[MD] Intellect battles the (immigrant) barbarians

[Ham Priday]

 Greetings, Khaled --


> First of all Muhammad is spelled with an "a" or an "e"
> at the end, not a "u".

Sorry about the misspelling.  I have seen several variations, including
'Muhammud', Muhammad', and 'Mohammed', and apparently borrowed from two of
them in my carelessness.

> A nomadic tribe, as you call them, would not have been
> able to establish an empire that spread from Andalus to
> Malaysia. Something must have gone right for almost a
> thousand years in terms of tolerance, open mindlessness[?]
> and just treatment. You cannot rule by force for that long
> such a large area and control an empire for that long. Free
> trade and commerce prospered. The downfall became as
> Europe started its renaissance period and the Arab/Muslim
> empire decided to keep its doors and minds closed to
> progress that was not home grown.
>
> A great little book that would shed a lot of light on this is
> "what went wrong" by a British Orientalist named Bernard Lewis.
> Who happens to be Jewish and who mentions that the Jews
> have enjoyed far greater freedom of movement, thought, religion
> and philosophy under Muslim rule than any other rule. So lets
> leave the bigotry and anti Semitics out of the dialog.

I haven't mentioned religious bigotry or anti-Semitism so far in this
discussion.  And I have read some of Lewis's writings.  Here, for example,
is what he says about the failure of Islam to adapt to modernism in both
religious reform and human freedom:

"For those known nowadays as Islamists or fundamentalists, the failures and
shortcomings of modern Islamic lands afflict those lands because they
adopted alien notions and practices. They fell away from authentic Islam and
thus lost their former greatness. Those known as modernists or reformers
take the opposite view, seeing the cause of this loss not in the abandonment
but in the retention of old ways, and especially in the inflexibility and
ubiquity of the Islamic clergy, who, they say, are responsible for the
persistence of beliefs and practices that might have been creative and
progressive a thousand years ago but are neither today. The modernists'
usual tactic is not to denounce religion as such, still less Islam in
particular, but to level their criticism against fanaticism. It is to
fanaticism-and more particularly to fanatical religious authorities-that
they attribute the stifling of the once great Islamic scientific movement
and, more generally, of the freedom of thought and expression.

"A more common approach to this theme has been to discuss a specific
problem: the place of religion and of its professional exponents in the
political order. In this view a principal cause of Western progress is the
separation of Church and State and the creation of a civil society governed
by secular laws. Another approach has been to view the main culprit as the
relegation of women to an inferior position in Muslim society, which
deprives the Islamic world of the talents and energies of half its people
and entrusts the other half's crucial early years of upbringing to
illiterate and downtrodden mothers. The products of such an education, it
has been said, are likely to grow up either arrogant or submissive, and
unfit for a free, open society. However one evaluates the views of
secularists and feminists, their success or failure will be a major factor
in shaping the Middle Eastern future."       -- [Bernard Lewis: "What Went
Wrong"]

> As to the veil issue, well lets get the terminology cleared up.
> When we say veil, do we mean a head cover?
>
> 1. A head cover such as the one a Catholic nun would wear,
> like a habit.  It's interesting how one is considered devotion
> to one religion and the other becomes the battle cry for
> religious bigotry.
>
> 2. Or a veil that covers the face. Well that is a modern
> invention believe it or not. The Afghani Burka, the Iranian
> shador and so on, these are but a religious/political backlash
> of the 20th century. Religion NEVER ask of such behaviour.

You make my point, Khaled.  Since concealing the body is not a religious
requirement but, as you say, a "backlash of the 20th Century", it can only
be a statement by the Islamic people that they do not wish to identity with
the modern world or be a part of its culture.  I consider this an act of
defiance and disrespect to the culture that has accepted them.  Why should
Americans, who believe in a free and open society, be subjected to this kind
of intimidation by those who seek our nation's protection and opportunity?

> As for Authority and reform movement in Islam. Well the
> Muslims are waiting for their Martin Luther. But unfortunately
> since modernity gets associated with westernization, and
> westernization gets associated with colonialism, the cycle is
> vicious and getting out of it is a long road. Islam does not
> have a hierarchy. Simply put, God shows up (again) and
> says here is another message, and by the way here is my
> business card with my direct number on it, any questions,
> just call. So in a way modernity and openness come from
> the bottom up not from the top down.

Most of the messages God has sent recently are orders to destroy the
infidels at the cost of the perpetrators' own lives.  This behavior
represents the mentality of a people whose morality is based on the
"survival of the tribe."  Civilization cannot continue to flourish with this
kind of homophobia.  If the Islamists insist on killing themselves to carry
out "Allah's will", even when shown the advantages of reason and compromise,
let them do it in their native habitat, not in ours.  Those who survive will
eventually realize the need for national unity and tolerance for different
belief systems.  The barbaric behavior of "morally stagnated" people should
not be imposed on the free world.

> Now for my personal opinion
>
> If the head scarf is to keep attention away from the woman,
> wouldn't a woman (dressed modestly) keep the attention away
> from her by dressing like every one else ( do in Rome...).
> Sure it would, and this is where the local Imams at the local
> mosques, where ever they may be, should say to their flock,
> yes you can dress modestly without attracting attention.
> Something that Muslim African-American  women have
> managed to do and still succeed in the home and professional
> world. The unfortunate thing is that the imams in the local
> mosques are not home grown but rather imported, bringing
> with them their ideology. Islam has a lot of leeway for a
> tribe/village to establish their own law as they see fit. If there
> is nothing to eat but pork, so be it. you don't let the people
> starve. It's called Shoura and it allows for decentralization
> of the religion. If someone is living near the northern
> hemisphere, and daylight is 20 hours, the local mosque
> leader can declare that fasting for Ramadan can end at 7:00 pm
> instead of midnight. The religion has flexibility for that but it's
> all lost on the followers. Well that's another story for another
> time.

The imams need a course in the history of Western Civilization.  And the
enlightened people of Islam need to speak out against religious oppression
and intolerance.  They must somehow make up for nearly a thousand years of
intellectual stagnation before they're ready to assimilate peacefully in
Europe and America.

> As a kid, we use to see the tourists for the Gulf states in Beirut
> all veiled up, and we did think they were off their rockers.

I assume you have a Lebanese background, Khaled.  I visited Beirut during a
whirlwind tour of the Middle East with my parents in the summer of 1956,
just before war broke out in Israel, and was quite impressed with the city.
Are you, or were you, a Muslim yourself?  If so, I would be interested in
hearing how you have adapted to Western society and how you view the
conflict in that turbulent part of the world.

Regards,
Ham