Tuesday, July 11, 2006
RELIGIOUS DOGMA IS NOT THE MAIN SOURCE
Michael Portillo's quote of evidently the latest media-anointed "moderate":
Since Portillo wrote that, the "Islam Expo" has concluded. But that citation led me to think it worth one more post revisiting that "expo". The BBC informed us that Expo spokesman Anas Altikriti is also:
Hmm, the name causes one immediately to wonder. Doing a little more "internet research" on that group also leads one to Wikipedia. While that is in no way an authoritative source of course, given what is expressed there about Mr Altikriti's career, this characterization seems reasonable:
Which puts into a clearer context that rather confrontational quote of his which Portillo noted. What's interesting also is what his "Cordoba Foundation" professes to stand for, according to Mr Altikriti:
The underlying assumption to that is Cordoba was a city of singular Islamic achievement. Yes, I know others tell us it was in fact Islamic Granada that was "singular". Okay, but whichever might have been more "singular" is not what really matters here.
What's more relevant to us today is this. He repeats above that which we often are told point blank and as incontrovertible fact: that Cordoba or Granada (or someplace) in Muslim-controlled Spain pre-1492 was a center of great Islamic learning and religious tolerance, which saw all three major faiths living together in perfect harmony. Indeed, it was Islam that cultivated multi-faith learning and prosperity under the thoughtful gaze of the ultra-tolerant caliph of the day.
And knowing what we know about many in the West's current sheer disdain for Christianity, it is useful when one cites Muslim Spain to sigh about how it was, sadly, the semi-barbaric Christian reconquista of Spain which extinguished that supposed Islamic center of learning and interfaith harmony. After all, when Christians voice views, in its reporting of them the BBC never tries to make Christians look "narrow-minded". Indeed, presumably a "Christian expo" today would be reported on as favorably by the BBC. But let's not stray that way.
I italicize Islamic above repeatedly for this reason: that it was Islamic is a misimpression that needs to be corrected. I wrote slightly over 2 years ago:
My core point is that what has always led to unprecedented religious freedom and "diversity" in thought hasn't been Islam or Christianity per se. Rather, in whatever form and at whatever location, such emerging was the result mostly of a human-centered (sometimes borderline irreligious) secular outlook that was seen by many as questioning (sometimes even as blaspheming) the religious dogma of the time and place. For instance, consider these words from the man who would become the third U.S. President:
That attitude definitely does not come down to us from either Islam or Christianity. I wrote also that:
And yes, such thinkers did have an impact outside the "Muslim world". But NOT because they were having Islamic thoughts. It was because they were "thinking". So neither Averroes' philosophy nor Cordoba's "diversity" were Islamic. There were far more important non-dogmatic reasons for the emergence of such "splendid examples of unprecedented human advancement".
And as the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia points out:
Nasty stuff dogma like that, but absolutely necessary to bear in mind. However, as a Roman Catholic, I well understand too that it was the mostly non-Catholic, irreligious Western Enlightenment of the Jeffersons of the world which has helped make today's Western religious freedom and tolerance (which we all seem to take for granted) possible. As Muslims living in those countries, it might be helpful if Mr Altikriti and many others came to realize that, too.
All of that is merely debate-fodder, though. In practical current terms, no matter what, given what we continue to hear about the too often frightening nature of much "Muslim opinion" in Britain and other Western societies especially, all the "Islam expos" in the world seem rather unlikely even to dent Islam's increasingly poor PR in non-Islamic countries. The end of hyper-dogmatic, Islam-citing, Koran-verse-repeating, suicide bombers would likely accomplish much more in that respect. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Michael Portillo's quote of evidently the latest media-anointed "moderate":
...There is ... disagreeable ambiguity when some spokesmen link terror to British foreign policy. Anas Altikriti, the director of the Islam Expo (now taking place at Alexandra Palace in north London), wrote last week: “We will not stand for our country and people being terrorised nor will we stand for our government terrorising any other peoples.” That is presumably a reference to Iraq and Afghanistan. What does “will not stand for” mean?...
