Secular Islam

There's been some discussion in the comments lately about whether Islam is capable of democratic government. I believe the pertinent question is less about democracy than it is about freedom and secularism. Democracy in an Islamic country would not ensure freedom, if the majority of the population thought that oppressing people of different beliefs or races was the right thing to do. What is necessary is secularism in government, and a commitment to respecting people's differences. I got some encouragement on that front today, from a statement released by delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, an event to be held in St. Petersburg, Florida on March 5, 2007. Here is what they have to say:

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to

reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostacy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;

eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women; protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;

reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;

and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;

and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must chose for themselves.

Those are great words, and I take heart in them. Now I know that there are some who will say that this Summit is happening in Florida, and not the Middle East, therefor it says nothing about the potential of that region for secular democracy or any other form of secular government, because the region/religion has a totalitarian mindset. However, I would respond that many of the signatories to the above statement are still practicing Muslims, which shows that it is possible for people to believe in Islam and also believe in freedom. It is my prayer that this understanding will spread throughout the Muslim world, and that the power of these ideas will defeat the opposing ideas of oppression and intolerance by sheer numbers and force of will. I don't know what the answer to that prayer will be, but events like the Secular Islam Summit keep me hoping.

Hat tip: Instapundit

The Y Files: Women, Islam, and the veil

Hey, here's an interesting discussion on whether liberating Muslim women from the veil, by means of illiberal bans on the burqa and the niqab, makes sense. The Y Files: Women, Islam, and the veil looks at a Weekly Standard article by Olivier Guitta, which examines the issue of the coercion in fundamentalist Islam for women to wear the full body and face coverings, and Cathy Young of The Y Files weighs in on whether the alternate form of coercion--banning the coverings--is an appropriate action in liberal societies with liberal standards, including freedom of religious expression. This issue is popping up all over the place: England, the Netherlands, France, and even in Muslim countries. So, the question is, is tolerating the veil, in the name of tolerance, truly the liberal thing to do? Young quotes herself from an article in the Boston Globe, and I think that portion is worth passing on to you here:

using the language of tolerance to justify oppressive practices is a grotesque perversion of liberalism. The veiling debate is a case in point. No amount of rhetorical sleight of hand can disguise the fact that the full-face veil makes women, literally, faceless. Some Muslim women in the West may choose this garb (which is not mandated in the Koran), but their explanations often reveal an internalized misogynistic view of women as creatures whose very existence is a sexual provocation to men. What's more, their choice helps legitimize a custom that is imposed on millions of women around the world who have no choice.

I understand the conflict of interest inherent to this question. One wonders whether banning the veil is not as much of a violation of the rights of the women who truly do want to wear it, as forcing the veil is a violation of the rights of others who are trapped behind its confines, but I tend to agree with Young on this one. So many women are either pressured, browbeaten, or literally beaten to induce their cooperation in what is basically a misogynistic tool of enslavement, that I cannot think that the rights of those who desire to cover every inch of themselves, including their faces, outweigh the concerns for those many women who adopt the practice of totally covering themselves simply to appease their oppressors. Young's post touches briefly on a point made in the Weekly Standard article, the fact that some Muslim countries have banned the veil in order to promote women's rights, and, while they have not always been "liberal" about these attempts at modernization, the results have been liberating for the women involved. Have a look at the whole post, and, if you have the time, read the comments as well. I found the discussion there quite interesting.

On the same subject, The Big Pharaoh, an Egyptian blogger to whom I have linked several times, has addressed the question of the full covering, as well as just the hair covering, often. He laments the changes that allowed his mother to stroll the streets of Cairo in a mini-skirt, forty years ago, to the state today, where uncovered, and even covered girls, are routinely accosted by prurient youths. He says the problem has increased, rather than decreased, as more and more women have covered themselves in Egyptian society, and clearly believes the illiberal teachings of religious leaders is largely to blame. His latest post is a "letter from God," addressed to those who claim to speak for him, and tell young girls that they must cover their hair. (The page is a bit out of whack, but just scroll down and the text appears lower down the page.) This post addresses some of the passages in the Koran which are commonly used to support the idea that women must hide themselves. It's a fascinating, if occasionally profane, read.

