurting economically, losing their jobs and their homes. Empathy is something they need. The racist card is an attempt to revive their fears of affirmative action, fears of their jobs - and their pride - being taken by minorities and women. The racist attack has a political purpose, holding onto conservative populists. The overt form of the old conservative argument is made regularly these days: liberalism is identity politics.
Incidentally, Democrats are walking into the Gingrich trap. I heard Ed Schultz defending Sotomayor by saying over and over why she was "not a racist," and using the word "racist" next to her name repeatedly. It was like Nixon saying, "I am not a crook." When Democrats make that mistake, I sometimes wonder why I bothered to write Don't Think of an Elephant!
The attack on Sotomayor as an "activist judge" completes the pattern of radical conservative reasoning: Because of her empathy, which is personal feeling, which in turn is a form of racism, she will interpret the constitution not rationally, blindly, and objectively, but to suit her emotions.
It is vital at this point to understand how conservatives get away with the "activist judge" ploy. As any cognitive linguist knows, there is no such thing as "strict construction" of the Constitution. The reason was given by, of all people, David Brooks, as we discussed above.
Supreme Court justices, like all of us,... begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work ... These models shape the way judges perceive the world.
These models also shape they way the most "strict constructionist" of judges read the Constitution. Such models are physically part of the brain and typically operate below the level of consciousness. Conservatives are thus as much "judicial activists" as anyone else.
So how do conservative Republicans get away with the "activist judge" ploy? Democrats hand it to them. Why? Because most Democrats grew up with and still believe a view of reason that has been shown in cognitive science and neuroscience to be false. The sciences of mind have shown that real reason is largely unconscious, requires emotion, uses "models" (frames, metaphors, narratives) and so does not fit the world directly.
But Democrats tend to believe that reason is conscious, can fit the world directly, and works by logic, not frames or metaphors. They thus believe that words have fixed literal meanings that fit the world in itself, regardless of models, frames, metaphors, or narratives. If you believe this, then original meaning could make sense. Democrats don't fight it when they should.
Democrats make another move that allows them to keep their view of reason. They adopt the view of the "living constitution," which opens them up to charges of "judicial activism," charges made by conservative judicial activists. The source of the problem lies in the Democrats lack of understanding of their own unconscious reasoning processes. One of many Democrats deepest beliefs contradicts the facts about the brain and the mind and allows conservative judges to be activists while claiming to be strict constructionists.
Taken together, the attacks on Sotomayor work as attacks on Obama and progressive thought. They are also attacks on "moderate" conservatives, who think with progressives on many issues. The attacks activate radical conservative ideas in the brains of those who voted for Bush and the 47 percent of the voters who voted for McCain.
Radical conservatives know that Sotomayor will be confirmed. They also know that their very understanding of the world is being threatened by Obama's success. But they have a major strength. They have their message machine intact, with trained spokespeople booked on TV and radio shows all over the country. Attacking Sotomayor, even when they know she will win, allows them to rally their forces and get swing-voting conservatives thinking their way again.
How should Democrats respond?
Democrats should go on offense. They need to rally behind empathy- real empathy, not empathy reframed as emotion and personal feeling. They need to speak regularly about empathy as being the basis of our democracy. They need to point out that empathy leads one to notice real social and systemic causes of our troubles and to notice when and how judicial decisions and legislation can harm the most vulnerable of our countrymen. And finally that empathy is the reason that we have the principles of freedom and fairness - which are necessary components of justice.
Above all, Democrats should be aware that the attack on Sotomayor is not just about Sotomayor. It is an attack on the basis of our democracy and must be answered.»
George Lakoff is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of "The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain." His latest book, "The Political Mind," appears in paperback on June 2. To contact George Lakoff, email him atlakoff@truthout.org.
Sunday 31 May 2009
by: George Lakoff, t r u t h o u t Perspective
The Sotomayor nomination has given radical conservatives new life. They have launched an attack that is nominally aimed at Judge Sotomayor. But it is really a coordinated stealth attack - on President Obama's central vision, on progressive thought itself, and on Republicans who might stray from the conservative hard line.
There are several fronts: empathy, feelings, racism, activist judges. Each one has a hidden dimension. And if progressives think conservative attacks are just about Sotomayor, they may wind up helping conservatives regroup.
Conservatives believe that Sotomayor will be confirmed, and so their attacks may seem irrational to Democrats, a last gasp, a grasping at straws, a sign that the party is breaking up.
Actually, something sneakier and possibly dangerous is going on.
Let's start with the attack on empathy. Why empathy? Isn't empathy a good thing?
Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the capacity to put oneself in the shoes of others - not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one's countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy extends well beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice.
Progressives care about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy - a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the president's stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works. No one can earn anything at all in this country without protection and empowerment by the government. All progressive legislation is made on this basis.
The president wrote of empathy in The Audacity of Hope, "It is at the heart of my moral code and it is how I understand the Golden Rule - not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes."
President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful? The answer is empathy. We care about our countrymen and have an obligation to act on that care, and to set up a government for the protection and empowerment of all. That is at the heart of everything he does.
The link between empathy and democracy has been established historically by Professor Lynn Hunt of UCLA in her important book, Inventing Human Rights. To hear her speak, go tohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZVD1G4q0bA.
The link between empathy and progressive thought is spelled out in my book Moral Politics and in my new book The Political Mind, just out in paperback (http://www.amazon.com/Political-Mind-Cognitive-Scientists-Politics/dp/0143115685).
In describing his ideal Supreme Court justice, President Obama cited empathy as a major desideratum. Why? Because that is what our democracy is about. A justice has to take empathy into account because his or her decisions will affect the lives of others. Before making a decision you have to put yourself in the shoes of those who your decision will affect. Similarly, in judging causation, fairness requires that social causes as well as individual causes be taken into account. Empathy forces you to notice what is crucial in so many Supreme Court cases: systemic and social causes and whom a decision can harm. As such, empathy correctly understood is crucial to judgment. A judge without empathy is a judge unfit for a democracy.