Since Portillo wrote that, the "Islam Expo" has concluded. But that citation led me to think it worth one more post revisiting that "expo". The BBC informed us that Expo spokesman Anas Altikriti is also:
...chief executive of the Cordoba Foundation...
Hmm, the name causes one immediately to wonder. Doing a little more "internet research" on that group also leads one to Wikipedia. While that is in no way an authoritative source of course, given what is expressed there about Mr Altikriti's career, this characterization seems reasonable:
One of the leading figures of the British Anti-War movement, Altikriti also served as president of the Muslim Association of Britain between 2004- 2005.
Which puts into a clearer context that rather confrontational quote of his which Portillo noted. What's interesting also is what his "Cordoba Foundation" professes to stand for, according to Mr Altikriti:
...“in light of recent events, some have pushed the argument of the impossibility of a peaceful and constructive co-existence between the West and the Muslim World. However, not so long-ago, we experienced what was arguably one of the most splendid examples of unprecedented human advancement where communities of diverse religions, ideas and cultures not only co-existed, but also excelled in all walks of life. The civilisation which emerged from Cordoba, is not unique in itself, but is also a beacon of hope for all of us in these difficult and trying times”.
The underlying assumption to that is Cordoba was a city of singular Islamic achievement. Yes, I know others tell us it was in fact Islamic Granada that was "singular". Okay, but whichever might have been more "singular" is not what really matters here.
What's more relevant to us today is this. He repeats above that which we often are told point blank and as incontrovertible fact: that Cordoba or Granada (or someplace) in Muslim-controlled Spain pre-1492 was a center of great Islamic learning and religious tolerance, which saw all three major faiths living together in perfect harmony. Indeed, it was Islam that cultivated multi-faith learning and prosperity under the thoughtful gaze of the ultra-tolerant caliph of the day.
And knowing what we know about many in the West's current sheer disdain for Christianity, it is useful when one cites Muslim Spain to sigh about how it was, sadly, the semi-barbaric Christian reconquista of Spain which extinguished that supposed Islamic center of learning and interfaith harmony. After all, when Christians voice views, in its reporting of them the BBC never tries to make Christians look "narrow-minded". Indeed, presumably a "Christian expo" today would be reported on as favorably by the BBC. But let's not stray that way.
I italicize Islamic above repeatedly for this reason: that it was Islamic is a misimpression that needs to be corrected. I wrote slightly over 2 years ago:
...In recent years, given that the media image of Islam is unfortunately increasingly that of dementos blowing themselves up in restaurants, or crashing planes suicidally into buildings while screaming aloud to Allah, it is hardly a surprise that Muslim Spain has been increasingly seized upon by many as representing a gentle, enlightened, "Islamic zenith."
And yes, Muslim Spain was stunning. And everybody needs their "zenith" or "golden age", right? But Muslim Spain was really more of an aberration, than the Islamic rule. It probably falls closer into line with the Italy of the Renaissance -- which was, more often than not, decidedly LESS THAN A WHOLLY "Christian" undertaking -- than with an Islamic scriptural norm. All in all, claiming Muslim Spain is representative of "Islamic thought and culture" overall down the centuries is a lot like asserting current day New York City is representative of global "Christian culture".
And that is the real problem with the "Islamic zenith" stuff. We don't tend to talk of a "Christian intellectual golden age" in the same terms, and never have. Because doing so is comparing apples and oranges...
...ever heard the term "flowering of Christianity"? Of course not. We don't use it. Because culture, philosophy and science are no more "Christian" than they are "Islamic", or anything else...
And yes, Muslim Spain was stunning. And everybody needs their "zenith" or "golden age", right? But Muslim Spain was really more of an aberration, than the Islamic rule. It probably falls closer into line with the Italy of the Renaissance -- which was, more often than not, decidedly LESS THAN A WHOLLY "Christian" undertaking -- than with an Islamic scriptural norm. All in all, claiming Muslim Spain is representative of "Islamic thought and culture" overall down the centuries is a lot like asserting current day New York City is representative of global "Christian culture".
