| SHARED SACRIFICE PROGRESSIVE POLITICS AND CULTURE 18 June 2009 |
| SHARED SACRIFICE ON BLOGTALK RADIO M-F 8:00-9:00 PM MT Saturdays 12:00-2:00 PM MT |
 | |  | |  |
NO CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
18 June 2009
by Matt J. Stannard
The progressive evolution of spirituality and faith, their integration into democratic institutions and egalitarian ethics, exercises a
moderating effect on them. It helps translate the literal into the metaphorical, helps adherents understand the way in which a story,
passage, or symbolic account might provide psychological and sociological insight for individual and collective understanding. When
religions turn to literalism (and almost inevitably thereafter turn to violence), or more accurately, cling to the remnants of the literalist
world into which they were born, it's often because of the re-imposition of material scarcity, the exploitation of one group by another, and
the tendency of the powerful to treat others as means rather than ends. Where love is allowed to flourish, it flows.
Even the Pope is coming around... For all we might say about the man and his corporate kingdom, Pope Benedict's visit to Israel and the
Palestinian Authority was unprecedented in its boldness, and the Pope had a message of peace to match that audacity. He emphasized
reason, dialogue, cooperation, and interreligious communication among Jews, Christian and Muslims. He repeatedly emphasized
monotheism as the common religious starting point, an example of how interpretive gestures can re-define the boundaries of religions.
One blogger on religious issues pointed out that the Pope's message of "undivided love of God and neighbor" cohered with the
"Common Word" appeal by Muslim scholars for a common dialogue with Christians--also premised on love of God and neighbor. Islamic
nations are reciprocating this openness. The Royal Institute
for Interfaith Studies in Amman, Jordan, is the site this year
of an interfaith dialogue: something many in the west would
find surprising. Leaders from Christianity, Judaism and Islam
will attend. While such leader-to-leader gestures only go so
far, they open up space that may be, for some, the difference
between life and death. It is also an implicit admission--by
theologians not often accustomed to making such admissions--
that the variants of their doctrines matter less than the imperative
to deliberate and push our species forward.
There's a moderate Islam and the haters wish there wasn't... A longtime industry boosted by the Global War on Terror, Islam-Bashing
deploys a base-level incommensurability thesis that posits Islam as intrinsically warlike, intrinsically hostile to non-Muslims, inherently
prone to civilizational war and the imposition of the most restrictive forms of Sharia Law. Supporters of the intrinsicness thesis use
maneuvers like this: "There's this passage in the Koran that says X. The literal interpretation of that is Muslims have to kill non-Muslims.
What's that? There are millions upon millions of Muslims that have non-Muslim friends? Well, then, they must be disobeying their
religion. That's punishable by death, you know. You should ask some of your...ahem, 'Muslim friends' about that."
But I don't need to ask them. We may have a conversation about it in passing, but they've already made up their minds about what
those scriptures mean. If the problem of scriptural literalism, and the problem of fundamentalism in general, is the overdetermination of
"authority" and "scripture," then why not acknowledge those instances where religious communities work it out for themselves, like Islam,
to an impressive extent, has? Conversely, why not obsess over asking Christians why they allow women to speak in church? Robert
Spencer of jihadwatch.org is said to have once commented: "When Jerry Falwell starts chopping off heads I'll start to worry." But a few
hundred years ago, the Jerry Falwells were lopping off heads, among other things. There are a few self-professed Christians now who
would do so if they had the opportunity. What stops them is not "the essence of Christianity" but the hard-won checks and balances of
secular rule of law--itself constantly under assault by many of the same conservative yo-yos warning us about Islam. Spencer's clever
retort to any alleged act of violence committed by a Muslim is to say things like "Apparently the Islamic scholar under whom this American
convert to Islam studied was yet another misunderstander [sic] of Islam's true, peaceful teachings." His followers imitate such droll
witticisms. And everybody misses the point: Text, while never completely indeterminate, is always more fluid than the concrete material
situations that contain it.
Unable to sustain the argument that Islamic scripture is uniquely, causally worse than other scripture, Islamo-conspiratorians also see
terror cells around every corner, particularly when there is also a mosque near. Think tanks like the Center for Security Policy
underwrite "The Mapping Sharia in America Project," a "study" consisting of infiltrators emailing Imams pretending to be potential
converts to Islam. The Center for Security Policy is led by anti-Obama "birther," Obama-is-a-Muslim theorist Frank Gaffney, who on in
March of this year accused Saddam Hussein of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. Rick Santorum, bastion of reasonability
that he is, is a fellow there as well. Conservative activist Grover Norquist once called Gaffney a "sick, little bigot." So there's a bit of a
credibility problem to begin with. I doubt anyone would consider credible an Omar Ibn el-Khattab mosque-funded study concluding that
Al Qaeda was merely a weekend chess club. Much of the "evidence" gathered in these studies comes from practices like "Caliphate
Baiting," where "researchers" posing as potential converts to Islam ask imams whether their mosques preach caliphate. As you might
imagine, this method of information-gathering is imperfect. Many events chronicled in the report are alleged simply to have never
occurred. Such partially fictional data allow sites like Human Events and World Net Daily to declare that 75% of U.S. mosques "preach
terror." As to those instances where Muslims might say something untoward about non-Muslims, the reader is invited to take the worst of
such comments and compare them to the anonymous "comments" section at any AOL news story, particular one based on race, gender,
or religion. Anti-Muslim studies, to their credit, have established one solid fact: All Islamic extremists are, in fact, self-professed Muslims.