Update: I thought I ought to explain what I meant by the veil being "basically a misogynistic tool of enslavement." My point is simply this. Requiring women to hide everything that a man might find titillating (is that even possible?) is making her responsible for his behavior, and excusing his lack of self control, thus making her a slave to his libido. The claim is that it's about protecting women. Bunk. It's about recognizing that these men lack character, but refusing to address the root of that issue. If the Imams who preach that women need to be covered from head to toe to keep boys' hands out of the cookie jar spent half as much time preaching to the boys themselves about keeping their hands in their pockets, the men might take a little more responsibility for their own actions. Her bearing the consequences for his lack of self control=misogynistic enslavement.

Hat tip: Instapundit, for the Cathy Young link

That's Insulting!!

It seems that someone is always insulting Islam, doesn't it? Even when they're not. At least that's the view of Kemal Silay, an Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies Professor at Indiana University, writing for TCS Daily. Silay, himself a Muslim, looks at a trumped up charge levelled against the Fifth Avenue Apple Store by an Islamist website, and says "the Islamist thought police" are "foolishly and maliciously" interpreting the architectural design of the store as "blatant insult to Islam." The store, you see, is in the shape of a cube, and thus too closely resembles the building in Mecca towards which Muslims pray. Even worse, customers sometimes refer to it as the "Apple Mecca." Could an insult to a religion get any more blatant? After all, the building couldn't possibly be designed to pay homage to the cube shaped computer that Apple put out in the nineties, and calling it the "Apple Mecca" couldn't refer to the fact it's the place to which Apple customers are drawn because of all it offers. Nope, it must be an insult to Islam. (Of course, as a Christian, I often get offended this way myself. I frequently find telephone poles an insult to Christianity, and have considered throwing a riot or two in protest.)

Silay is not happy with the Islamist ability to see insult where none is intended, and even where it is intended, makes it clear that he would rather his fellow Muslims spent their time more productively:

While Western civilization is inventing scientific and artistic marvels, the other wings of Islamism are preoccupied with inventing provocations in the hope of mobilizing otherwise ordinary Muslims. We have seen this before: the Muhammad cartoon controversy exhibited the same faulty reasoning but unfortunately it succeeded in turning thousands of Muslims to violent protests. This latest incident is one more in a growing list of examples of Muslims over-reacting, over- and mis-interpreting, jumping to conclusions and causing controversy over something innocent or innocuous.

Silay sees Islamism as the threat to Islam, rather than the Apple Store and other Western objects Islamists try to co-opt as tools in the propaganda wars. He rightly calls Islamism "the most dangerous global phenomenon of our time." Have a look at the rest of the article, if only to support the efforts of moderate Islam. I often want to pass on things like this when I find them, because I am always encouraged to see reasonable Muslim voices speaking out to counter the Islamist agenda. We need more of them, and we need to encourage their participation in the public forum. I know I'm risking "insult to Islam" by doing so, but since by some standards I insult Islam on a daily basis anyway by being a Christian, it's a risk I can live with.

Note: Sorry about the sarcasm on this one--although not sorry enough to rewrite this post. I'm apparently just in one of those moods. I'll try to tone it down now, though. Maybe.

Ramadan TV

I would not have expected to read that Ramadan comedy could involve making fun of Islamic fundamentalists, would you? Ramadan is the holiest month in the Muslim calendar; surely it's a time to all pull together and focus on the things all Muslims have in common, right? Well, it seems not, if this NBC News report, by Charlene Gubash, is any indication. According to Gubash, Ramadan is also the high point in the Muslim TV viewing year, equivalent to sweeps week here in the States, and the competition is fierce. Oddly enough, for those of us who aren't familiar with the television options in Muslim countries, not all the Ramadan viewing fare is "Islamically Correct." Gubash elaborates:

An example is "Tash Ma Tash," a wildly popular Saudi TV series that is deploying satire to poke fun at the fundamentalists.

Staff on the show have received death threats for what some consider brazen impertinence; meanwhile, senior sheikhs issued a religious edict which deemed it was sinful to watch "Tash MaTash" after an episode skewered religious judges for working only three hours a day. Another episode was heavily criticized by clerics and others when it ridiculed the practice of requiring women to be accompanied by a male relative or a husband when dining out.

Interesting, eh? Saudi TV as a refuge for anti-fundamentalist satire? Who'da thunk? The article has a few more surprises as well, and other programs that might put a twist in your preconceptions--well worth a read. Moving on, Gubash's article led me to an Associated press piece which furthers indicates that Ramadan TV isn't all about pleasing the jihadis and Islamic fundamentalists. There's a Syrian director who's putting out a series for Ramadan that condemns terrorism, saying it hurts Muslims. One thing of note in this article is that the director blames the rise in terrorism 100% on the U.S., because we invaded Iraq and support Israel. (I don't suppose it would do any good to note the rise of terrorism before we ever put a toe in Iraq. I'm sure it wouldn't do any good to defend our stance on Israel. That would just be wasted breath.)

Regardless of what I think is a mistaken perspective on the source of Islamic terrorism, it's encouraging to see influential Muslims using the airwaves to condemn it. I keep reading things which make me think that the Islamic world can be extremely reasonable, despite what the loonies do. I read today that even the Sunnis in Iraq have largely turned against Al Qaeda, and are cooperating with the government in fighting that organization. Let's hope all these positive indications are a sign of things to come, shall we? I'm still having a hard time getting my head around religious satire in Saudi Arabia, but it's a befuddlement to which I would most happily adjust. I hope "Tash Ma Tash" wins Ramadan sweeps.

Hat tip: In DC Journal

I Can't Find The Patient, Doctor; I know She's Gotta Be In There Somewhere

Egyptian blogger Big Pharaoh has an example of Western "sensitivity to Muslims" run amok (in the doing things not to offend them sense, not the being allergic to them sense.) A couple of British hospitals are offering a burka-style gown for their patients who really want to preserve their modesty. BP says, "No Freakin Way!', and comments that they don't even have this kind of hospital gown in Egypt. He thinks Britain is going way too far, and not doing Muslims any favors. Check it out. He's got a picture of the gown. It actually looks really comfortable......okay, not even close.

Islamofascism

I learned a new word today: neologism--meaning a newly invented word or phrase. The word it referenced was Islamofascism. Stephen Schwartz, the Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, and the writer at TCS Daily delving into this topic, has some grounds for expertise in the subject, and a definite perspective as to its meaning:

I admit to a lack of modesty or neutrality about this discussion, since I was, as I will explain, the first Westerner to use the neologism in this context.

In my analysis, as originally put in print directly after the horror of September 11, 2001, Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama'atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Political typologies should make distinctions, rather than confusing them, and Islamofascism is neither a loose nor an improvised concept. It should be employed sparingly and precisely. The indicated movements should be treated as Islamofascist, first, because of their congruence with the defining characteristics of classic fascism, especially in its most historically-significant form -- German National Socialism.

What follows in the article is an exploration of what makes fascism distinct from other far right ideologies, which, according to Schwartz, seek to enforce laws and reinforce authority. By contrast, he says, "...the fascist organizations of Mussolini and Hitler, in their conquests of power, showed no reluctance to rupture peace and repudiate parliamentary and other institutions; the fascists employed terror against both the existing political structure and society at large. " He stresses that, "Fascism is not merely a harsh dictatorship or oppression by privilege." Where he says groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah converge with fascism is in their "...willful, arbitrary, and gratuitous disruption of global society, either by terrorist conspiracies or by violation of peace between states." Schwartz also claims that, as in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, Islamofascism has a root in economic dissatisfaction and frustrated ambitions. He goes on to explain that fascism is imperialistic, totalitarian, and paramilitary. This is the common ground which Schwartz sees the Islamofascism of today, and the forms of fascism we find in history, as sharing.

Where Schwartz takes his analysis from there is his stated belief that this fascism is not intrinsic to Islam:

Islamofascism is a distortion of Islam, exactly as Italian and German fascism represented perversions of respectable patriotism in those countries. Nobody argues today that Nazism possessed historical legitimacy as an expression of German nationalism; only Nazis would make such claims, to defend themselves. Similarly, Wahhabis and their allies argue that their doctrines are "just Islam." But German culture existed for centuries, and exists today, without submitting to Nazi values; Islam created a world-spanning civilization, surviving in a healthy condition in many countries today, without Wahhabism or political Shiism, both of which are less than 500 years old.

Schwartz then goes on to examine fascists movements that have been tied to Christian extremism, citing several examples. Of course, as a Christian myself, I would say that these "Christian fascists" were not really Christian at all, by any spiritual standard, but merely co-opting Christian terminology, or historical cultural tradition, to attract others to their cause and invest themselves with legitimacy. I think this is the point Schwartz is making about the Islamofascists as well. It is definitely true that the people who have declared war on the West are Islamic. It is true that most of the terrorist attacks around the world are committed by young Muslim males (as Michelle Malkin frequently points out when parts of the media refuse to acknowledge this fact after any given terrorist act of violence.) There is no question that some Muslims believe their faith justifies, and in fact commands, their aggression. However, it is also true that there are many Muslims throughout the globe who do not share the Islamofascists world view.

Because of this distinction, Schwartz thinks the definition of the term Islamofascism is extremely important, as well as the way civilized people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, respond to the threat of this particular fascist ideology:

Similarly, the violence wreaked by al-Qaida and Hezbollah, and by Saddam Hussein before them, has been different from other expressions of reactionary Arabism, simple Islamist ideology, or violent corruption in the post-colonial world. Between democracy, civilized values, and normal religion on one side, and Islamofascism on the other, there can be no compromise; as I have written before, it is a struggle to the death. President Bush is right to say "young democracies are fragile ... this may be [the Islamofascists'] last and best opportunity to stop freedom's advance." As with the Nazis, nothing short of a victory for democracy can assure the world's security.

What I find encouraging is seeing this kind of argument from the Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. I've read Mr. Schwartz's writing before, and it's always been something notable to me to read this kind of reason from a very vocal Muslim. What discourages me is that it is so very notable, by reason of being rare. What I can hope, being by nature an optimist, is that he speaks for a large, if relatively silent majority. Now, if that majority could become more vocal, and stop the prevalent drumbeat that any use of such terms as Islamofascism is by nature racist and bigoted, instead acknowledging that the term has its roots in reality, we as a civilization might be able to come to a more unified consensus and strive for and achieve "nothing short of victory."

Moderation In All Things

"Islamist moderate" sounds to most westerners like an oxymoron--for good reason. Not that Islam can't be compatible with secular government, but the idea of Islamists running the government conjures up images of authoritarian regimes bent on forcing the entire world to conform to a very narrow view of Shari'a law. Iran springs to mind. Michael Totten's (you know Michael Totten--one of my favorite bloggers/independent journalists) quest for moderate Islamists seemed to be in vain, until he discovered The Kurdistan Islamic Union, and interviewed some people who claim to be Islamists, but don't want to kill you if you don't convert to Islam, or make women wear a burkha, hiding in the house while men run the world; they don't want to force you to give up wine with dinner, or material possesions, or any of the other standard "life would be better if we all revert to the seventh century" talking points. Isn't that refreshing? I hope the moderate Islamist bug is catching. Totten, who at first doubted these people could really be Islamists, came around to believing that they are the real deal:

If all the world’s Islamists were like these mellow Kurdish Islamists there would be no Terror War and there would be no talk of any clash of civilizations. It’s no accident, nor is it merely a convenience, that the Kurds of Iraq are American allies.

Take the time to read the article. It's fascinating, and encouraging--the best of both worlds.

Moroccan Encouragement

If you are one of the people who don't believe there is any such thing as moderate Islam, have a look at this Weekly Standard piece about Morocco by Joseph Loconte. Like many Muslim countries, Morocco has seen its days of mass protests. However, they haven't been like the ones we've witnessed of late, with people dying over cartoons and rumors about Koran flushing. Three years ago Casablanca experienced an al Qaeda linked terrorist attack that killed 41 people, and injured a hundred more.

"We should recall that Morocco has also been a victim of terrorism," Ahmed Abaddi, Morocco's director of Islamic affairs, told journalists at a recent Washington-area dinner. "We were attacked by al Qaeda, and a million people went out to protest."

Those protests included Jews as well as Muslims, marching together. Moroccan imams have denounced Osama Bin Laden and Muslim extremists in their mosques. Clerics there are receiving training very unlike that coming out of those madrasahs which indoctrinate Muslim youth in religiously inspired hatred of the West.

Earlier this year, a class of 210 imams graduated from a year-long seminar on moderate Islam and the religious roots of Western democracy. They're all being sent back to their local mosques to carry the message. Says Abaddi: "To be mute when all of this is happening would be a sin."

Read the rest. It really is encouraging.