Christmas 2015

When young I could never imagine
A life as beautiful as mine.
Never has it been taken casually,
Always a gift beyond measure.

Christmas is so different,
No longer the holy day of old,
Now a time to celebrate
The gifts never deserved.

Surrounded by people
Who love and are loved.
A family caring for one another
Even when living apart.

Aware of the moment,
Precious in its flight through time,
Our reverence of the day remains,
Now with new meaning but as sacred.

Islam

I have been struggling with my view of Islam. I am accustomed to being tolerant of others. I want to be tolerant. However, Islam has become a serious problem to me (and others, to be sure). While recognizing that most Muslims are peace loving and law abiding, we are witnessing the violence that many have committed based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur’an. We cannot tolerate such behavior.

From my personal history, I can identify with rigid adherence to a belief system. I have documented my transition from a rigid believer to one who views all religions as inherently a problem because each considers its views as “true”. Religions promote intolerance. If my version of truth is by definition from God, then your version must be wrong. Belief systems are essentially intolerant of other beliefs. In modern society, we do not let our disagreements end in violence. We have learned to live with such disagreements and differences. In fact, most of us enjoy living in world of different people.

Islam could be lumped into the general category of “religion” with all the negative dimensions associated with religions in general, e.g., Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity. However, Islam seems to represent a distinctly different problem, testified by its violence demonstrated throughout the Middle East, Boston, and now Paris. I am indebted to Ayaan Hirsi Ali whose personal history is incorporated into her book, “Heretic”. Her views from within her history are ones that make sense to me.

Before focusing on the problems associated with Islam, I surely am aware that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. They want no part of violence demonstrated in recent years.

They are mortified by the hatred exemplified by extreme interpretations of the Qur’an. What I am concerned about is the extreme adherence to the literal words of the Qur’an. All religions interpreted by literal adherence to words written in the past, often distant past, represent a major problem. While most adherents of Christianity and Judaism adopt a more selected interpretation of scriptures, there is clearly a large minority of Muslims who remain rooted in the adherence to Qur’an. This is a very serious problem. 

Religions often have had historically violent pasts. In the history of Christianity, there has been violence against Christians, especially during the first and second century. In turn, Christianity demonstrated horrendous violence during the Crusades and, later, Christians were violent with one another following the Reformation during the 30 Year War.

Stories in the Old Testament document violent struggles as the Jews sought to live with a different God than the ones endorsed by civil rulers. And, to survive, Jews committed atrocities. Jews suffered the worse of violence during the Holocaust. Blame is mostly attributed to Hitler, but he was supported minimally by the silence of other religions, e.g., Catholicism. Jews today are fighting the Palestinians, but one could argue it is less attributed to religion than ownership of land. The violence between Jews and Palestinians is generally not justified in the name of God or religion.

What distinguishes Islam from other religions is its lack of adaptation to modern society. Within Judaism, toleration of differences resulted in the establishment of different “branches”, e.g., Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed. While these various congregations differ, at times radically, from one another, their differences do not result in violence against one another. They may argue with others, but generally, no one advocates killing those who differ.

When I was growing up, I was told that being Catholic was special. I was taught that heaven was easier to attain for me than those belonging to other beliefs, including other Christian religions. When Scripture was taught, even when I entered the seminary (1955), it was spoken as Truth personified. God’s word was always true. Literal interpretation was understood to be reliable. However, no one sanctioned killing another in the name of religion. Civil order demanded a level of tolerance that exceeded the literal interpretation of Scripture.

In addition, as social values changed, the stories in Scripture were now interpreted within a more complex understanding of their origins. Scripture was now interpreted more as a document based on belief than history. The religious truth was incorporated into a story. This development of understanding beliefs within the context of history disturbs some, but generally no one today advocates killing those who differ.

Even though atrocities have been committed by Myanmar’s Buddhist majority against the Muslim Rohingya population and the Hindu majority in India at times commits violence against the Muslim minority, Islam clearly is an outlier today in the world of religious beliefs. In fact, Islam will remain a problem as long as Shias and Sunnis are enemies. Saudi Arabia is more concerned by the advances of Shia domination envisioned by Iran. Saudi Arabia’s support of the Madrassas which, in fact,  has promoted extremists.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali differentiates the writing of the Qur’an between the time when Mohammed was in Mecca and in Medina. While in Mecca, he was clearly trying to persuade people to identify with his writing. He was more tolerant of differences since he wanted to attract new followers. By the time Mohammed arrived in Medina, he was now supported by many people, resulting in more intolerant views expressed in the name of Allah.

While some Muslims have adopted the Qur’an through the lens of more tolerant interpretation, e.g., Salafi, or through the guidance of individual Imams, Muslims generally identify with the literal interpretation the Qur’an. Even though most Muslims in the Western World have accommodated to civil law, Muslims generally support, and surely do not disavow Sharia as the rule of law in accordance with the Qur’an.