The insight ends there.
Don't know much about history... Finally, we should remain optimistic because most of the arguments in favor of the pessimistic,
suspicious view are simply not good arguments. As James Wiles points out, at a minimum, "every practice of Muslims, which we today
denounce as barbaric, was de rigueur for Christianity at or before the time of the Reformation." We should also take issue with the
"doomsday" hypothesis that Islam will overtake Christianity because European whites are having fewer children. Even if it were plausible
(it isn't), such talk assumes a fixed, unchanging sense of cultural identity and religious interpretation. History disproves this assumption.
Beyond fears of populations overtaking one another, or regressive social practices, examples of cooperation shine through. From
military to religious to cultural partnership efforts, reasonable people from both Islam and Christianity, and all the world's religions, can
succeed together and rebuke extremism and fear. There is no clash of civilizations. There are clashes between powerful and
marginalized interpreters of civilizations, and decent-minded people who seek to transcend the nightmares of dead generations.
Matt J. Stannard is Editor of Shared Sacrifice Media.
18 June 2009
by Matt J. Stannard
The progressive evolution of spirituality and faith, their integration into democratic institutions and egalitarian ethics, exercises a
moderating effect on them. It helps translate the literal into the metaphorical, helps adherents understand the way in which a story,
passage, or symbolic account might provide psychological and sociological insight for individual and collective understanding. When
religions turn to literalism (and almost inevitably thereafter turn to violence), or more accurately, cling to the remnants of the literalist
world into which they were born, it's often because of the re-imposition of material scarcity, the exploitation of one group by another, and
the tendency of the powerful to treat others as means rather than ends. Where love is allowed to flourish, it flows.
Even the Pope is coming around... For all we might say about the man and his corporate kingdom, Pope Benedict's visit to Israel and the
Palestinian Authority was unprecedented in its boldness, and the Pope had a message of peace to match that audacity. He emphasized
reason, dialogue, cooperation, and interreligious communication among Jews, Christian and Muslims. He repeatedly emphasized
monotheism as the common religious starting point, an example of how interpretive gestures can re-define the boundaries of religions.
One blogger on religious issues pointed out that the Pope's message of "undivided love of God and neighbor" cohered with the
"Common Word" appeal by Muslim scholars for a common dialogue with Christians--also premised on love of God and neighbor. Islamic
nations are reciprocating this openness. The Royal Institute
for Interfaith Studies in Amman, Jordan, is the site this year
of an interfaith dialogue: something many in the west would
find surprising. Leaders from Christianity, Judaism and Islam
will attend. While such leader-to-leader gestures only go so
far, they open up space that may be, for some, the difference
between life and death. It is also an implicit admission--by
theologians not often accustomed to making such admissions--
that the variants of their doctrines matter less than the imperative
to deliberate and push our species forward.
There's a moderate Islam and the haters wish there wasn't... A longtime industry boosted by the Global War on Terror, Islam-Bashing
deploys a base-level incommensurability thesis that posits Islam as intrinsically warlike, intrinsically hostile to non-Muslims, inherently
prone to civilizational war and the imposition of the most restrictive forms of Sharia Law. Supporters of the intrinsicness thesis use
maneuvers like this: "There's this passage in the Koran that says X. The literal interpretation of that is Muslims have to kill non-Muslims.
What's that? There are millions upon millions of Muslims that have non-Muslim friends? Well, then, they must be disobeying their
religion. That's punishable by death, you know. You should ask some of your...ahem, 'Muslim friends' about that."
