Simon: ... in the main, this only applies to vocal
extremists rather than the moderate majority.
Here's feminist author Irshad Manji again on the London
Bombings.
Is Islam to blame?
# Despite claims of moderate Muslims, a literal reading of
the Koran offers cover for acts of terrorism.
By Irshad Manji, Irshad Manji is the author of "The Trouble
with Islam Today" (St. Martin's Press, 2005).
I believe thursday's bombings in London, combined with the
first wave of explosions two weeks ago, are changing
something for the better. Never before have I heard Muslims
so sincerely denounce terrorism committed in our name as I
did on my visit to Britain a few days ago. We're finally
waking up.
Except on one front: the possible role of religion itself in
these crimes.
Even now, the Muslim Council of Britain adamantly insists
that Islam has nothing to do with the London attacks. It
cites other motives — "segregation" and "alienation," for
instance. Although I don't deny that living on the margins
can make a vulnerable lad gravitate to radical messages of
instant belonging, it takes more than that to make him
detonate himself and innocent others. To blow yourself up,
you need conviction. Secular society doesn't compete well on
this score. Who gets deathly passionate over tuition
subsidies and a summer job?
Which is why I don't understand how moderate Muslim leaders
can reject, flat-out, the notion that religion may also play
a part in these bombings. What makes them so sure that Islam
is an innocent bystander?
What makes them sound so sure is literalism. That's the
trouble with Islam today. We Muslims, including moderates
living here in the West, are routinely raised to believe
that the Koran is the final and therefore perfect manifesto
of God's will, untouched and immutable.
This is a supremacy complex. It's dangerous because it
inhibits moderates from asking hard questions about what
happens when faith becomes dogma. To avoid the discomfort,
we sanitize.
And so it was, one week after the first wave of bombings. A
high-profile gathering of 22 clerics and scholars at the
London Cultural Center produced a statement, later echoed by
a meeting of 500 Muslim leaders. It contained this line:
"The Koran clearly declares that killing an innocent person
[is] tantamount to killing all mankind." I wish. In fact,
the full verse reads, "Whoever kills a human being, except
as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land,
shall be regarded as having killed all humankind." Militant
Muslims easily deploy the clause beginning with "except" to
justify their rampages.
It's what Osama bin Laden had in mind when he announced a
jihad against the U.S. in the late 1990s. Did economic
sanctions on Iraq, imposed by the United Nations but
demanded by Washington, cause the "murder" of half a million
children? Bin Laden believes so (never mind the oil-for-food
scandal). Did the boot prints of U.S. troops on the Arabian
Peninsula, birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad, qualify as
"villainy in the land"? To Bin Laden, you bet. As for
American civilians, can they be innocent of either "murder"
or "villainy" when their tax money helps Israel buy tanks to
raze Palestinian homes? A no-brainer for Bin Laden.
And, quite possibly, for the July 7 terrorists. Right out of
the gate, the European jihadist group claiming
responsibility cited — what else? — a defense of Iraq and a
disgust with the Zionist entity as its primary incentives.
The invasion of the former and the existence of the latter
amount to nothing less than murder and villainy in the land.
Did this version of the Koran guide the British
bombers?Because we don't yet know, we can't rule it out.
Yet that's exactly what British Muslim leaders are doing. To
be sure, I stand with those who insist that certain Koranic
passages are being politically exploited. Damn right, they
are. The point is, however, that they couldn't be exploited
if they didn't exist.
Why do we Muslims hang on to the mantra that the Koran — and
Islam — are pristine? God may very well be perfect, but God
transcends a book, a prophet and a belief system. That means
we're free to question without fear that the Almighty will
feel threatened by our reasoning, speculating or doubting.
How about joining with the moderates of Judaism and
Christianity in confessing some "sins of Scripture," as
Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong has said of the Bible?
Anything less leaves me with another question: Why is it
that in diverse societies, those who oppose diversity of
thought often feel more comfortable getting vocal than those
who embrace it?
http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/news/latimes-2005-07-22.html
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html