President Obama has described Justice Sotomayor in empathetic terms - a life story that would lead her to understand people who live through oppression and deprivation and what it does to them. In other words, a life story that would allow her to appreciate the consequences of judicial decisions and the causal effects of living in an unequal society.
Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of "justice." It is no surprise that empathy would be a major conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation.
But the target is not empathy as it really exists. Instead, the conservatives are reframing empathy to make it attackable. Their "empathy" is idiosyncratic, personal feeling for an individual, presumably the defendant in a legal case. With "empathy" reframed in this way, Charles Krauthammer can say, echoing Karl Rove, "Justice is not about empathy." The argument goes like this: Empathy is a matter of personal feelings. Personal feelings should not be the basis of a judicial decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, "justice is not about empathy." Reframe the word "empathy" and it not only disqualifies Sotomayor; it delegitimizes Obama's central moral principle, his approach to government, his understanding of the nature of our democracy, and progressive politics in general.
We cannot let conservatives get away with redefining empathy as irrational and idiosyncratic personal feeling. Empathy is the basis of our democracy, and its true meaning must be defended.
But the attack can be sneaky. Take David Brooks' column in The New York Times (May 29, 2009). He frames what he calls "The Empathy Issue" in terms of the use of emotions in decision-making. He is doing a conservative reframing of the issue. What is sneaky is that he starts by saying a number of true things about emotions. As Antonio Damasio pointed out in Descartes' Error, you can't make rational decisions without emotions. If you have a brain injury that wipes out your emotional capacity, you don't know what to want, since like and not-like mean nothing, and you can't tell what others will think of you. Here is Brooks:
People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don't know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.
Supreme Court justices, like all of us, are emotional intuitionists. They begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work, which have been idiosyncratically ingrained by genes, culture, education, parents and events. These models shape the way judges perceive the world.
Note the mixture of truth and non-truth. Yes, sensible decisions require emotions. Yes, people without empathy are sociopaths. Yes, we all make decisions based on models in our head of how the world works. That's basic cognitive science. Mixed in with it is conservative reframing. No, empathy is a lot more than a "social emotion." No, using models of the world in decision-making need not be a matter of emotion. It's just how real reason works. Then the conclusion:
But because we're emotional creatures in an idiosyncratic world, it's prudent to have judges who are cautious, incrementalist and minimalist. It's prudent to have judges who decide cases narrowly, who emphasize the specific context of each case, who value gradual change, small steps and modest self-restraint.
Right-leaning thinkers from Edmund Burke to Friedrich Hayek understood that emotion is prone to overshadow reason. They understood that emotion can be a wise guide in some circumstances and a dangerous deceiver in others. It's not whether judges rely on emotion and empathy, it's how they educate their sentiments within the discipline of manners and morals, tradition and practice.
Empathy here has been reframed as emotion that is "idiosyncratic" - personal - a danger to reason. "Sentiments," that is, emotions, must be "disciplined" to fit "manners and morals, tradition and practice"- in short, the existing social and political order. This is perfect radical conservatism in the guise of sweet, moderate reasonableness. Where Rove and Krauthammer have the iron fists, Brooks has the velvet glove.
The attack on empathy becomes an attack on feelings, with feelings as not merely at odds with justice, but at odds with good sense. Where Brooks' tone is sweetly reasonable, G. Gordon Liddy is outrageous:
Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/).
Liddy is saying what Brooks is saying: Emotion is irrational and dangerous. Only Liddy is not nicely-nicely. The attack on feelings is of a piece with the old attack on "bleeding-heart liberals." And one step away from Cheney's attack on Obama and defense of torture.
What about Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a racist? It is linked directly to the personal feeling argument: because of her personal feelings for her own kind - Latinos and women - she will discriminate against white men. It is to support that view that the New Haven firemen case keeps being brought up.
The real target here goes beyond Sotomayor. In the last election, conservative populists moved toward Obama. Conservative populists are working people, mostly white men, who have conservative views of the family, of masculinity, and of the military, and who have bought into the idea of the "liberal elite" as looking down on them. Right now, they are hurting economically, losing their jobs and their homes. Empathy is something they need. The racist card is an attempt to revive their fears of affirmative action, fears of their jobs - and their pride - being taken by minorities and women. The racist attack has a political purpose, holding onto conservative populists. The overt form of the old conservative argument is made regularly these days: liberalism is identity politics.
Incidentally, Democrats are walking into the Gingrich trap. I heard Ed Schultz defending Sotomayor by saying over and over why she was "not a racist," and using the word "racist" next to her name repeatedly. It was like Nixon saying, "I am not a crook." When Democrats make that mistake, I sometimes wonder why I bothered to write Don't Think of an Elephant!
The attack on Sotomayor as an "activist judge" completes the pattern of radical conservative reasoning: Because of her empathy, which is personal feeling, which in turn is a form of racism, she will interpret the constitution not rationally, blindly, and objectively, but to suit her emotions.
It is vital at this point to understand how conservatives get away with the "activist judge" ploy. As any cognitive linguist knows, there is no such thing as "strict construction" of the Constitution. The reason was given by, of all people, David Brooks, as we discussed above.
Supreme Court justices, like all of us,... begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work ... These models shape the way judges perceive the world.
These models also shape they way the most "strict constructionist" of judges read the Constitution. Such models are physically part of the brain and typically operate below the level of consciousness. Conservatives are thus as much "judicial activists" as anyone else.
So how do conservative Republicans get away with the "activist judge" ploy? Democrats hand it to them. Why? Because most Democrats grew up with and still believe a view of reason that has been shown in cognitive science and neuroscience to be false. The sciences of mind have shown that real reason is largely unconscious, requires emotion, uses "models" (frames, metaphors, narratives) and so does not fit the world directly.
But Democrats tend to believe that reason is conscious, can fit the world directly, and works by logic, not frames or metaphors. They thus believe that words have fixed literal meanings that fit the world in itself, regardless of models, frames, metaphors, or narratives. If you believe this, then original meaning could make sense. Democrats don't fight it when they should.
Democrats make another move that allows them to keep their view of reason. They adopt the view of the "living constitution," which opens them up to charges of "judicial activism," charges made by conservative judicial activists. The source of the problem lies in the Democrats lack of understanding of their own unconscious reasoning processes. One of many Democrats deepest beliefs contradicts the facts about the brain and the mind and allows conservative judges to be activists while claiming to be strict constructionists.
Taken together, the attacks on Sotomayor work as attacks on Obama and progressive thought. They are also attacks on "moderate" conservatives, who think with progressives on many issues. The attacks activate radical conservative ideas in the brains of those who voted for Bush and the 47 percent of the voters who voted for McCain.
Radical conservatives know that Sotomayor will be confirmed. They also know that their very understanding of the world is being threatened by Obama's success. But they have a major strength. They have their message machine intact, with trained spokespeople booked on TV and radio shows all over the country. Attacking Sotomayor, even when they know she will win, allows them to rally their forces and get swing-voting conservatives thinking their way again.
How should Democrats respond?
Democrats should go on offense. They need to rally behind empathy- real empathy, not empathy reframed as emotion and personal feeling. They need to speak regularly about empathy as being the basis of our democracy. They need to point out that empathy leads one to notice real social and systemic causes of our troubles and to notice when and how judicial decisions and legislation can harm the most vulnerable of our countrymen. And finally that empathy is the reason that we have the principles of freedom and fairness - which are necessary components of justice.
Above all, Democrats should be aware that the attack on Sotomayor is not just about Sotomayor. It is an attack on the basis of our democracy and must be answered.»
George Lakoff is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of "The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain." His latest book, "The Political Mind," appears in paperback on June 2. To contact George Lakoff, email him atlakoff@truthout.org.
The crisis of Christianity
The crisis of Christianity
There are two ways of interpreting the word of God; the esssecne of it or the literality of it.
Those who seek the essence of the word of God, seek peace and harmony among God's creation, they are driven by what God means, rather than get hung up with the words that may conjure archaic interpretations. They are committed to making the world a better place to live for every one of us, this group forms over 90% of the people in every religious group.
Whereas, the literalist reduce God's words to bare words like " the belief in Armageddon and the thier desire to pre-empt God to make it happen sooner " the land of Israel was given to the Jews, so bulldozing the homes of the ones that lived there for generations is justified" and "killing the infidels" gives these literalist right to kill anyone who does not subscribe to their understanding. All the literalists, be it Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or others do not value human life to them God says so, so I do it.
It is not the books or the religion that is a problem because greater than 99% of people don't do what these guys do. Murders in Washington DC does not make the DC'ites murderers, or the law books of DC flawed, it is the individuals.
As his highness Aga Khan puts it, there is a clash of ignorance in operation rather than the clash of civilizations. As members of the Civil society, it is the responsibility of each one of us to build bridges and work on creating societies that value co-existence, accepting the otherness of other and respecting the God given uniqueness of each one of the 7 billion of us.
Mike Ghouse
# # #
The crisis of Christianity:
The meltdown of evangelicalism
June 1, 2009
Fred Hutchison, RA analyst
This is part 2 of an essay in which we are considering the "emergent church" — a postmodern cult disguised as a church — and the "seeker-sensitive church" that is a real church, but is in bondage to postmodern culture. Part 1 was mainly devoted to the emerging church, and part 2 is mainly devoted to the decadent seeker-sensitive church — and what went wrong with evangelicalism that it would backslide into a bondage to the culture.
Faithful evangelicals must fight a two-front war against postmodernism. One front is the fight against the "emerging church" that is postmodern and heretical. The other front involves delivering the seeker-sensitive church from captivity to the postmodern culture.
The Babylonian captivity of the church
The seeker-sensitive mega-churches are real churches, unlike the "emerging churches," which are cults. However, the seeker-sensitive churches are churches in captivity. They are in captivity to the postmodern culture. The mushrooming of seeker-sensitive mega-churches throughout the land has had zero influence on the postmodern culture. They have had little influence on divorce rates, abortion rates, or the prevalence of sexual immorality. They are impotent in resisting the anti-family agendas of the feminists and the gays.
Seeker-sensitive mega-churches have no influence on the culture because they have been captured by the culture. Conservative friends, that is why we lost the culture war. All the conservative activism in the world cannot compensate for a decadent church. The church must be set free of its bondage to the culture before we can win the culture war.
Presently I shall discuss how God's process of sanctification sets us free from the world, the flesh, and the devil. Freedom from the "world" includes liberation from the popular culture — which now is postmodern.
I like to call the seeker-sensitive phenomenon the "Babylonian captivity of the church." Postmodern culture looks to me like "Babylon." It is every bit as depraved as the idolatrous Babylon that took the kingdom of Judah into captivity.
The early church used "Babylon" as a code word for the Rome of the Emperor Nero. In spite of furious persecution by Rome, that splendid church of the martyrs remained mostly separate from the world and was mostly undefiled and pure.
In contrast, seeker-sensitive evangelicals have suffered very little real persecution, yet have declared unconditional surrender to the culture and have soaked themselves in the polluted waters of the postmodern world.
At the judgment seat of Christ, there is a reward for fighting the good fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil. But will there be a loss for the Christian who capitulates to the world? Will Christ view the present seeker-sensitive ways as a capitulation to the world? In my opinion, the answers are yes and yes.
Those who disagree with me might consider that seeker-sensitive folks are very vulnerable to the siren songs of the heretical emerging church. In part 1 of this essay, I referred to the pampered spiritual babes of the seeker-sensitive world as defenseless marshmallow people. A marshmallow Christian suffers from a weak and sickly spiritual constitution.
A healthy physical body has a strong immune system. An unhealthy body has a weak immune system. For reasons I shall describe presently, I have concluded that the seeker-sensitive church has no defenses against postmodernism and the emerging church. Therefore, I conclude that many seeker-sensitive Christians are spiritually sickly.
A lot of backsliding in evangelicalism occurred over a period of decades to bring us to this sickening dead end.
However, God sometimes brings wisdom out of the mouth of babes (Psalm 8: 2), even perhaps marshmallow babes. Last week I read a report about a group of young evangelicals who were so starved for transcendence and meaty theology that they went over to Calvinistic churches of the Reformed tradition. In this case, the marshmallow babes had a better understanding that something had gone wrong than did their leaders.
The great backsliding: what went wrong?
The beginning of the great backsliding started with a change in the way the gospel was preached. Less and less was said about Christ being punished for our sins on the cross. Sin and repentance were increasingly glossed over. The perils of hell fire were hushed up. The gospel presentation increasingly resembled a sales pitch in which the preacher manipulated the people to make a choice for Christ. This approach to evangelism produced a lot of weak and vulnerable converts who had no assurance of salvation.
These methods are similar to the kind of methods used by the pelagian heretic Charles Grandison Finney (1792–1875). The deluded Finney denounced the venerable Westminister Confession as disguised popery. Finney did not believe that the mind or the will have been corrupted by original sin. Thus, he introduced the idea that man can choose his way into faith and into righteousness. He inaugurated evangelism as salesmanship. Finney had a lot of converts who had a superficial understanding of their sinfulness — just like the contemporary converts of evangelicalism
If one has only a superficial understanding of his sinfulness, he will have a shallow repentance. He will nourish the illusion that he is essentially good at heart. Therefore, he will partly trust in himself and partly trust in Christ for salvation. He will have one foot on the rock, which is Christ, and one foot on the sinking sand of self. Therefore, he will have no assurance of salvation.
Two factors make this situation worse. if the evangelist does not bring the seeker to the cross, or if the doctrine of the atonement is never explained, the seeker will not understand that Christ did a complete and finished work of atonement for our sins on the cross. He will not understand that through Christ's cross and resurrection, he has given us a right standing with God and that his resurrection gave us the power of eternal life. Christ did the complete work of eternal salvation for us and there is nothing that we can do to add to it.
If the evangelist is preoccupied with getting the people to make decisions for Christ, the seeker will tend to think that he can choose his way into faith and might fail to realize that faith is a supernatural gift of God that often comes upon one when he least expects it. The assumption that one can choose his way into faith will intensify seeker's perception that salvation is partly what he does and partly what God does. Such a one is not likely to enjoy the assurance of salvation.
A victorious death or a defeated death
The early 16th century reformer Martin Luther noticed that Roman Catholics had no assurance of salvation because they tried to get to heaven through a combination of grace and works. Even the most dedicated among them suffered and strived to earn God's favor all their lives and still died in fear and doubt. Luther himself found that no quantity or quality of his own good works, penances, or spiritual exercises could relieve him of the fear that he might be damned. Actually, the more Luther did, the more certain he was that he was damned.
A perfect contemporary example of this horrific phenomenon was the spiritual defeat and depression of Mother Theresa on her death bed. Probably no twentieth century Christian had done more charitable good works than her. But her mountain of good works availed her nothing at the hour of her death. Only the works of Christ on the cross and his works in resurrection can avail the believer any peace or assurance in the hour of death.
Shaken by this morbid phenomenon of the Catholic works treadmill leading to a shadowy and defeated death, Luther renounced Catholic soteriology and taught the finished work of Christ and salvation by grace through faith alone. Luther's doctrine makes it possible for the most humble believer to enjoy the assurance of salvation.
As one who enjoys the assurance of salvation, the happiest moment of my life was when I thought I was on the verge of death! Why should I die in peace and joy while Mother Theresa died in fear, doubt, and grief? Because I have both feet on the rock which is Christ and she had one foot on the rock and one foot on the sand of works — works by which she tried to save herself. She was a vastly more admirable Christian than I, but she followed false teachings pertaining to salvation and I follow biblical truth.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man may boast" (Ephesians 2:8).
The multitudes of contemporary evangelicals with no assurance of salvation remind me of the Catholics who worried Luther because they had no assurance of salvation. Evangelicals seem to have lost the most important blessing that Luther recovered for us during the Reformation.
I never doubted my salvation
Since I was born again, I have never doubted my salvation. That is what I mean by assurance of salvation. I have had my share of fiery trials, but never at any time doubted my salvation. Why did I never doubt? These five points sum it up:
1) Prior to my conversion, I had a high level of self-esteem and a positive appraisal of my moral worth. But this was a delusion. Even though I had studied the doctrine of original sin and believed it in my mind, I had a blindness in my heart and could not internalize this truth. I needed a spiritual revelation before I could see depravity in my nature. God gave me this revelation without showing me any particular sin. He showed me my fallen nature as a whole.
In a sudden and crushing revelation, God showed me my sin nature and I realized that I was rotten to the core. I knew I was damned and experienced horror and agony about my desperate condition. I was terrified by the presence of a God who is almighty, holy, and just. With a groan, I sensed his righteous outrage at my sinfulness. Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) got it just right in his classic sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.
2) I deeply understood that I had nothing good to offer God in order to win my salvation. I abandoned all hope of my own righteousness and cast myself entirely upon Christ for salvation. With the wild despair of a drowning man, I pleaded to Jesus for mercy and rescue from the deadly waves of death and damnation which I thought were dragging me down at that very moment.
Suddenly, my hellish despair vanished and a heavenly confidence took its place. Faith miraculously appeared in my heart! In the power of supernatural faith, I calmly and boldly said, "I am cleansed with the blood of the Lamb." Notice that faith appeared at the moment I least expected. It came as a gift of God and was an utter surprise.
3) Before I had finished speaking these words of faith, I had the uncanny sense that the blood of Christ was washing over me. Before the sense of the warm flow of blood receded, I had a vision of Christ on the cross suffering for my sins. I saw only his face as he looked into my eyes with great sorrow and mercy for me. He was bearing my sins and cleansing me with his blood.
4) As the image was fading, I could feel the Holy Spirit flowing into me to impart the new birth. The Spirit felt like a vital living electricity.
Suddenly it was over and I was calm and tranquil as though I had not been in desperate trauma a moment before. I knew I was saved and never questioned my salvation after that. How can one question a salvation so comprehensive and complete and so utterly the work of God alone?