But I don't need to ask them. We may have a conversation about it in passing, but they've already made up their minds about what
those scriptures mean. If the problem of scriptural literalism, and the problem of fundamentalism in general, is the overdetermination of
"authority" and "scripture," then why not acknowledge those instances where religious communities work it out for themselves, like Islam,
to an impressive extent, has? Conversely, why not obsess over asking Christians why they allow women to speak in church? Robert
Spencer of jihadwatch.org is said to have once commented: "When Jerry Falwell starts chopping off heads I'll start to worry." But a few
hundred years ago, the Jerry Falwells were lopping off heads, among other things. There are a few self-professed Christians now who
would do so if they had the opportunity. What stops them is not "the essence of Christianity" but the hard-won checks and balances of
secular rule of law--itself constantly under assault by many of the same conservative yo-yos warning us about Islam. Spencer's clever
retort to any alleged act of violence committed by a Muslim is to say things like "Apparently the Islamic scholar under whom this American
convert to Islam studied was yet another misunderstander [sic] of Islam's true, peaceful teachings." His followers imitate such droll
witticisms. And everybody misses the point: Text, while never completely indeterminate, is always more fluid than the concrete material
situations that contain it.
Unable to sustain the argument that Islamic scripture is uniquely, causally worse than other scripture, Islamo-conspiratorians also see
terror cells around every corner, particularly when there is also a mosque near. Think tanks like the Center for Security Policy
underwrite "The Mapping Sharia in America Project," a "study" consisting of infiltrators emailing Imams pretending to be potential
converts to Islam. The Center for Security Policy is led by anti-Obama "birther," Obama-is-a-Muslim theorist Frank Gaffney, who on in
March of this year accused Saddam Hussein of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. Rick Santorum, bastion of reasonability
that he is, is a fellow there as well. Conservative activist Grover Norquist once called Gaffney a "sick, little bigot." So there's a bit of a
credibility problem to begin with. I doubt anyone would consider credible an Omar Ibn el-Khattab mosque-funded study concluding that
Al Qaeda was merely a weekend chess club. Much of the "evidence" gathered in these studies comes from practices like "Caliphate
Baiting," where "researchers" posing as potential converts to Islam ask imams whether their mosques preach caliphate. As you might
imagine, this method of information-gathering is imperfect. Many events chronicled in the report are alleged simply to have never
occurred. Such partially fictional data allow sites like Human Events and World Net Daily to declare that 75% of U.S. mosques "preach
terror." As to those instances where Muslims might say something untoward about non-Muslims, the reader is invited to take the worst of
such comments and compare them to the anonymous "comments" section at any AOL news story, particular one based on race, gender,
or religion. Anti-Muslim studies, to their credit, have established one solid fact: All Islamic extremists are, in fact, self-professed Muslims.
The insight ends there.
Don't know much about history... Finally, we should remain optimistic because most of the arguments in favor of the pessimistic,
suspicious view are simply not good arguments. As James Wiles points out, at a minimum, "every practice of Muslims, which we today
denounce as barbaric, was de rigueur for Christianity at or before the time of the Reformation." We should also take issue with the
"doomsday" hypothesis that Islam will overtake Christianity because European whites are having fewer children. Even if it were plausible
(it isn't), such talk assumes a fixed, unchanging sense of cultural identity and religious interpretation. History disproves this assumption.
Beyond fears of populations overtaking one another, or regressive social practices, examples of cooperation shine through. From
military to religious to cultural partnership efforts, reasonable people from both Islam and Christianity, and all the world's religions, can
succeed together and rebuke extremism and fear. There is no clash of civilizations. There are clashes between powerful and
marginalized interpreters of civilizations, and decent-minded people who seek to transcend the nightmares of dead generations.
Matt J. Stannard is Editor of Shared Sacrifice Media.
Samuel Huntington is dead and quaint, but culture is here to stay... In his
recent interview with the New York Times, religion writer Robert Wright said he
believed that "The rise of fundamentalism in Islam, but also in Christianity in
America, has so highlighted the dark side of religion that people denouncing
religion as a whole have a receptive audience." The question of whether a
religion is "intrinsically" violent is a curious one. There are many
contemporary Western crusaders devoted to proving that there is no
"moderate" Islam. There are obviously Islamic scholars doing the same thing
to Christianity, convincing Muslims that the religion of Christ is corrupt from the
start. Both sides ignore (or, more to the point, they are not allowed to
consider) the possibility that religion itself, particularly where the interpretation
of scripture is concerned, is never "intrinsically" anything, but is always subject
to the interpretations of its most powerful adherents. It is important to
remember this as we consider recent attempts at reconciliation between Islam
and the West in the area of religious leadership. There are several reasons to
be optimistic about these attempts.
recent interview with the New York Times, religion writer Robert Wright said he
believed that "The rise of fundamentalism in Islam, but also in Christianity in
America, has so highlighted the dark side of religion that people denouncing
religion as a whole have a receptive audience." The question of whether a
religion is "intrinsically" violent is a curious one. There are many
contemporary Western crusaders devoted to proving that there is no
"moderate" Islam. There are obviously Islamic scholars doing the same thing
to Christianity, convincing Muslims that the religion of Christ is corrupt from the
start. Both sides ignore (or, more to the point, they are not allowed to
consider) the possibility that religion itself, particularly where the interpretation
of scripture is concerned, is never "intrinsically" anything, but is always subject
to the interpretations of its most powerful adherents. It is important to
remember this as we consider recent attempts at reconciliation between Islam
and the West in the area of religious leadership. There are several reasons to
be optimistic about these attempts.
