Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Who's Winning Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Interpretation and Exceptionalism
loba    1/30/2002 3:24:36 PM
Interpretation and Exceptionalism By Asma Barlas The title of my talk is "On Interpretation and Exceptionalism" and it deals both with the way in which most people in the U.S. perceive Islam, and the way in which Islam—in particular, its scripture, the Qur'an—deals with the concept of jihad. As someone who has been asked to speak about Islam only a couple of times in the ten years I've been at Ithaca College, it's obvious to me that this new interest in it is the result not of positive developments but of people's desire to make sense of the attacks on the U.S. allegedly by a group of Muslim men, which has left them fearful, angry, and bewildered. The irony is that looking to Islam alone may not provide the answers, or the closure, that people are seeking. As Robin Wright says, "mining the Quran for incendiary quotes is essentially pointless. Religions evolve, and there is usually enough ambiguity in their founding scriptures to let them evolve in any direction. If Osama Bin Laden were a Christian, and he still wanted to destroy the World Trade Center, he would cite Jesus' rampage against the moneychangers. If he didn't want to destroy the World Trade Center, he could stress the Sermon on the Mount." Even if one doesn't agree with this view, the point is that every religion—or secular ideology, for that matter—offers the possibility of violence and peace, oppression and liberation, depending on who is interpreting it, how, and in what particular contexts. As I always say, there is little family resemble between modern liberation theology and the Christianity of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Conquest. And yet, ignoring that every religion is open to multiple interpretations, many people are attacking Muslims for making "it sounds like there are two versions of the Koran floating around out there. If so, what is the difference between the Koran that the Terrorists are reading, and the Koran that the rest of the Muslim world is reading? I need to have the 'real' Islam please stand up." (This is from an article forwarded to me by a friend with no title or bye-line). The same author—who says he's a Catholic—also says he doesn't "want to hear [the] history about the Crusades, or the U.S. foreign policy crap, or . . . comparisons [of Islam] to Christianity and Judaism." Thus, while wanting Muslims to explain which Qur'an we are reading and which is the real Islam, he himself chooses not to explain the difference between the bible that the Crusaders and Conquistadors were reading and the bible he has been reading, nor to convince others why his Christianity is the "real" one. Such a strategy not only lays upon Muslims a burden that believers in other religions refuse to bear themselves, but it also obscures the fact that the bloodiest conflicts, like the two World Wars, have had secular, not religious roots. Even those conflicts we think of as religious can be shown to be about power and resources, not merely ideology. This is no less true of the Crusades, than it is of the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, or Jews and Muslims in the Middle East, or even the attacks of September 11th. We might, therefore, be better served by trying to understand the political and economic conditions that engender conflicts and religious extremism; but this would require us to focus on the nature of our own foreign policies and also to recognize the complicity of secularism, capitalism, and liberal democracy in creating a global division of labor that, in privileging the few at the expense of the many, has provided the breeding grounds for much of modern day extremism, religious or not. Second, even if we are to refocus attention away from politics and economics by looking only to religion to explain the events of 9/11th, I doubt that the confusion, hostility and fear most people are feeling these days are conducive to understanding Islam or for engaging in an honest dialogue with Muslims. Ironically, even those people who are not necessarily angry with Islam will find it hard to have such a dialogue so as long as they continue to assume that learning about Islam will enable them to make sense of 9/11 inasmuch as this expectation arises in the assumption that there is a connection between Islam and terrorism. It is this assumption that reveals the extent to which people think of Islam as exceptional and, in so thinking, do deep epistemic violence to it. Let me clarify with an example. Terrorism and Islam's Exceptionalism Jewish groups in then British-occupied Palestine introduced modern forms of terrorism into the Middle East in the 1940s. It was the Irgun, the Stern gang, and the Hagana that began the practice of bombing "gathering places [and] crowded Arab areas [in an attempt to] terrorize the Arab community" (Smith, 1992: 19; 140). The Stern gang even attacked Jewish banks, resulting in "Jewish loss of life" (120). The Irgun, as we know, "slaughtered ab
