How the rise of Islam led to stagnation, bitterness, and terrorism in the Middle East.
The Middle East today is, as it was throughout its history, ruled with an iron fist by a motley collection of monarchs, dictators, tyrants, and theocrats. (With the exception of secular Turkey, Jewish Israel, and the embryonic democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan.) This legacy of tyranny includes an intellectual and economic stagnation which has led to what historian Bernard Lewis has called “a downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression.”1 And when coupled with the Quranic imperative for jihad, this combustible cocktail has resulted in the modern-day scourge of Islamic terrorism and war, once again, with the West. The sad plight of the people of the region is no mere accident of history; nor is it a legacy of colonialism, or Western imperialism. It is, in fact, the inevitable result of fourteen centuries of adherence to the dictates of the revelations of the Quran, the actions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (hadith), and his early successors, or Caliphs (the sunna). The principal cause of this malaise is Islamic fundamentalism.
Islam is defined as the absolute submission to the will of God. The Quran, according to Islamic tradition, is the eternal, infallible word of God, which was revealed to the last of the Prophets, Muhammad, by the Angel Gabriel in 610 AD. The Quran, along with the sunna, form the basis of sharia or the Holy Law of Islam. In the earliest days of Islam the Ulama, or Muslim jurists, debated the meanings of the Quran and hadith to emerge at a consensus of believers, or ijma. According to Sunni (some 80% of all Muslims are Sunni) doctrine, this period of ijtihad, or the use of reasoning or opinion with respect to Islamic law, was closed around 900 A.D.;2 thus the sharia as it stood at that time is the sole source of law recognized by Islam today; no room is left for human innovation, compromise, or debate. The very idea of an elected body of Legislators enacting laws outside of sharia is anathema to any strict adherent to the faith.
The Prophet Muhammad, the rightly guided servant of God, was himself a despot who served as both spiritual guide and self-appointed head of state; after his death, historian Arthur Goldschmidt points out, “Almost all rulers succeeded by either heredity or nomination; no one thought of letting the people elect them.”3 Because the concept of self-government was incompatible with Islamic doctrine and unknown to Arab culture, the people of the Muslim Middle East were, and are, at the mercy of whatever strongman seizes power in each state. It is demonstrable that there is a proportional relationship between strict adherence to Islamic law and a lack of individual liberty. One need only compare the freedom and the trappings of modernity in strictly secular-Islamic Turkey to the repression and backwardness of the recently deposed hard-line Islamic Taliban in Afghanistan to see the effects of fundamentalist Islam on individual liberty.
While there is a lack of political liberty generally under sharia, the plight of women under Islamic law is decidedly worse. According to Goldschmidt, “Muslims may worship anywhere, but men are encouraged to do so publicly as a group; women usually worship at home.”4 Since the Mosque is the only forum for unfettered political discourse, women, as a practical matter, are automatically disadvantaged. Worse still, the Quaran – the very basis of Islamic society – explicitly emasculates women, placing them at the mercy of men. One example is sura 4:34, which states, “Men have authority over women because God has made one superior over the other . . . Good women are obedient . . . as for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and beat them.”5 The lack of women’s rights under Islamic law, while unjust in its own right, has the practical effect of removing more than half of the productive population from the work force, academia, and government, putting those societies at a direct disadvantage relative to the West.
If Islamic fundamentalism leads to the subjugation of women and political autocracy, then it contributes also to the intellectual and hence economic stagnation of Islamic society; in fact, these very phenomena were cited by the United Nations’ “Arab Human Development Report,” released in 2002, and written by a distinguished group of Arab intellectuals, as the main reasons the Arab world is “lagging behind” advanced nations.6
Middle Eastern, Islamic civilization was at its height during the Middle Ages while Western-European Christendom was gripped in its dark age. While the relative ascendancy of Islamic culture at this time is debatable (many of its achievements during this period were actually Byzantine Christian or the work of Jews and Christians living in Islamic lands), there is no doubt that it was at a minimum comparable to that of Christendom. The ensuing centuries, however, have seen Middle Eastern cultures languish while the West advanced by leaps and bounds due mainly to its heritage of rationality and the fact that, as Victor Davis Hanson puts it, “our universities are free, our governments elected and tolerant, our people welcome to choose any religion or none, and our schools are secular and meritocratic rather than fundamentalist and tribal.”7 Education in an Islamic state, in contrast, tends to consist of madrasas that focus almost exclusively on memorization and recital of the Quran and propagandist vilification of the West.
It is an oft-repeated axiom that Islam is a religion of tolerance; it manifestly is not. Under Islamic law the treatment of non-Muslims is even worse than that of women; as Lewis puts it, “Tolerance may not be extended to those who deny the unity or existence of God — to atheists and polytheists. These, when conquered, must be given the choice of conversion or death, which latter might be remitted to slavery.”8 Jews and Christians, or what the Quran calls “People of the Book,” fare somewhat better under sharia, but are hardly equal; by virtue of sura 9:29 of the Quran they are assigned the status of dhimmi, and as such are to be fought “until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.”9 In practice dhimmi, as Lewis points out, “were not allowed to forget their inferiority.” Among many other restrictions and humiliations, they were forced to pay a special tax, or jizya; could not testify before Muslim courts; could not marry Muslim women; were required to wear distinctive clothing; could not ride horses or carry weapons; and could not build new churches.10 Free societies are predicated on the concept of equality under law. Under Islamic law only male Muslims are equal.
Another popular label applied to Islam is “religion of peace;” but as Lewis states, referring to Muhammad and his successors, “They were almost continuously at war — first against the pagan Quraysh, and then after the death of the Prophet, in wars of conquest.”11 The Quran itself contains scores of verses that command the faithful to commit violence and make war or jihad until all people accept the true faith or the suzerainty of their Muslim overlords. It even has verses that stipulate how to divide the booty won in battle. These verses are not historical narratives of past engagements, but rather mandates for right behavior in God’s service. The verse of the sword in Sura 9:5, for example, states, “slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.”12 This verse was among several cited by the terrorist Osama bin Laden in his Sermon for the Feast of the Sacrifice, in which he calls September 11, 2001 “that blessed Tuesday.”13
Some, such as Iranian scholar Amir Taheri, argue that those who quote the Quran to justify violence and oppression have hijacked Islam to achieve political ends.14 Taheri calls this “neo-Islam” – a political movement, not an expression of religion; however, in Islam, there is no distinction between religion and politics. In fact the actions of many terrorists and tyrants are quite consistent with the actions of the Prophet and the traditions of Islamic law. After the famous battle of Badr, for example, the head of a man named Abu Jahl was presented to the Prophet, who then “gave thanks to God.”15 During the same battle, a man named Uqba was captured, bound, and brought before the Prophet. Uqba begged for mercy, imploring of his captor, “But who will look after my children, o Muhammad?” The Prophet responded “Hell!” and ordered the prisoner killed.16 If the Prophet was divinely inspired in all he did, as Islamic doctrine holds, then is not the leader of Al-Queda in Iraq, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, truly serving his God when he saws off the head of a bound infidel captive such as Nick Berg?
To overlook, as Taheri suggests, the exhortations to violence, subjugation, slavery, and intolerance found in the Quran would create an impossible paradox; Muslims are not given a line-item veto with which to cherry-pick tolerant Quranic verses, while dismissing others as mere relics of a by-gone era. If the Quran is the perfect word of God, as Islam holds, then such discrimination would amount to apostacy, punishable by death under Islamic law; otherwise this act, taken to its logical conclusion, would fatally compromise the validity of the Quran, exposing Muhammad as a false Prophet. (Would God have revealed some untruths to a true Prophet?) This exercise in rationalizing the Quran is thus self-invalidating.
What, then, hath Islam wrought? In short, a natural inclination towards despotism in government; indoctrination in education; inequality in fact; regression in intellectual pursuits; a pervasive pathology of victimhood and hopelessness which breeds resentment; and a handy outlet for pent-up rage: violent jihad against the West. If the nations of the Middle East wish to emerge from their current dark age, they must follow Turkey’s lead and explicitly marginalize Islam, removing its retrograde teachings from the functions of a secular, modern government, which will serve all citizens justly and equally.
Endnotes
1. Lewis, Bernard. “What Went Wrong?” Princeton Alumni Weekly 11 September, 2002.
http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_new/PAW02-03/01-0912/features.html
2. Lewis. The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years. New York: Scribner, 1995.
3. Goldschmidt, Arthur. A Concise History of the Middle East. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2006, 204.
4. Goldschmidt. A Concise History of the Middle East. Boulder, 47.
5. The Koran. Translated by N.J. Dawood. London: Penguin, 2003, 64.
6. Hanson, Victor Davis. Between War and Peace. New York, Random House Inc., 2004, 41.
7. Hanson. Between War and Peace, 38.
8. Lewis. The Middle East, 230.
9. The Koran, 136.
10. Lewis. The Middle East, 211.
11. Lewis. The Middle East, 194.
12. The Koran, 133.
13. Middle East Media Research Institute, “Bin Laden’s Sermon for the Feast of the Sacrifice”, MEMRI Special Dispatch No.476, March 5, 2003.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP47603
14. Amir Taheri, “Hijacking Islam,” New York Post Online Edition, 12 February 2006.
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/pfriendly_new.php
15. The Life of Muhammad. Translated by A. Guillaume. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, 304.
16. The Life of Muhammad, 308.
josonitsch@yahoo.com
Read more articles by Jeff Osonitsch
"Middle Eastern, Islamic civilization was at its height during the Middle Ages while Western-European Christendom was gripped in its dark age."
I thought the European Dark Ages were distinct from its Middle Ages, the former being from the fall of Rome to the year 1000 AD and the latter from 1000 AD to the Renaissance. In any event, Medieval Europe cannot be considered “dark” since there is much history that is known about the era, and it gave rise to the University of Paris, thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, and the concept of limited government, via the Magna Carta. The “Dark Ages” were considered “dark” because little was known about them at the time the term became used.
Comment by sedonaman | December 19, 2006
"The lack of women’s rights under Islamic law, while unjust in its own right, has the practical effect of removing more than half of the productive population from the work force, academia, and government, putting those societies at a direct disadvantage relative to the West"
__________________________________________
Sounds like feminist blather. If I exchanged "Islamic law" for "Society's law" and transported us back to the Betty Friedman-days I wouldn't be able to distinguish your argument against Islamic law from Ms. Friedman's argument against Society's law.
The question is why do we esteem women under our laws more than Muslim's do under their laws?
Is it because we finally recognized their economic, academic and governmental value?
A feminist would say "yes"! To feminists (and effeminate males) women only have value OUTSIDE the home.
To a feminist, islamist and an effeminate, any woman who is primarily a homemaker is a value-less creature.
"Marriage is slavery, children are a ball & chain, a domesticated woman is a baby-machine, they only bake cookies all day and sip tea, blah, blah, blah". It's all a bunch of crap.
Don't believe me, the old adage that, "Whoever rocks the cradle, rocks the world" isn't lost on the Left. That's why they are so adamant on keeping control of the subject matter taught in the public schools, the information disseminated to young minds via the Media outlets and are staunch advocates of "children rights" (no parental notification for abortions as a sick example).
The Left knows that the Family is the child's first state, school , church and soceity and Full-time Mothers are the primary transmitters of the knowledge and information that will form the child's opinions of such.
That's why diminishing, slandering and belittle-ing the domestic woman, Mom, is the game plan of feminists and islamists, so that they can serve as "Mom".
The Right ought not to be using feminist blather as an argument against Islamic law. Women have their utmost value when they are fulfilling their roles as Mothers and Wives not when they serve as economic, governmental, or academic inputs for soceity.
Woman under Islamic belief ,it appears, from their idea of heaven (72 virgins), serve only the role of satisfying a man's sexual hunger, besides that, they serve no other role. The feminist raged against the "chaste" woman who wouldn't give herself away to any man who "wanted it"…the Sexual Revolution, it was great for men, so-called, but not for women. They were treated under feminism during the "Revolution" as they are treated today under Islam, sexual-outlets for men.
The point I am making, is that using feminists arguments against Islamic belief and practice, is pointless, they are only removed a few degrees from each other in their belief-systems.
Comment by vinny | December 19, 2006
Mr. Osonitsch has most of his background right as regards Islam, but I have strong reservations as to his prescription of secularism. As for the ‘feminist’ angle, that is far less relevant than his notion of supplanting Islam with atheism. Need I remind him the worst butchers the world has ever known were atheists (Communist Russians, Chinese, Khmer Rouge, and the Nazis)? Moreover, his choice of ‘secular’ Turkey is similarly flawed. Turkey’s government has been nominally secular since the 1923 as a result of Turkey’s alliance with Germany, but it is still 99% Muslim and it is they who determine Turkey’s true character. Perhaps, he is unaware of the many allegations of torture used by Turkey’s virtually autonomous local police and remote village guards. Armenians and Kurds in Turkey are nearly as oppressed as their brethren in Saddam’s Iraq (another ‘secular’ Muslim country). Free speech in Turkey is virtually nonexistent, and religious expression thoroughly discouraged; and, if Islam is discouraged, Christianity and Judaism are still brutally repressed (see http://www.ishr.org/activities/religiousfreedom/turkey_2004.htm). Dhimmitude may be officially outlawed in Turkey, but is still very much practiced, and Turkey’s laws unequally applied.
Don’t get me wrong, Turkey has made significant progress since its pre-WWI openly genocidal days. But that is still far from saying Turkey is pluralistic or liberal in the Western sense. Turkey has most of the trappings of a modern free nation, but it is little more than veneer. The veneer appears to be changing the way Turks see themselves, but it is taking a long time and secularism does little to reshape the moral trappings of their culture.
The problem I see with this notion of supplanting Islam with atheism is it does not replace a bad mental framework with a better one. It replaces it with a morally neutral philosophy, at best, and a morally repugnant one, at worst. A better solution is to encourage Muslims to either purge Islam of Mohammed and his doctrinal violence, else convert to other religions (almost any other will do). Christianity would be a good choice for most Muslims because Islam is loosely based on Judeo-Christian sources, including recognizable scriptural theses, and is more open to mass conversion than Judaism. They would not even have to abandon dietetic and dress preferences to make this switch because Christianity does not so much stipulate such trappings as has absorbed those of indigent peoples. Muslims further east might feel more comfortable with Bhuddism or Taoism and African Muslims might revert to pre-Muslim beliefs. Whether or not they can make such mass conversions is another matter, and it may be Osonitsh is right they’d have a better chance being forcibly converted to secularism than to some religion they are hostile toward. However, I don’t think that is the case either, because Muslims are even more hostile toward atheism than they are polytheism, Judaism or Christianity, and in that order. If he knows anything of Islam from his reading, it will be this: Muslims are passionate in their faith, and secularism has absolutely no appeal to them.
Turkey has been trying to force-fit Muslims to secularism for 84 years and has made little progress. The Soviet Union did much the same and for just about as long. Islam has proven itself virtually immune to the lure of secularism. In fact, Muslim leaders are far more disturbed by the allure of Christianity than they ever were of communism, because they know the former has far more chance of displacing Islam. Many Muslims exposed to the Christian message are making the switch, and this is why Muslim countries allow us to act the secularists in their midst, but ban any display of Christian symbols or discussion of Christian ideals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/08/turkey13578.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/06/turkey12756.htm
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | December 28, 2006
My prescription for secularism is not one for atheism; rather it is a realistic goal (as opposed to Ann Coulter's tounge-in-cheek suggestion that we "kill all their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Or David Yerushalami's suggestion that we declare war on all of Islam and ignite a cataclysmic WWIII situation. Let's call it a required first step. The next step, once some semblence of stability and tolerance are in place is an evangelistic effort whereby the truth of the Gospels can be shared with the millions of Muslims who are now deprived of that truth out of fear or ignorance.
Using Turkey as an example is entirely appropriate. To my recollection the Turks have neither invaded their neighbors nor sponsored terrorist attacks on the West in 75 years or so. It would be pure fantasy (and dangerous policy) to conclude that a nation awash in the grip of a barbaric and intolerant faith should suddenly become disciples of Locke or Jefferson and exercise radical democracy and unrestricted tolerance. Unfortunately, the Turks offer the best template of what we can realistically hope for at this point.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 29, 2006
Incidentally, Mr. Stapler, I just read the response you posted to my article on Secularization and I must admit I did not think it possible to have one's views or person misinterpreted or mischaracterized as grossly as you did mine. In these responses you called me a few things I have never been called before in my entire life: an atheist, a humanist, a liberal, anti-religious, anti-Western. My viewpoints were distorted beyond recognition and in many cases made up entirely and my faith and patriotism called into question.
Do me a favor and re-read your responses, then read my other articles on this website and tell me if you still accuse me of such offenses as "regarding all religions equally evil, murderous, rapacious, and delusional" among your other slanders.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 29, 2006