Meanwhile, back in the real world... Geopolitically, an Islamic
mainstream is emerging in the fight against extremism and
terrorism. Those believing there is "no such thing as moderate
Islam," or that the religion itself is inherently violent, should answer
the question of whether or not the effort by the Pakistani
government to utilize Islamic scholars to combat extremism is futile.
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani publicly stated that terrorism is
a perversion of Islam, calling on Islamic scholars to "root out"
extremism in Pakistan. Egypt is enthusiastically aiding Pakistan in
their fight, with Egyptian Assistant Foreign Minister for South Asia
Mr. Mohammad Abdul Rahim El-Zorkany delivering material aid
and a speech in which he declared that "an infinitesimal" portion of
Muslims were engaged in terrorism, but that terrorism was itself
unacceptable. Other nations are getting in on the new
cooperative effort against extremism. The British Minister of Islamic
Affairs recently visited Saudi Arabia to examine the potential for
counter-radicalization in Muslim communities. President Obama
himself is part of this emerging dialogue. Egypt, Obama's choice of
site for his very important speech on Middle Eastern security two
weeks ago, is viewed as a moderate Islamic state. That Turkey is
jealous of Egypt over Obama's choice is a good thing--they, too,
want to be seen as a moderate alternative to increasingly isolated
countries like Syria.
mainstream is emerging in the fight against extremism and
terrorism. Those believing there is "no such thing as moderate
Islam," or that the religion itself is inherently violent, should answer
the question of whether or not the effort by the Pakistani
government to utilize Islamic scholars to combat extremism is futile.
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani publicly stated that terrorism is
a perversion of Islam, calling on Islamic scholars to "root out"
extremism in Pakistan. Egypt is enthusiastically aiding Pakistan in
their fight, with Egyptian Assistant Foreign Minister for South Asia
Mr. Mohammad Abdul Rahim El-Zorkany delivering material aid
and a speech in which he declared that "an infinitesimal" portion of
Muslims were engaged in terrorism, but that terrorism was itself
unacceptable. Other nations are getting in on the new
cooperative effort against extremism. The British Minister of Islamic
Affairs recently visited Saudi Arabia to examine the potential for
counter-radicalization in Muslim communities. President Obama
himself is part of this emerging dialogue. Egypt, Obama's choice of
site for his very important speech on Middle Eastern security two
weeks ago, is viewed as a moderate Islamic state. That Turkey is
jealous of Egypt over Obama's choice is a good thing--they, too,
want to be seen as a moderate alternative to increasingly isolated
countries like Syria.
Isa (Jesus) bringing
down heavenly food
for his disciples
(Quran 5:111-115)
down heavenly food
for his disciples
(Quran 5:111-115)
| Much of the "evidence" gathered in anti-Islamic studies comes from practices like "Caliphate Baiting," where "researchers" pose as potential converts to Islam... |
Mughal Emperor Akbar (r.
1556-1605) holds a
religious assembly in the
Ibadat Khana (House of
Worship) in Fatehpur Sikri;
the two men dressed in
black are the Jesuit
missionaries Rodolfo
Acquaviva and Francisco
Henriques. From the
Akbarnama, miniature
painting by Nar Singh, ca.
1605
1556-1605) holds a
religious assembly in the
Ibadat Khana (House of
Worship) in Fatehpur Sikri;
the two men dressed in
black are the Jesuit
missionaries Rodolfo
Acquaviva and Francisco
Henriques. From the
Akbarnama, miniature
painting by Nar Singh, ca.
1605
| ...religion itself, particularly where the interpretation of scripture is concerned, is never "intrinsically" anything, but is always subject to the interpretations of its most powerful adherents. |
| ALL CONTENT COPYRIGHT 2009 SHARED SACRIFICE MEDIA |
| Read The Underview: the blog of Matt J. Stannard "Ahmadinejad or Netanyahu? These are our only choices? I could produce better leaders growing fungi in a pile of goat feces." "In a just society, Joe Arpaio would either be in prison himself or be a curious living artifact at the Museum of Regressive Pathologies." Proletarian, Unitarian, Contrarian. Not Vegetarian, but frequently Egalitarian. Sarah Palin: The Ed Wood of Politicians ... Is CEO Pay Irrelevant? ... The Mises Manuever ... Alex Cockburn, "the gays," and the Shepards ... How Progressives Can Take Over (both sides of) The Abortion Debate...and more! |