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Ben    more corrections and questions to Interpretation and Exceptionalism   1/31/2002 9:36:55 AM
Some more errors "As Robin Wright says, "mining the Quran for incendiary quotes is essentially pointless." True! but only half the story. Mining it for PEACEFUL quotes is just as pointless, for the SAME reasons, and yet this author falls back on exactly that! One way logic, it seems. "I can do this to justify my view, but you can't do the same to justify yours." Hmmm.... " If Osama Bin Laden were a Christian, and he still wanted to destroy the World Trade Center, he would cite Jesus' rampage against the moneychangers." Not a good point, as the views of one person, even if that person is a terrorist leader. Christian terrorists exist these days (a few)but there is no large segment of Christian professional clergy making this point. The problem is not ONE person, it is a large class led by accepted professional clergy beleiving that the US is an enemy, and the destruction of the WTC a good thing. " the point is that every religion—or secular ideology, for that matter—offers the possibility of violence and peace, oppression and liberation, depending on who is interpreting it, how, and in what particular contexts." this is EXACTLY the point, but does not address the original question the article attempts to, which is, why is SO MUCH MORE of it linked with Islam than with other religions? "As I always say, there is little family resemble between modern liberation theology and the Christianity of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Conquest." Is this meant to reassure us that if we just let Islam be for a few centuries, they too will progress to a tolerant society? this fails to address the problem that the division between the inqusition and tolerant modern society is one of Centuries, while the difference between fanaticism and tolerant society in the Islamic world is one of Kilometers, even though both represent spectrums of ideology. therefore, a false analogy. "The same author—who says he's a Catholic—also says he doesn't "want to hear [the] history about the Crusades, or the U.S. foreign policy crap, or . . . comparisons [of Islam] to Christianity and Judaism." Thus, while wanting Muslims to explain which Qur'an we are reading and which is the real Islam, he himself chooses not to explain the difference between the bible that the Crusaders and Conquistadors were reading and the bible he has been reading, nor to convince others why his Christianity is the "real" one." Incorrect. Not the point at all. it is useless to bring up centuries old history, because that is not the issue. If all of history is to be brought to the table, at what point shall we ask the Arabs to relinquish the territories they've occupied since the 7th century? the discussion is about Status Quo, not History. Defending current actions of Muslims by saying "once upon a time Catholics did this too" is as pointless as saying one should not be convicted of a crime if the same crime was committed by the distant ancestors of everyone else. "Such a strategy not only lays upon Muslims a burden that believers in other religions refuse to bear themselves," Other religions have faced this and dealt with it, and put it behind. Islam has not. " but it also obscures the fact that the bloodiest conflicts, like the two World Wars, have had secular, not religious roots." Irrelevant and misleading to the conflict at hand. note that the principal recruiters of fighters for the terrorists seem to be religious leaders, not secular leaders. It IS a religious war- from their perspective. " Jewish groups in then British-occupied Palestine introduced modern forms of terrorism into the Middle East in the 1940s." Not true. they were hit with Arab terrorism in the 1920's. In this case, "modern terrorism" seems to be merely defined as "the first time a jew did it" "The Irgun, as we know, "slaughtered about 250 men, women and children whose mutilated bodies were stuffed down wells" in the village of Dair Yassin (143)." Years after their Arab neighbors taught them how its done! Arab memory is one sided. yassin is recalled, hebron forgotten. "The word jihad means "striving" or "struggle," and not "war." " Deceptive. it can be used in many ways. "There is also the jihad of arms whose aim is to struggle in the cause of God; this is the "smaller jihad" and it permits fighting as a means of self-protection. There are a number of verses in the Qur'an about this form of jihad and I will quote two of the main ones:" Why bother when you've already said you can find any quote you want, and quoting serves no point? 180 degree reversal from the point made earlier!