5) I wish to emphasize to the reader that Christ is the rock that cannot fail. I have assurance of salvation mainly because I threw myself entirely on that rock and stayed on that rock as he did all the work. Ever since, I have rested in complete satisfaction that his saving work is finished and perfect. I have never been tempted to try to add something to that complete work of grace.
However, the assurance of salvation is only the beginning of my long journey of sanctification. Many never really start the journey of sanctification or have much spiritual growth, because the issue of their salvation is never decisively settled. Many stay babes in Christ all their lives.
Christian, the moral of the story is that if you love Christ but have no assurance of salvation, it is because you have one foot on the rock and one foot on the sinking sand of trusting in yourself. You need to get both feet on the rock. Renounce the foolish trust you have placed in your weak, sinful self and trust in Christ alone.
A false sanctification
The popular misunderstanding of the gospel has led many people to an even greater misunderstanding of sanctification. If a person thinks he caused his faith to awaken through works or choices, or thinks that he has some good within him that God can accept, he will suppose that sanctification can come from good works or from keeping the law.
As I traveled through evangelicalism in the 70's and 80's I found two grave errors in many places: 1) salvation through grace and sanctification through works, and 2) Christians seeking to pump up their "self-esteem."
The false teaching of self-esteem easily snares those with no assurance of salvation because they lack the sweet sense of being adopted sons of God. "Self-esteem" is a silly, foolish thing in comparison with the glory of being an adopted son of God.
Many people who are genuinely saved are nevertheless committed to the idea that they have a goodness that God can admire. Therefore, they are determined to sanctify themselves through good works or through law. No true sanctification can ever come to man in this way. Some spectacular moral failures of evangelical leaders have come because they tried to get holy through their own willpower to keep God's laws. They have trusted in their own righteousness and failed. Reader, if you wish to taste of bitter failure in your spiritual walk, a sure way to do it is to trust in your own righteousness and your own willpower.
Many of leaders of evangelicalism of this generation no longer understand God's way of sanctification. Allow me to describe the hyper-works approach of a very popular evangelical leader. Then let me describe God's way of sanctification, which I wrote about in my book The Stages of Sanctification. The contrast between God's way and the way of this popular leader could not be more stark or shocking.
The hyper-driven life
Four years ago, I went to Oxford, England, to attend a conference on C.S. Lewis. Rick Warren was a guest speaker. I sat about ten yards away from him. I had read his bestselling book The Purpose Driven Life and enjoyed it and expected good things from his talk.
Warren started talking about his human father, and his face and his voice changed. It was clear to all that he loved and idolized his father. He described his father as though he was the very archetype of spiritual maturity. His father was in the ministry and was driven by works. He was a hyper-manic workaholic. The greater the flurry of works his father did, the more that Warren stood in awe of him.
At that time, it seemed to me that "purpose" was only a prop in Warren's "purpose driven life." It seemed to me that being "driven" was what really enthralled him. He is a works-driven obsessive. As we shall see, recent events have convinced me that Warren does indeed have a purpose. It is inordinate personal ambition!
During Warren's feverish talk of four years ago, I felt oppressed and restless. Something about him didn't smell right. I worried that there was more of neurosis than Jesus Christ in his hyper-driven life. Warren described how he is sometimes dazed, paralyzed, and nearly blinded by the weird fits he often suffers just before he gives a message to a crowd. This is not an anointing of the Holy Spirit. It might just be the oppression of another kind of spirit. Warren is not being sanctified by his unhealthy works obsession.
It is no accident that Warren has the largest and most successful ministry in America. It is not because he works the hardest — although he might well work harder than anyone else. He is the perfect embodiment of the American evangelical cult of sanctification by works. Therefore, multitudes of evangelicals have gathered eagerly around him. Everywhere in America, frustrated evangelical pastors envy Warren's ability to whip his people into a frenzy of works.
Sanctification comes only by grace through faith
Just as salvation comes only by grace through faith, sanctification comes only by grace through faith. Man's way is works. God's way is by faith and grace which are vivified by the moving of the Holy Spirit. God's way is the only way salvation or sanctification can come to man. The multitudes of evangelicals who insist on being sanctified by good works or by keeping the law remain unsanctified. That is why the church is so worldly. That is also why so many evangelicals remain spiritual babes all their lives.
When the pastor looks down on a congregation full of babes, he will probably give them milk and not meat. Or, he might give them cotton candy to delight them, instead of serious doctrines to sink their teeth into. This is how the seeker-sensitive movement got started.
False sanctification came first. Christian workaholism followed. A works burnout came next. Stagnation and apathy among the spiritual babes came with the burnout. Then came the seeker-sensitive pandering that turned the apathetic babes into spoiled babes.
God's process of sanctification
When we follow God's way, what is the process of sanctification? Well, there is no salvation without the cross and the resurrection. In like manner, there is no sanctification without the cross and the resurrection.
In salvation, Christ died for us in a work of "substitution" so that we can be "justified." Our sinfulness is imputed to the crucified Christ. The righteousness of the risen Christ is imputed to us. His resurrection imparts to us the power of eternal life.
In sanctification, we die with him in a work of "identification" or "participation," so that we can be delivered from the power of sin. As we die with him, the power of the cross supernaturally destroys the power of sin within us.
Subsequently, we enter into the resurrection of Christ so that the supernatural power of Christ's resurrection might dwell in us — so that we can live a holy life. We can participate in the resurrection to the extent we have participated in the cross. The only holy life that exists on this earth is the crucified and the risen life.
Good works naturally flow from a holy resurrection life, but it is impossible to obtain a holy life through works. The laws of God are written upon the heart of a Christian living a supernaturally holy life. These laws can be naturally expressed through life as it flows out of the sanctified heart, but it is impossible to become holy through the works of the law.
Salvation often occurs in a moment in time, but sanctification occurs in stages over a lifetime. The fruit of this lifetime process of sanctification is progressive stages of maturity. Evangelicals no longer produce very many authentically mature men and women, precisely because they no longer understand God's way of sanctification.
The world is crucified unto me
"God forbid that I should glory, except in the cross of my Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world" (Galatians 6:14).
As we die with Christ in the process of sanctification, we are "crucified to the world." Only through this means can we correctly understand what God desires of us when he commands us to be separate from the world. But what if an entire congregation is seeking sanctification through works or through law? How then can they have a coherent understanding of separation from the world? Uncrucified Christians love the world and have no desire to separate from it. Therefore, it is very easy for an entire church to be taken captive by the culture. This is exactly what has happened at the seeker-sensitive churches. Separation from the world is never preached at seeker-sensitive churches. If it were preached, it would not be understood, because being crucified with Christ is not taught at those churches.
The sanctified Christian loves his home in heaven and hates this evil, passing world. The typical seeker-sensitive Christian loves the world and lacks assurance of salvation. The typical "emergent" (member of an emerging church) loves the world and is indifferent to eternal life. Emergent gatherings never speak about eternity, but endlessly chatter about changing society.
The Christian who is crucified to the world glories in the cross. The seeker-sensitives are ashamed of the cross. The cross is an offense to the people of the world. Seeker-sensitive ministries are scared to death that someone will be offended. Therefore, they are ashamed of the cross which causes offense.
Seeker-sensitive churches water down teachings about sin and the atonement for fear that someone will be offended. They have largely abandoned mention of the wrath of God, hell, and Satan.
Other touchy subjects are generally excluded, such as no sex before marriage and no sexual perversions such as what the gays practice.
St. Paul's limitations on women in ministry in the church is a taboo subject. Why? An associate pastor said to me that he avoids this subject because "I like to choose my battles." In other words, he elects not to fight this battle because it is a hot potato. After all, the feminists might be offended if we tell them the truth, and we can't have that.
Comfort rules
Seeker-sensitives mimic the postmodern culture because they fear that someone of that culture might come into the church and be uncomfortable with a different culture.
Well, what if experiencing a better culture than what one is used to might do the new person some good? Maybe he has come to church because he is disgusted with his life and his culture and wants to change to a new way of life. Would such a person want to come to church to see a duplicate of the culture out there?
The prime directive of the seeker-sensitives is that the new person must not feel uncomfortable. But what if God wants him to be uncomfortable with his life? "Sorry, God, we will not allow that kind of thing to happen in this church."
Comfort rules in the seeker-sensitive church. One such church I am familiar with lost their nerve about following God's will at their existing location. Instead, they sold out and moved. A cheap motel chain bought the land and put up a sign that said, "Comfort Rules." When I saw the sign I said, "That says it perfectly."
Seeker-sensitives use a variety of rationalizations for their cowardice about offending someone with truth. One rationalization is that we must make the message relevant to the culture for the sake of the gospel. I don't believe this rationalization, because the very people who use it are ashamed of the gospel.
My own church had a program to encourage people to evangelize. However, all they taught us was "building bridges." My outspoken comment was, "You can build bridges from now until doomsday and nothing will come of it if you never mention the cross." In retrospective, I wonder if building bridges without the cross was first and foremost a tactic for getting people into the church. If we really cared about the souls of men, I cannot believe we would forget to mention the cross.
The great evangelism train wreck
Several years ago, I read a study by George Barna that most of the growth at mega-churches was merely a recycling of people from one church to another. Barna accounted for a modest amount of the growth by the birth of children. His numbers indicated that none of the growth could be accounted for by evangelism — that is to say, people saved through the ministry of the church and who kept on attending the church.
The shattering irony of this story is that seeker-sensitive innovations are justified in the name of evangelism! Year after year, the evangelism fails — and year after year, seeker-sensitive innovations are rationalized by the need for evangelism!
There is something about the seeker-sensitive mind that makes groups of people unable to learn from their failures and compels them to endlessly repeat their mistakes. The inability to learn from mistakes is a characteristic of a fool.
We should have known without the statistics that wherever comfort rules, the people will be lukewarm. Lukewarm people are unfit for evangelism.
The cross and talk of sin make people uncomfortable, so let us forget about the cross and sin. Maybe if we make folks comfortable they will come here and be comfortable with us. After all, comfort rules at our church. Let us all go comfortably to hell together. Would someone please give me an example of Jesus of Nazarus making someone feel comfortable? He discomfited those who were at ease. Even when he comforted the broken hearted, he did not exempt them from his uncomfortable expectations of faith, obedience, and discipleship.
The kingdom of the babies
In the 1980's, I attended a church that was filled with spiritual babes, yet was specially blessed by God. The sermons were entirely milk without a shred of meat. I approved of this for a season because I felt the babes needed their milk. I assumed that when the babes grew up, the pastor would start serving meat. I stayed in that church for four years. The babes did not grow up, and the sermons were all milk the entire four years. I noticed that not only were the babes not growing, the pastor, elders, and staff were not growing. However, many were increasingly subject to strange doctrines and deceptions.
Christians who refuse to grow up will eventually be deceived. The great deception has come — meet the emerging church. This monster has come to swallow up our stunted spiritual babies.
The great dumbing down
American evangelicalism is devoted to dumbing down the content to reach the babes and the unchurched. Recent translations of the Bible are geared down into the language of a twelve-year-old child. Layers of meaning are shaved off the Bible text in order to achieve this feat of reductionism. Evangelicals have become so enamored of seeker-sensitive innovation that they have tolerated the mutilation of their precious Bible. Their two-edged sword is now shortened, dulled, and bent.
If anyone dares to smarten up, it scares the comfortable nursery full of babes, and howls of protest will be heard that we must not shoot over the heads of the people.
Any success I have as a writer comes from my determination to ignore the ubiquitous practice of dumbing down to reach a wider audience. The more I smarten up, the more successful I am as a writer — except at my own church.
Once upon a time, I had my own column in the church magazine. I endeavored to explore the difficult doctrines of orthodoxy in an intelligent, spiritually profound manner. I was fired after four months to make room for men who wanted to write about their experiences when they go fishing, and teen age girls who wanted to tell what they feel while they are running. That boring, mediocre magazine soon failed, of course. No one read it because the poorly written rambling narratives had little solid content. This was a perfect example of how dumbing down is foolish and ineffective.