Ali’s understanding of Islam makes sense. Adopting Sharia results in problems for women and non-Muslims. If the only way of following the teachings of Mohammed is strict allegiance to the literal interpretation of the Qur’an, the violent  history that we are witnessing will continue.

Ali considers herself a heretic, as her book is titled. She wants to promote a necessary reform of Islam to enable everyone to participate in cultural progress, as in the rights of women. She has identified five precepts that must be satisfied if reform will be realized.

Ensure that Muhammad and the Qur’an are open to interpretation and criticism.

In today’s world, most people committed to their religion either ignore or reinterpret parts of their belief system to accommodate to daily life. Most Catholics do not believe that birth control is sinful even though the pope and hierarchy, in general, still support the position. Many Catholics disagree with the official position on women in the life of the Church, viz., they cannot become priests. Yet, they continue to adhere to the community of believers without any reservation. They can differentiate between what is considered important and the trivial.

Give priority to this life, not the afterlife.        

The Qur’an promotes a focus on the afterlife. When dying, especially in the name of Allah, becomes more important than living, there is a serious problem. In today’s world, religious leaders promote the virtue of making this world a better place for all. No one is encouraged to become a “martyr” for the sake of God. The reports of savage atrocities committed by ISIS and other extreme Muslims are associated with the notion that they were looking for the rewards of the next life.

Shackle Sharia and end its supremacy over secular law.

Muslims, in general, are brought up assigning a priority to obeying the rule of the Qur’an, the Sharia, rather than the laws of civil society. Most Muslims in the Western world have adjusted to the norms of modern society. However, for those who are adhering to the strict interpretation of the Qur’an, the Sharia is the norm. This must end if Muslims are to become part of modern society. Even though the Hasidic Jews live in essential a ghetto, they honor the demands of the society in which they live. Muslims have to assign a higher priority to adherence to civil law.

End the practice of “commanding right, forbidding wrong”.

Mohammed’s journey from Mecca to Medina resulted in his becoming less tolerant of non-Muslims. In Mecca, he tolerated Christians. He was looking for followers. In Medina, he changed his views with the support of many followers. While non-believers could live if they paid a tax, it was now the policy that behavior considered wrong could be repudiated by violence. Killing in the name of Allah was now a virtue.

Abandon the call to jihad.

We have current knowledge of the effects of the call to jihad. Given the world we live in, it is enticing for those who are struggling with poverty and isolation to adopt the path of jihad to achieve some meaning and significance to an otherwise broken environment. Such an interpretation of jihad has to be abandoned as intolerable.

Even though I have an intellectual problem with religions, including Islam, I realize that many people find all sorts of benefits from the beliefs and religious practices. However, I am totally aware that there is a serious problem associated with Muslim extremists. I surely do not agree with those advocating war. The military is great for what it can do, but it is not designed to deal with extremists. In fact, I agree with those that attribute much of current episodes of violence to the history of military interventions by the West. War may be appropriate between nation states, but there is no evidence that it is capable to dealing with groups of individuals intending to commit violence.

I do see the military involved in specific actions, coupled with the intelligence and manpower of other nations, in addressing specific targets, e.g., sites of ISIL manpower and distribution centers. However, the present mess will ultimately have to be dealt with by the Middle East nations that are directly involved in the majority of the reported violence. There is no evidence that the military, by itself, can accomplish “victory”. We did not do it in Vietnam, nor Afghanistan, and not Iraq. The history of the Middle East itself flawed from the time of WWI when the Caliphate was destroyed and nations were somewhat arbitrarily delineated.  Violence will remain until the nation states of the Middle East are sorted out and Shias and Sunnis accommodate to their differences without resorting to violence. 

Most Muslims are essentially peace-loving members of their communities. Muslims associated with Wahhabism, e.g., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, represent a major problem that can be addressed by diplomatic and economic strategies. For example, United States and other western nations should stop supporting Saudi Arabia unless they curtail the promotion of their version of Islam, including their following Sharia and its offensive punishments and control of women.

Ultimately I think that the Muslim world will moderate with time and identify with the reforms advocated by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The Muslim world will eventually look back at these horrible times as Christians view the Crusades. For some, like myself, they will become non-believers. In either case, in time, moderation will prevail. Until then, armed resistance directed to specific targets, diplomacy aimed to address the nations that are splintered by their Shia and Sunni beliefs, and economic strategies to promote moderation.

4 Feb 2016
Mustafa Alkyl's column is in synch with my blog. From his point of view, Islam and the Caliphate are not inherently linked to each other. Removing Islam from the issue of the state is similar to the history of Christianity that needed to remove itself from the Roman Empire. Islam would then focus more on the inherent spiritual message which would promote more tolerance of others.