I’m presently reading Reza Alsan’s “No god but God”,subtitled “The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam”. Here is my preliminary report, from about half-way through.
First off, Aslan is a good writer. I’ve tried to read Islamic history before, but it always bores me to death. There’s a huge volume of detail about Muhammad himself. With Moses all you get is a little clip of his childhood and then the big march from Egypt; similarly with Jesus, there’s a birth story then a year or three of preaching adventures. Even the resurrection is cut short to but a few months. But with Muhammad it goes on and on; there’s this revelation and then that one, there’s this wife and later that one (or two or three), there’s this battle and then the next one. And forget about the night journey to Jerusalem, I get that all confused. Then Muhammad dies and there are lots of Caliphs and battles and a hidden Imam or two. The Sunni and the Shia split and then keep on colliding. You get to Spain for a time, and then there’s an Inquisition. The Crusaders arrive in the East, and the battles go on and on. The Turks come in and gloriously expand things, as the Byzantines finally fall and the Hagia Sophia becomes a mosque. But eventually even the Ottomans fall apart and the west muscles its way in to get at the oil. I never get much traction with the grand sweep. But Aslan does a pretty good job of keeping your attention. I must give him credit for that.
Aslan is also good at developing interesting meta-concepts regarding Islam. Ah! Finally some Islamic meta-concepts; every western writer (except the hide-bound conservatives) is afraid to present any meta-concepts on Islam. One of Aslan’s meta-concepts is that Islam is currently undergoing something akin to the Christian “Reformation”. But that reformation is still in process, it’s a fluid thing, no one is sure where it will lead. OK, that one seems important.
Another Aslanian concept is that certain of the Prophet’s teachings were over-interpreted and mis-interpreted by some of the scholars after his death through a long series of “hadith”, so that women are given less respect than Muhammad intended. Well, that tries to appease the feminists, and at least opens the door to the popular western passtime of questioning the originality of various segments of the Christian Bible (although I doubt if such a view, along with feminism, has gotten very far yet in the world of Islam). Aslan also considers the traditional willingness of Muslims to accept centralized leadership (e.g., the Grand Ayatollah for Iranians) as being rooted in Arab notions of tribal society, the social context from which Islam emerged. (Just as Catholic Christianity co-opted the political context of the Roman Empire in which it was incubated; an all-powerful Pope makes sense if you came from a place and time where the Emperor was the “Maximus Pontiff”.)
That’s all interesting. But at some point Aslan’s intended “clarifications for westerners confused about Islam” start sounding a little bit too good, a little bit contrived. Regarding the historical tensions and sometimes hatred between Islam and the Jews, Aslan attempts to establish Muhammad as having originally considering himself a Jew, or nearly so (certainly a co-son of Abraham). Per Aslan, Muhammad considered himself and his followers to constitute a Jewish reformation movement (perhaps like early Christianity).
It makes some sense, but then there’s the matter of Muhammad’s own dealing with Jewish tribes in Mecca and Medina. In some of his early battles, the local Jews joined with the foes of Muhammad, but after victory Muhammad avoided the slaughter option (so frequently exercised in ancient world) and let the Jews go into exile. But eventually it was “no more mister nice guy”; there was a group called the “Banu Qurayza” who were going to get involved with the anti-Muhammad forces at the Battle of the Trench, but in the end decided not to show up. Muhammad won that one, and after going through the motions of a trial proceeding, he decided to slaughter about 500 or so Jewish tribesmen. Aslan puts a good face on it, and says that it doesn’t reflect an anti-Jewish attitude within the Quran and Islam. But you can still find a lot of arguments out there that the slaughter wasn’t justified and does represent the start of an anti-Semitic attitude within the heart of Islam. I’ll tiptoe away from that one, simply pointing out that not everyone buys what Aslan tries to do in this book.