Why can't we have a message that the people must stand on tiptoes to reach, instead of one so low that it makes them crawl on hands and knees to reach like a baby?
Multitudes are leaving the seeker-sensitive evangelical churches out of sheer boredom. Even the teens are running away from a steady diet of fluff. They can get all the fluff they want out in the world. However, in all my years in churches, I cannot remember a single case of a member of long standing leaving a church because the message was over his head.
The crisis of our age
I had a disagreement with a young Associate Pastor. He thought we were teaching the teens too much. He did not want them to learn any more until they were applying what they had already learned.
I said, "The crisis of our age is exactly the opposite of what you say. Our crisis is that the teens know almost nothing about basic biblical doctrines." The young pastor went out among the teens to find out the truth. He came back to me and said, "Fred, you are right. The teens know nothing."
This pastor had a lot of courage and integrity to do a survey, face up to painful facts, and admit he was wrong. However, I do not entirely agree that the teens know nothing. The teens had intuitively learned some good things through the seeker-sensitive venues of stories, dramas, testimonies, and entertainment. Unfortunately, they had no conceptual handles on what they learned and they could not put it into coherent words. Such will-of-the-wisp "knowledge" can be blown away like autumn leaves before the strong winds of deception.
Wispy intuitive learning through narratives and through dramas, testimonies, stories, and entertainment venues is widely used both by seeker-sensitives and by emerging churches.
Mimicking postmodernism vs. being postmodern
Unlike the seeker-sensitive churches. the emerging church does not mimic postmodern culture to make people feel comfortable. Emergents try to be at the cutting edge of postmodernism because they want to be the vanguard of postmodernism as the wave of the future.
Seeker-sensitives water down the atonement because they are ashamed of the cross and are afraid of offending someone. When emergents deconstruct the doctrine of the atonement, it is because they do not believe in the atonement.
King snakes versus coral snakes
Some variants of harmless king snakes are easily confused with deadly poisonous coral snakes. Some seeker-sensitive churches (king snakes) are easily confused with emerging churches (coral snakes). Let me give you an example of a church for which I cannot decide whether it is a king snake and a coral snake.
At a men's ministry of my church, we used materials written at Bill Hybel's Willow Creek Community Church, one of the largest churches in the nation. One of the sections of the material included the line, "Jesus died for society." I was the only one at my table who objected. For the sleepy slackers at my table, it was just fine to say "Jesus died for society."
The unanswered question for me was are they ashamed of the cross at Willow or do they reject the doctrine of the atonement? "Jesus died for society" sounds to me like something an emergent would say.
I e-mailed the author of the piece at Willow, and she said that she originally wrote "Jesus died for our sins" and it was edited by another person. She also said that she believes in the atonement and is not ashamed of the cross. A man above her in the ministry hierarchy had blotted out "Jesus died for our sins" and substituted "Jesus died for society." I e-mailed him and he agreed that he had made the change and insisted that the change was OK. It was impossible to figure out if he was a king snake or a coral snake.
I later read Faith Undone by Roger Oakland of the Lighthouse Trails ministry. Oakland claimed that Bill Hybels, senior pastor of Willow, was one of the founding fathers of the Emerging Church. I was skeptical because I could not independently confirm this information outside of the Lighthouse Trails ministry.
Then I went to the Leadership Network web site. The first wave of emerging churches was influenced, trained, inspired, and promoted by the Leadership Network, and this influence and promotion still continues. When I entered the Leadership Network web site, they were celebrating their 25th anniversary. I watched their 30-minute anniversary video. Bill Hybels was one of a select group of speakers on the history of the Leadership Network. He talked about his early, continuous, and present association with the Leadership Network. There is no question that Hybels was and is enthusiastic about this organization.
However, it is not clear to me whether Hybels is an emerging church man in his heart of hearts, or is a seeker-sensitive man who was to some degree influenced by emerging church ideas through his association with the Leadership Network. Perhaps, he is cleverly using both movements to maximize his ministry success, defined as the number of people in the pews. He has experimented with cutting edge churches within the larger church, which might turn out to be little emergent churches tucked away within a mammoth seeker-sensitive church.
Hybels has one foot in the emerging church and one foot in seeker-sensitive evangelicalism. Is he a king snake or a coral snake? I don't know. Perhaps Hybels himself doesn't know. Nothing can confuse the mind quite like inordinate personal ambition and exhaustion from an over-scheduled calendar.
The church growth cult
Hybel's church, Willow Creek Community, is an archetypal example of the church-growth cult that is driven by the inordinate personal ambition of pastors. This cult might provide a solution to the riddle of why churches like Willow can be a hybrid of emerging church and seeker-sensitive.
The Leadership Network has a famous church growth program that was inspired by the late Peter Drucker, a legendary management consultant for business. Drucker was influential not only in developing the church growth program, but was an early advisor at the Leadership Network about what the emerging church should be. Drucker is deceased, but his wife was one of the speakers on the 25th anniversary video of the Leadership Network.
Churches like Willow might enthusiastically adopt Drucker's church growth ideas and also adopt a variety of seeker-sensitive techniques. In the process, Emerging church ideas may be absorbed from the Leadership Network by osmosis. Voila, a seeker-sensitive/emerging church hybrid comes into being. Such a creature is a two-headed snake, like the two-headed king snake I saw as a child at the San Diego zoo.
As mentioned in part 1, the worst of all possible worlds is a seeker-sensitive church with emergents freely circulating in their midst. It is open season for the emergent wolves to prey upon the seeker-sensitive lambs.
Who is Rick Warren?
Roger Oakland claims that Rick Warren was one of the founding fathers of the emergent church and was on the board of the Leadership Network in the early days. However, Warren was conspicuously absent from the 25th anniversary video of the Leadership Network. Links on the lighthouse trails web site to evidences of Warren's leadership of the emerging church movement have been purged from the Saddleback Church's web site. Warren seems to be distancing himself from his emerging church associations.