And that is the real problem with the "Islamic zenith" stuff. We don't tend to talk of a "Christian intellectual golden age" in the same terms, and never have. Because doing so is comparing apples and oranges...
...ever heard the term "flowering of Christianity"? Of course not. We don't use it. Because culture, philosophy and science are no more "Christian" than they are "Islamic", or anything else...
My core point is that what has always led to unprecedented religious freedom and "diversity" in thought hasn't been Islam or Christianity per se. Rather, in whatever form and at whatever location, such emerging was the result mostly of a human-centered (sometimes borderline irreligious) secular outlook that was seen by many as questioning (sometimes even as blaspheming) the religious dogma of the time and place. For instance, consider these words from the man who would become the third U.S. President:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
That attitude definitely does not come down to us from either Islam or Christianity. I wrote also that:
...Probably the most famous -- and deservedly so -- Muslim Spanish scholar was Ibn Roschd, or Averroes (1126-1198). The fate of his work was pretty typical of his era, whether Islamic or Christian:
But Averroes had virtually NO impact on "Islamic" thought. That's right. None.
Indeed, if it was "Islam" that was what made "Granada" and "Cordoba", it seems curious that such "Islamic innovation" failed to take root much earlier in the Arabian peninsula, where of course Islam had been born, and where it had existed unchallenged for much longer than it did in Spain . . .
But it didn't happen in Arabia because "Islam" wasn't THE reason. Like Averroes, other Muslim scholars, such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) succeeded mostly in spite of the strictures of Islam, not because of them...
. . . He devoted himself to jurisprudence, medicine, and mathematics, as well as to philosophy and theology. Under the Califs Abu Jacub Jusuf and his son, Jacub Al Mansur, he enjoyed extraordinary favor at court and was entrusted with several important civil offices at Morocco, Seville, and Cordova. Later he fell into disfavor and was banished with other representatives of learning. Shortly before his death, the edict against philosophers was recalled. Many of his works in logic and metaphysics had, however, been consigned to the flames, so that he left no school, and the end of the dominion of the Moors in Spain, which occurred shortly afterwards, turned the current of Averoism completely into Hebrew and Latin channels, through which it influenced the thought of Christian Europe down to the dawn of the modern era. . .
But Averroes had virtually NO impact on "Islamic" thought. That's right. None.
Indeed, if it was "Islam" that was what made "Granada" and "Cordoba", it seems curious that such "Islamic innovation" failed to take root much earlier in the Arabian peninsula, where of course Islam had been born, and where it had existed unchallenged for much longer than it did in Spain . . .
But it didn't happen in Arabia because "Islam" wasn't THE reason. Like Averroes, other Muslim scholars, such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) succeeded mostly in spite of the strictures of Islam, not because of them...
And yes, such thinkers did have an impact outside the "Muslim world". But NOT because they were having Islamic thoughts. It was because they were "thinking". So neither Averroes' philosophy nor Cordoba's "diversity" were Islamic. There were far more important non-dogmatic reasons for the emergence of such "splendid examples of unprecedented human advancement".
And as the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia points out:
...In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the "Infidel"...
Nasty stuff dogma like that, but absolutely necessary to bear in mind. However, as a Roman Catholic, I well understand too that it was the mostly non-Catholic, irreligious Western Enlightenment of the Jeffersons of the world which has helped make today's Western religious freedom and tolerance (which we all seem to take for granted) possible. As Muslims living in those countries, it might be helpful if Mr Altikriti and many others came to realize that, too.
_____________________________
All of that is merely debate-fodder, though. In practical current terms, no matter what, given what we continue to hear about the too often frightening nature of much "Muslim opinion" in Britain and other Western societies especially, all the "Islam expos" in the world seem rather unlikely even to dent Islam's increasingly poor PR in non-Islamic countries. The end of hyper-dogmatic, Islam-citing, Koran-verse-repeating, suicide bombers would likely accomplish much more in that respect. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, July 11, 2006