With regard to Christianity, Aslan takes a somewhat amusing tact. He says that Muhammad and Islam were never anti-Christian; they were just offended by the moral hypocrisy and laxity of many Christians in Muhammad’s Arabia. Aslan also takes pains to point out that Muhammad really liked and respected Jesus, and Islam still gives Jesus a big spot in its teachings. (However, it appears that they have ignored Jesus’s words regarding casting the first stone.) Aslan says that Muhammad was convinced that Jesus was a prophet, but not the theological “Son of God” or Christ. Well OK, that would fit in with Aslan’s discussion of Muhammad as semi- or quasi-Jewish. But it gets comical when Aslan explains that the Quran never condemns Christianity, but only goes after those who believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity, i.e. God as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Those who do so cannot even be considered “People of the Book”, i.e. the “second prize” that the Quran allows to those who don’t follow Islam but still believe in God and the prophets of Biblical Judaism.
I’ve got a hot newsflash for Mr. Aslan. Every Christian faith or sect that I’ve ever heard of since Emperor Constantine helped squeeze out the Nestorians and their like has the Trinity at the core of its teachings. I feel that Aslan needs to be a little bit less politically-correct himself; Islam and Christianity have a really fundamental disagreement that exists today. That disagreement can’t be stepped around. What can be stopped is the idea that either side has the right to use force against the other, be it physical or economic or academic hubris, in the pursuit of its doctrine. And even better: perhaps both sides might consider the notion of dialectic, that “I could possibly be wrong, and we both could be wrong, even though we both still believe ourselves to be right; and someday, the better idea will emerge”.
Well, my second idea is probably a bridge too far for both Christianity and Islam. But if there could at least be a cease-fire declared, if the Christian soldiers and Islamic jihadists would all stand-down, together with the Israeli army and settlers, we might have a better world. I’d like to see Aslan say something along those lines in the rest of the book. I hope to finish his book before too long; but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for him to say that. Aslan is still a good read, but you can see in his writing that Islam is still much too timid in applying the medicine of critical self-analysis; although Christianity still has a long way to go in that too, admittedly.
Jim,
I must admit that your reaction to Alsan’s writing on Islam is similar to my reaction to Karen Armstrong’s writing on the same subject. But perhaps my reasons are different from yours. I managed to get half-way through Armstrong’s book when I simply had to stop. Her material, while certainly scholarly and very informed, is so “intellectual” as to lose any sense of the people involved.
And I have to say that I long ago attempted a study of Muhammad and his teachings from another source (long since forgotten). But I lost interest when it came to his decision to take a second wife. His first wife had stayed by his side, been a wonderful help mate, etc., and was rewarded with her getting old by his decision that he had a “vision” that he should take the sweet young thing who came across his path as his wife. Oh, please, give me a break! He lost me there. (And has anybody ever noticed that those who profess polygamy NEVER find an old or even just an older wife; they always find a sweet, young thing. God seems to have a proclivity to give these men visions to take new wives from young, beautiful women. Does that mean God favors young, beautiful women? But I digress.)
Then too, over the years I’ve done a somewhat extensive study of women in Islam. I think I can see accurately Islam’s stance on women–stay out of everything that is not family related and veil oneself totally from head to toe. I also think I can see the teaching on women from the standpoint of both the men and the women.
From the women’s standpoint I can see that their approach of the “veil” being a kind of protection has validity in their society. It offers the women some protection from the society they live in.
From the standpoint of the men I have more than one thing to say: First, I wonder how it is that the Islamic men have no control over their sexual urges that their women must go around veiled. Second, to hear the men speak of the situation, the men are the protectors of the women in their society. If that is the case, how is it that in so many situations it is the women (and children) who are used as shields in war. Some years ago a ferry sunk with some thousand people on it. Only several hundred were saved–all of them young men. I remember seeing pictures on TV of all these young men getting out of rescue boats–and no women or children. I have to admit I thought: If the men are supposed to be the protectors of “their” women, how is it that all these young men have been saved and no women or children. Who’s kidding who here? How is it that women for all intents and purposes are less than second class citizens.
In the end, after much reading on the topic of women in Islam I have come to the conclusion that women in too many Islamic societies are nothing but sexual slaves. Of course, Muslims would be shocked and would never admit to looking at the situation of women in Islam that way; but when one gets right down to the situation, that’s what women are in Islam.
As I see it, Islam vis-a-vis women is about the same as the Old Testament come to life.
I do agree, however, that Islam is simply not going to “go away.” I think that a fundamental problem among the Muslims is that they do not listen to their women at all. And their women are reduced to taking the stance of men if they are going to be heard at all. Specifically, I would venture that the previous sentence is the reason for female suicide bombers–that is, given that they are actually voluntary suicide bombers and not duped in some way.
Now to leave the specific topic of women in Islam and at the risk of bringing in what has been previously dismissed as “nothing but an NCR nunnish” voice: I would like to reference a March 5, 2009, article by Joan Chittister. She speaks of the interfaith meeting in Switzerland in February, specifically a TED program (Technology, Entertainment, Design) which “would help create a universal charter for compassion among all the major religions of the
Comment by MCS — March 16, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Jim,
I must admit that your reaction to Alsan’s writing on Islam is similar to my reaction to Karen Armstrong’s writing on the same subject. But perhaps my reasons are different from yours. I managed to get half-way through Armstrong’s book when I simply had to stop. Her material, while certainly scholarly and very informed, is so “intellectual” as to lose any sense of the people involved.
And I have to say that I long ago attempted a study of Muhammad and his teachings from another source (long since forgotten). But I lost interest when it came to his decision to take a second wife. His first wife had stayed by his side, been a wonderful help mate, etc., and was rewarded with her getting old by his decision that he had a “vision” that he should take the sweet young thing who came across his path as his wife. Oh, please, give me a break! He lost me there. (And has anybody ever noticed that those who profess polygamy NEVER find an old or even just an older wife; they always find a sweet, young thing. God seems to have a proclivity to give these men visions to take new wives from young, beautiful women. Does that mean God favors young, beautiful women? But I digress.)
Then too, over the years I’ve done a somewhat extensive study of women in Islam. I think I can see accurately Islam’s stance on women–stay out of everything that is not family related and veil oneself totally from head to toe. I also think I can see the teaching on women from the standpoint of both the men and the women.
From the women’s standpoint I can see that their approach of the “veil” being a kind of protection has validity in their society. It offers the women some protection from the society they live in.
From the standpoint of the men I have more than one thing to say: First, I wonder how it is that the Islamic men have no control over their sexual urges that their women must go around veiled. Second, to hear the men speak of the situation, the men are the protectors of the women in their society. If that is the case, how is it that in so many situations it is the women (and children) who are used as shields in war. Some years ago a ferry sunk with some thousand people on it. Only several hundred were saved–all of them young men. I remember seeing pictures on TV of all these young men getting out of rescue boats–and no women or children. I have to admit I thought: If the men are supposed to be the protectors of “their” women, how is it that all these young men have been saved and no women or children. Who’s kidding who here? How is it that women for all intents and purposes are less than second class citizens.
In the end, after much reading on the topic of women in Islam I have come to the conclusion that women in too many Islamic societies are nothing but sexual slaves. Of course, Muslims would be shocked and would never admit to looking at the situation of women in Islam that way; but when one gets right down to the situation, that’s what women are in Islam.
As I see it, Islam vis-a-vis women is about the same as the Old Testament come to life.
I do agree, however, that Islam is simply not going to “go away.” I think that a fundamental problem among the Muslims is that they do not listen to their women at all. And their women are reduced to taking the stance of men if they are going to be heard at all. Specifically, I would venture that the previous sentence is the reason for female suicide bombers–that is, given that they are actually voluntary suicide bombers and not duped in some way.
Now to leave the specific topic of women in Islam and at the risk of bringing in what has been previously dismissed as “nothing but an NCR nunnish” voice: I would like to reference a March 5, 2009, article by Joan Chittister. She speaks of the interfaith meeting in Switzerland in February, specifically a TED program (Technology, Entertainment, Design) which “would help create a universal charter for compassion among all the major religions of the world–Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”
I think they just may have something there! Compassion for all humanity! In addition Chittister specifies that “compassion” is defined in this charter not as an idea, not as pity, but as “the determination to end the suffering of the other by spending oneself” to end the suffering of the other. I say such a charter would actually require the religions to “put their money where their mouth is.”
Chittister further notes that the purpose of the Charter is to “create a movement that not only binds humanity together around the Golden Rule but provides a world-wide antidote to the use of religion in the justification of violence.” I like it!
How innovative! Yet is it possible for all these religions to agree that COMPASSION may be something they all have in common? I would certainly hope so.
MCS
Comment by MCS — March 16, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Jim,
I must admit that your reaction to Alsan’s writing on Islam is similar to my reaction to Karen Armstrong’s writing on the same subject. But perhaps my reasons are different from yours. I managed to get half-way through Armstrong’s book when I simply had to stop. Her material, while certainly scholarly and very informed, is so “intellectual” as to lose any sense of the people involved.
And I have to say that I long ago attempted a study of Muhammad and his teachings from another source (long since forgotten). But I lost interest when it came to his decision to take a second wife. His first wife had stayed by his side, been a wonderful help mate, etc., and was rewarded with her getting old by his decision that he had a “vision” that he should take the sweet young thing who came across his path as his wife. Oh, please, give me a break! He lost me there. (And has anybody ever noticed that those who profess polygamy NEVER find an old or even just an older wife; they always find a sweet, young thing. God seems to have a proclivity to give these men visions to take new wives from young, beautiful women. Does that mean God favors young, beautiful women? But I digress.)
Then too, over the years I’ve done a somewhat extensive study of women in Islam. I think I can see accurately Islam’s stance on women–stay out of everything that is not family related and veil oneself totally from head to toe. I also think I can see the teaching on women from the standpoint of both the men and the women.
From the women’s standpoint I can see that their approach of the “veil” being a kind of protection has validity in their society. It offers the women some protection from the society they live in.
From the standpoint of the men I have more than one thing to say: First, I wonder how it is that the Islamic men have no control over their sexual urges that their women must go around veiled. Second, to hear the men speak of the situation, the men are the protectors of the women in their society. If that is the case, how is it that in so many situations it is the women (and children) who are used as shields in war. Some years ago a ferry sunk with some thousand people on it. Only several hundred were saved–all of them young men. I remember seeing pictures on TV of all these young men getting out of rescue boats–and no women or children. I have to admit I thought: If the men are supposed to be the protectors of “their” women, how is it that all these young men have been saved and no women or children. Who’s kidding who here? How is it that women for all intents and purposes are less than second class citizens.
In the end, after much reading on the topic of women in Islam I have come to the conclusion that women in too many Islamic societies are nothing but sexual slaves. Of course, Muslims would be shocked and would never admit to looking at the situation of women in Islam that way; but when one gets right down to the situation, that’s what women are in Islam.
As I see it, Islam vis-a-vis women is about the same as the Old Testament come to life.
I do agree, however, that Islam is simply not going to “go away.” I think that a fundamental problem among the Muslims is that they do not listen to their women at all. And their women are reduced to taking the stance of men if they are going to be heard at all. Specifically, I would venture that the previous sentence is the reason for female suicide bombers–that is, given that they are actually voluntary suicide bombers and not duped in some way.
Now to leave the specific topic of women in Islam and at the risk of bringing in what has been previously dismissed as “nothing but an NCR nunnish” voice: I would like to reference a March 5, 2009, article by Joan Chittister. She speaks of the interfaith meeting in Switzerland in February, specifically a TED program (Technology, Entertainment, Design) which “would help create a universal charter for compassion among all the major religions of the
Comment by MCS — March 16, 2009 @ 3:22 pm