The "Tides of Change" (1995), by Rick Warren and Leonard Sweet, is said to have been a trial balloon for the emerging church. Copies of the video are rare, hard to get, and extremely expensive. Leonard Sweet's later book The Church in Emerging Culture (2003) established him as a leader of the movement.
What hard facts can we know for sure about Warren? Rick Warren and Brian McLaren (a leader of the emerging church) both wrote introductions to The Emerging Church, by Dan Kimball (another leader of the emerging church). Warren did not seem to understand what he was endorsing. He wrote as though the emerging church was a very innovative and dynamic seeker-sensitive church. Was Warren blind to what he was endorsing, or was he playing a game?
Warren said "a marriage should be between a man and a woman" during the election campaign, when gay marriage was on the ballot in Warren's state of California. More recently, in a television interview with Larry King, Warren denied that he said marriage is between a man and a woman, and insisted that he would never say such a thing in the future. I have video links to the before and after statements. Warren lied. As an evangelical, Warren is supposed to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. As an emergent, he is supposed to support the gay agenda. Is he playing a game, as his lie suggests, or did he lose his nerve when challenged by Larry King, because he is torn between being an evangelical and an emergent? Is he like Bill Hybels, who has one foot in the seeker-sensitive movement and one in the emerging church?
In the international venues, Warren is setting himself up as a world leader of the emerging church. He has joined the board at Tony Blair's Faith Foundation, which is an ecumenical project sponsored by the United Nations. They propose to unite the peoples of six different religions to solve social problems and bring world peace. It is a one-world utopian project. It is aimed mainly at the "Abrahamic religions" — namely Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, and Sikhism.
The problem here is Hindu, Buddhism, and Sihkism are not Abrahamic religions. Are Tony and Rick afraid to say so, or are they so muddled with postmodern spirituality (as per the emerging church) that they can't tell the difference?
Tony and Rick are too careful and diplomatic to tip their hand away, so I turned to Eboo Patel, the leader of the Interfaith Youth Core, which is in partnership with the Faith Foundation. Eboo is an American Muslim who is much more straightforward about what he is thinking than Tony or Rick. I listened to his 30 minute talk on the streaming web. Eboo repeatedly contrasted "religious pluralism and diversity" with "religious extremism." His repeated point is that you are either one or the other. Terrorists are extremists, but so are doctrinally-orthodox evangelicals who adhere "rigidly" to theological dogma. In other words, anyone who believes in universal transcendent truth is an extremist and is in the same camp as the Taliban, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Eboo implies that anyone who insists that you can get to heaven only through Jesus Christ is an extremist. This is definitely a postmodern point of view.
Eboo talked about the "tolerance, pluralism, and diversity" that is "emerging" from the six religions of his focus. "Emerging" as per the "emerging church"? Well, Eboo is clearly postmodern, and his talk came across to me as emerging church light. He is not yet as far gone as Leonard Sweet with the "deep ecumenicism" of the "cosmic christ." But give Eboo time. He is still young.
However, Rick Warren is not young and has accepted world leadership of a postmodern, spiritual, and utopian organism. What price personal ambition? As someone living an "ambition-driven life," as Warren is, the further from home he is and the more exalted the office, the more postmodern he gets.
Warren is a seeker-sensitive evangelical in California, but is a postmodern when he is interviewed on television by the networks, and is "emerging church-light" when he is in Europe. He reminds me of King Henry IV (Henry de Bourbon, 1553-1610) who converted to Catholicism in order to be eligible to receive the French crown. Henry said, "Paris is worth a mass." To Warren, world leadership is worth faking an emerging church dance.
Test the spirits
I attended two different Bible studies in which a different emerging church book was discussed and praised in each study. In both cases, I alone identified both books as emerging church books — even though I had read neither books. My doctrinal orthodoxy helped me, but others who were also doctrinally orthodox were fooled.
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1).
How then did I know these were bad books? How did I know that Rick Warren had a "bad smell" when I heard him in person? Why was I the only one to object to the materials from Willow? Was I the only one with a good spiritual immune system? Perhaps.
But, there is more to it than being spiritually healthy. We must test the spirits.
"Test the spirits to see if they are of God" (1 John 4:1).
"The spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thought of a man except the man's spirit within him. The same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world, but the spirit who is from God, that we may freely understand what God has freely given us.... the spiritual man makes judgment about all things..." (1 Corinthians 2:10-15).
As an intellectual type, I have learned that I often discern wrongly if I lead with the intellect. I must allow "the spirit of man" that is to say, my human incorporeal spirit called "pneuma" in the Greek — to stay a step ahead of my intellect. Contrary to philosophers Descartes and Kant, it is not the intellectual mind that "knows," it is the human spirit that "knows." Discernment is all about knowing. However, the human spirit can be deceived. That is what happened to the false prophets of the emerging church.
All who are born again have the Holy Spirit of God indwelling in their human spirit. When the Holy Spirit, who is the "spirit of truth," takes the lead and the human spirit follows, we can discern what is of God and what is of the spirit of the world. The spirit of the world at this time is postmodern.
Those who are crucified with Christ are also crucified as to the world. Those who are crucified as to the world are repelled by postmodernism, instead of being attracted to it.
I spiritually discerned that those emerging church books were not of God, but were tainted with the bad smell of postmodern.
Therefore, early in the conversation I interjected, "postmodern!", "the emerging church!", and "heresy!" No one in the two Bible studies believed me at that time. I later did research and discovered that I was right in the case of both books.
The wolf is almost upon you
None of those people in these Bible studies are young, and none is a spiritual novice, yet they were all fooled. Suddenly, I realized how quickly the emerging church could deceive us and swallow us up, from the oldest to the youngest.
I wrote these two essays to sound the alarm. Remember how Delila awakened Sampson and said, "The Philistines are upon you!" I say, "Wake up, you sleeping seeker-sensitive sheep! The emerging church wolf is upon you!"
P.S. I am presently attending the Truth Project seminars, which are a perfect antidote for all this postmodern confusion.
© Fred Hutchison
RenewAmerica analyst Fred Hutchison also writes a column for RenewAmerica.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/090601
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