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Interpretation and Exceptionalism    1/31/2002 9:12:33 PM
"Jewish groups in then British-occupied Palestine introduced modern forms of terrorism into the Middle East in the 1940s" The typical mixture of self-abusive fantasy and outright lies which seems so common on the Arab/Moslem side of the Middle East dispute. Perhaps the author considers the almost literally countless "incidents" of Arab attacks and murders of Jews for several generations BEFORE the 1940s to be merely exercises of the traditional Arab culture. One particularly notes the pogroms in Hebron, during the 1920s, when the Arabs introduced the notion of mass murder of Jews into the Middle Eastern equation.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Interpretation and Exceptionalism    5/14/2003 7:30:17 AM
The real problem with religious fundamentalism (off denominations) is that it is an idea whose time has passed - about 1600 years ago. The general layout of a religion in the middle east was some sacred writings (the bible is just one among a host). In this sacred scripture everything was written down. The hittites f.i. had the prices of different types of cattle sanctified. When the nabouring tibes were subjugated their god was assimilated into the imperial pantheon (which gives the religious scientiest a the question of wether monoteism is the original religion after fetishim?!!?) giving raise to problems as most had a fertility god/godess. The ruler of the conquorer becomes the high priest of the cult and perform relious ceremonies every year entering into the holiest of the hole: THE MONEY CHEST IS KEPT THERE. It is first with the roman law of Justinian (actually a compilation) a proper separation between church and state is possible. The western world has ever since found this division practical (with the exception of some fundamentalist baptist). Turkey for that matter as well. The turks took over the greek-roman administration. To Conclude: A fundamentalist belief is incompatible with a modern state.
 
Quote    Reply

Barca    RE:Interpretation and Exceptionalism    5/14/2003 2:19:19 PM
You appear to be shooting a small guage shot-gun hoping to hit something. "Thus, while wanting Muslims to explain which Qur'an we are reading and which is the real Islam" - you appear to want to defend Muslims from being inconsistant, but instead attack in a haphazard manner. One statement, "there is little family resemble between modern liberation theology and the Christianity of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Conquest." I don't think that too many Europeans would know much about these. But if it will foster understanding and communication, let me answer this portion of your post. 1. Liberation Theology. Are you refering to philosophy of armed revolution to promote redistribution of land advocated by some in South America? If so, they have been condemned by the major Christian Religions and any Priest known to have a connection to this 'movement' has been excommunicated. To answer your question, they are not following any Bible. So how does that relate to Muslims? Is Hamas and Al-Qaeda upset over some mistreatment of Muslims in South America? Are the Muslims who think that taking arms against America less than one thousandth of a percent and routinely renounce by the vast majority of Muslims? 2. Inquisition. The Catholic Church has done a lot of Mea Culpas over the killing of 8 Jews who were Mulsim collabrators by the Spanish Inquition. But little attention has been given to the thousands of Jews who were killed in Scandanavian countries because they were thought (and probably did) to have brought the plague with them. Obviously the Catholic Church feels that they did something wrong. Can they be forgiven? And what can a Muslim of the Wahabi sect feel that they did wrong? The Spanish Inquistion also expelled a huge number of Jews. Portugal, another Catholic country, welcomed all Jews in. Is there a million of Muslim clerics in a country neighboring Iraq demonstrating their love for America? 3. The Conquest. Isn't this the Muslim seizing of the Arabian pennisula and conquering of Northern Africa and Asian territories? Or are you referring to the colonizing of the Americas? If so, I fail to see why a Moslem would harbor a grudge. 4. Crusades. Without using the words 'self-defense', you appear to be claiming that Muslims are defending themselves much like the Christians defended themselves. Both the Muslim and Christian armies were attempting to take and hold territory. A suicide bomber can not hold territory. If you are saying that the gift of time has given you a different moral solution, what is it? Let's be specific. If you were in charge of the Christian Army at Tours, what should be the Catholic response? Lay down their arms? Eventhough they weren't Muslim, what would have been a follower of the Qu'ran's response? The Crusades occurred over a period of time and we would argue what was part of the Crusades and what wasn't, but the Just War theory is largely believed, to not be in conflict with the Bible. A student of mine once explained his hatred of America by showing me a story read in the schools of Muslim countries. The narrative is of Muslims who were slashed to death rather than convert to Catholicism. When I showed him an 18th century text that related the same story word for word (except this time Christian families were hacked by Muslims), he reacted with indignation over how low the West would stoop to spread their lies. However I think afgter Baghdad Bob and the Arab press, it is hard to convince the outside world that the Mulsim story has any validity. The problem is that in the West, one in thousands has heard the story. In Arab countries, everyone has heard the story. I think you avoiding a major point. The spread of Christianity from its birth in Jerusalem to Apostle's spread to Rome, Edessa, Goa, Corinth, Thessalonia, Alexandria, Symrna, Scythia, Parthia, Mesopotamia, Media, Ethiopia, Phrygia, Iran, Antioch, Tyre, Nicomedia, Palmyra, Taiba, Galatia, and Ephesia is much different than the Moslem expansion from Medina to Mecca to Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and North Africa.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics