Well, arguably it may be "in the core of the religion" in the same way that stoning blasphemers and "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" are in the "core" of Judeo-Christianity. The real question is why the liberal collective doesn't seem to display the same contempt for Islamic fundamentalist fanaticism that it does for Christian fundamentalist fanaticism.

I'm not an expert on Islam, but this does not strike me as a proper Islamic judicial opinion. In other words, it doesn't read as a proper Fatwa. It relies on historical events, some of which - such as assassination - are not I would think generally excepted as following the 'proper form', and which are not the actions of Mohammed directly. It doesn't site any Haddiths or the Koran directly.

I'm willing to bet that it isn't the only opinion on the subject.

But if it is, it's really sad. I could say the following as well:

"Shortly after these incidents the people began to realise that insulting the Messenger of Allah was not something to be taken lightly and that by doing so would mean that you would be killed for it, a concept that many have seem to forgotten today."

But my intention would be entirely different than the above writer's.

Celebrim:

Several Imams have issued fatwahs calling for the death of the cartoonists. Any Imam can issue a fatwah.

Perhaps, but there are plenty of places in the Old Testament where violence is condoned if not encouraged. However, you don't see Christians taking it literally and acting upon it. There is an immaturity to a lot of what is going on with Islam right now.

Its not immaturity - it's the sensing of weakness plus cold calculation.

Umbriel: //The real question is why the liberal collective doesn't seem to display the same contempt for Islamic fundamentalist fanaticism that it does for Christian fundamentalist fanaticism.

As a very liberal european secular humanist (5 words just to define myself, how's that for a cool label!), I was wondering exactly the same thing.

The answer is probably PCness, which calls on us to "respect" other people's beliefs, no matter how absurd.

Roger Rainey: //Perhaps, but there are plenty of places in the Old Testament where violence is condoned if not encouraged.//

Not perhaps. There are.

//However, you don't see Christians taking it literally and acting upon it. There is an immaturity to a lot of what is going on with Islam right now.//

Who are you to tell what's actionable and what is not in a holy book? A holy book is supposed to be God's word. Nowhere does it say it should not be taken literaly. Moreover, in several places it does say that it should be taken literaly. For example, the Bibla says “Whatever I am commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away (Deuteronomy l3:1)”

Not to say that you are not right about maturity, or that I am not grateful that Christians no longer take their book literaly. But you can't really criticize a believer for believing exactly what their holy book says should be believed.

"Several Imams have issued fatwahs calling for the death of the cartoonists. Any Imam can issue a fatwah."

I really wish people would go beyond these shallow theological observations when making a reply. It is really getting tiresome.

Yes, of course any Iman can issue a fatwah, but that is in part my point. Alot of the current problem with Islam is a theological dispute over who has the authority to issue a fatwah that carries any weight. Imans are in theory supposed to self-regulate, issuing prenouncements with humility and in so much as they have recognized authority amongst there peers. This fatwah comes from I would assume a lesser cleric - and he doesn't once cite the authority of a more respected cleric on the subject. The average Fatwah is no more than an opinion issued to the court, that is a higher ranking cleric, and its up to those most respected officials to examine the competing points of view and produce a fatwah which is well-argued citing the Koran, the Haddiths, and the opinions of well respected historical figures in a particular school of judicial thought.

The above opinion does none of those things (or at least none of those things rather well, as I understand 'well' in Islamic judicial thought). Moreover, it makes the argument that has the authority to decide for itself what the proper course of action in a jihad is. "This is the sunnah of the prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able execute.", is not Orthodox Islam and its over pronouncements like that Al Queda's clerics tend to be reproved by others in the mainstream Sunni community. At least that portion of the argument won't be well recieved in say Saudi Arabia.

Here's Bernard Lewis' discussion of the Rushdie fatwa:

Insulting the prophet -- the charge brought against Salmon Rushdie -- is certainly an offense in Muslim law, and the jurists discuss it in some detail. Almost all these discussions turn on the question of a non-Muslim subject of the Muslim state who insults the Prophet. The jurists devote considerable attention to the definition of the offense, the rules of evidence, and the appropriate punishment. They show great concern that accusations of this offense should not be used as a devise to achieve some private vengeance, and insist on careful scrutiny of the evidence before any verdict or sentence is pronounced. The majority opinion is that flogging and a term of imprisonment are sufficient punishment -- the severity of the flogging and the length of the term to depend on the gravity of the offense. The case of the Muslim who insults the Prophet is hardly considered and must have been very rare. When it is discussed, the usual view is this act is tantamount to apostasy.

(from Crisis of Islam)

Lewis doesn't discuss the situation of the Non-Muslim in the Non-Muslim state. I would guess that Islamic law is completely silent. The examples given in the Islamist screed appear to be Muslims in a Muslim state.

What the screed represents is the continuing deterioration of "law" in the concept of Islamic law. Any non-credentialed firebrand can issue a fatwa, any deviations become "tantamount to apostasy," and anybody can be killed without a trial. It is Islamic vigilantiasm.

superfrenchie: Your comments indicate that you have very little idea of the Christian relationship to the Books of the Old Testament.

To PD Shaw: and do you have an idea, or do you take your ideas from what the leaders of your religion are currently saying? Because in 2000 years, that has varied quite a bit.

PD Shaw: Exactly. There have been a number of posters here who have made the argument - or who appear to be making the argument - that such a justification as appears above would be widely accepted in Islam. I don't think that that is the case, and I don't think stating that that isn't the case consitutes being blind to the extensive dangers Islam presents.

Many of the commentators here seem to be taking the arguments of the Islamists themselves as authoritative on the nature of Islam and drawing thier conclusions from that. That is the sort of assistance to the militant Islamists that we in the West don't need to give them. Alot of the success that the Wahabbists, Islamists, and Al Queda have had in the past few decades in winning converts to thier violent philosophies is the average Moslem (much less the average non-Moslem) is simply not well enough equipped to judge the merit of particular interpretation of the Koran.

The citations in the screed are another example of cherry-picking quotes. There are also stories of Mohammed telling his followers not to punish people who insulted him because they are acting in accordance with their true beliefs.

The whole matter, though, comes down to the question of whether something which was once, in its historical context, "correct" continues to be "correct" in another context. This is a high hurdle for most Muslims.

"The whole matter, though, comes down to the question of whether something which was once, in its historical context, "correct" continues to be "correct" in another context. This is a high hurdle for most Muslims."

This is a hurdle Islam itself places in front of most Muslims. You won't be able to make any headway with an Islamic proceding with that kind of argument. Islam makes the claim that at all times throughout history, all the way back to Abraham, all the real followers of God were Islamic and in essence worshiped God in the exact same way. There is no concept of that sort of historical relevance that is inherent in Christianity, no concept of continuing revelation (as the Catholics have), no concept of a new covenent relationship between God and his people. For an Islamic, it is 'welcome to the new covenent, same as the old covenent, but now with 100% more clarity'

No, the way to make headway with an Islamic on this - if that is what you want to do - is to point out as precendent the actions of some authority he is preconditioned to willing to accept. All Islamic theological arguments procede implicitly or explicitly with, "Do you accept X as authoritative? Well X says this..." If it was done in some similar fashion before, and it was done by someone that the Islamic was trained to respect, then its a pretty good bet it will be accepted as authoritative now.

The militant islamics do this all the time, by making the fundamentalist argument, "Do you accept the Koran as authoritative? Well the Koran says this..." The problem is that Koran interpretation as it has evolved in Islamic thought is rarely so straight forward (by necessity I think). For example, the quoted passage from the screed:

"But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions)."

The militant Islamist will say, "Well the Koran says that if the unbelievers attack your religion with criticism, then you should fight them!". But, and this is key, that's not what the above passage strictly speaking says. It has several qualifiers. First, the unbelievers must 'violate thier oaths after thier covenant'. OK, so can you point out the oaths Denmark has violated? And who were the oaths made with? Certainly not with the average Moslem on the street. Such oaths would have been made with whomever has the authority to make the truce, and only that authority could determine whether the oaths have been broken and whether this is an advantageous time to fight. Second, the 'attack of the religion with criticism and disapproval' must occur together with the oath breaking, before the responce of fighting is warranted by the passage. You don't get to choose which parts of the verse to ignore. And who are the 'leaders of disbelief' that the passage speaks of? These must be properly identified. You don't get to choose, for example, to just attack some random Dane or European who happens to be conveinently within reach. And if we had the whole passage in context, we'd probably see additional qualifiers.

In short, I'd be willing to bet that most Islamic scholars (and please be careful to note that I'm not one) would not even see the quoted passage as particularly relevant to the subject at hand.

Personally, I think we’re dealing with an entire culture suffering from a combustive combination of big egos, low self-esteem and insecurity. In all places – sciences, the arts, politics, human rights, economics, military prowess, you name it – the Islamic nations are far, far behind “the West” (AKA the Great Satan United States, the evil Jooooos… heck, even tiny, friendly, liberal Denmark kicks their assess in practically everything) and they know it. Deep down they know it. And it bugs them because the Koran tells them – follow me and we’ll triumph in the end because Allah wills it, and hey, WE’RE THE ONE TRUE RELIGION. Blind adherence to the faith is a HECK of a lot easier – and comforting – than doing anything productive to fix what ails them.

So, they overreact to every little real or perceived slight. Burning down an embassy, taking part in a riot, beating your wife… that’s a RUSH, and it’s easy. Building a functional economy, opening yourself to self-criticism, respecting the rights and opinions of others even if you don’t agree with them, admitting that women are your equals when the Koran and ~1,300 years of Islam tell you the opposite… that’s hard.

Childhood bullies pick on people as a result of a similar combination of ego, esteem and insecurity problems. And just as you have to stand up to a bully to make him back down, the West has got to do the same with Islam. Until we do, just like any other bully they will continue to interpret our wavering and tolerance and appeasement as weakness ripe and ready for exploitation.

They have to understand that the West will not be ready to respect them – and will therefore behave accordingly – until such time as they are ready to respect us.

Finally, I really don’t think the ability to interpret (or not) the Koran is the issue some make it out to be. The Koran, just like any religious text, can be and is interpreted – in a variety of different ways – all the time. All you have to do is read the twisty-turn-y logic used to justify the many scientific fallacies, historic inaccuracies, mathematical errors and internal contradictions it contains to know that (http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/index.html is a good place to start if you are interesting in looking into that). The bigger problem is, as others have quite rightly pointed out – who is doing the interpreting, what are they saying, and who is listening…

Just my two cents.

-Boo

John Burgess (#13): //The citations in the screed are another example of cherry-picking quotes.//

Cherry-picking in religious books is one of my favorite sports. You can pretty much show something and its exact opposite within a few pages. Interesting, for books supposedly written from divine inspiration, that that sort of discombobulated writing would likely barely get a C if it were to be presented as a 10th grade essay in an American high school.

The very idea that someone would have to interpret the word of an infallible and perfect God, as PD Shaw suggested in #10, to me is the perfect illustration of the absurdity of the whole thing.

Religions are based on century-old fairy tales invented by people who slept in tents. How many more centuries will we need to get real about them?

do you have an idea, or do you take your ideas from what the leaders of your religion are currently saying?

I take my ideas from the Apostle Paul. The first central conflict in Christianity upon the death of its "founder" was whether followers of Christ must obey Jewish law. Those believing that observance of Mosaic laws (including circumcision and dietary restrictions) were necessary for salvation were called Judaizers. The opposing view, sometimes referred to as Paulism, was set forth in letters by the Apostle Paul (and to a slightly more moderate tone, Peter) in large chunks of the New Testament. Paulism "won," and Christianity passed from an odd outgrowth of Judaism to a separate religion.

So when superfrenchie accuses Christians (in this and previous threads) of not being sufficiently literal about the Books of Moses, I can only say "huh?" Deuteronomy is part of the history of Christianity, but it is a contract that gentiles were not party to.

This is not to suggest Christians are past judgment -- I pointed out similar problems yesterday that Christians had in adapting and accepting religious differences. I don't think Islam's problem shares the same problems as Christianity, or the very least, I hope it does not because I don't think we have centuries to fight it out.

"Who are you to tell what's actionable and what is not in a holy book? A holy book is supposed to be God's word. Nowhere does it say it should not be taken literaly."

Deut 30

11.For this commandment which I command you today is not hidden from you, nor is it distant.
12. It is not in Heaven, so that it would be said, "Who will go up to Heaven and take if for us, so that we should hear it and do it?
13. It is not beyond the sea, so that it should be said, "Who will cross the sea and take it for us so that we should hear it and do it?
14. Rather, this matter is very close to you, in your mouth and heart, to do it.

it is not in heaven -

For the last 2000 years this has been interpretated by mainstream rabbinic Judaism to mean that the interpretation of the torah, and the determination of Torah law, is in the hands of man. Specifically those trained in its interpretation, that is, rabbis.

Who are you to say an entire religion tradition is wrong?

PD Shaw: "Lewis doesn't discuss the situation of the Non-Muslim in the Non-Muslim state. I would guess that Islamic law is completely silent. The examples given in the Islamist screed appear to be Muslims in a Muslim state."

I commented on this in one of these threads before, and decided to expand on it here: Three Paths for Islam.

//Who are you to say an entire religion tradition is wrong?//

"Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants." - Richard Dawkins

superfrenchie: I hope that from here on out you aren't going to view every thread as an oppurtunity to take pop shots at religion. It's already getting a little old. I notice that your reply didn't actually reply to the question of interpretation, and the Dawkins you quoted neither addresses the problem of interpretation nor shows that an entire religious tradition is wrong. Your appeal to authority is noted, but its rather off the mark. Even if the quote was on topic, Dawkins lacks the authority you desire him to have. He has no more special status than you do.

In the case of the Genesis story, it has special status to about 3 billion people - regardless of what you think of it. Regardless of what you think of thier philosophies, those 'middle eastern herders' were amazingingly influential people. Alot of people have found these stories fascinating, and I personally think you'd be amazed at just how much of what you hold to be true is owed directly to those 'middle eastern herders' and thier intellectual descendents. Feel free to be fascinated by ant excrement or just so stories about how the primal soup got its groove on as you like. Feel free to be offensive or dismissive, that's your business, but don't assume you are actually proving any points or contributing greatly to the conversation.

I'm just glad to find that there is one freedom that the French believe in so strongly that they are willing to fight not to give it up. Now that the right to bash religion is at stake, maybe we'll see some backbone for the first time since Waterloo.

celebrim: First of all on being on topic: the topic is "theological justification". It seems to me that talking about interpretation of holy texts is very much on topic. I read the guidelines and I understand I am to stay on topic. I feel that's what I am doing. I am not posting opinions about religious interpretations on the football thread, or vice versa, am I?

//I'm just glad to find that there is one freedom that the French believe in so strongly that they are willing to fight not to give it up.//

Celebrim, I'm not "the French". I'm one French guy. When I expose my views on religion, I don't pretend to represent France or to talk for her. I am only talking for myself.

//Now that the right to bash religion is at stake, maybe we'll see some backbone for the first time since Waterloo//

And I did not bash any one. I bashed religions, which is a set of ideas that people choose (or not) to espouse. I did not bash Americans or Jordanians or Syrians or whatever.

You on the other hand, chose to bash "the French" and spit on the tombs of those who died for their country simply because you disagree with one guy's opinions.

My definition of racism is of hating someone simply because they are born. That is what you do here with "the French".

Attack "the French" if you have something you feel they may have done wrong. Talking about religion on this blog was not one of them. Neither was dying for their country.

On the other hand, attack and dismiss my ideas all you want. But leave "the French", and especially the millions who died for their country (not with their hands up, mind you!) alone.

"First of all on being on topic: the topic is "theological justification". It seems to me that talking about interpretation of holy texts is very much on topic."

As should be clear from my post, I meant only that you quoted a question, and then answered with a quote that doesn't answer either the question or the larger argument of the post it appears in.

"Celebrim, I'm not "the French"."

I didn't say that you were. I just mused that you seemed to share the same sort of beliefs motivating an apparant change in the larger body of French citizens. You, and the French plurality, have some principle you held too sacred to give up. I was beginning to wonder.

"When I expose my views on religion, I don't pretend to represent France or to talk for her. I am only talking for myself."

I didn't say otherwise. I just saw you as one more data point in a larger trend that begins with the whole headscarf ban and picks up steam with the reprinting of the Danish cartoons. I'm intrigued by the different sorts of things that the French compared to the Americans feel a need to take a stand on.

"And I did not bash any one. I bashed religions..."

And as the quoted peice indicates, I didn't say otherwise.

"You on the other hand, chose to bash "the French" and spit on the tombs of those who died for their country simply because you disagree with one guy's opinions."

No, this is not all about you. I disagree with the opinion of a goodly portion of France, of which you - at least in this - would seem to belong and live up to the expected sterotype. Lacking a better term for the shared post-values post-modern secular ethnic/cultural identity group which lives in France and dominates French intellectual thought and seems content to flush thier country and thier culture down the WC, I called them 'the French'. If you have a better term for them, I'd be glad to hear it. I'm more than certain it doesn't include everyone that lives in France, or even everyone that lives in France and identifies themselves as French. (Certainly the French seem to feel the same way.) However, I'm fairly certain that in this context it includes you.

As for 'spitting on tombs', in point of fact I did not in fact question the integrity of any Frenchmen that died for his country. Quite the contrary, it was the courage of the ones that didn't which I questioned.

"My definition of racism is of hating someone simply because they are born. That is what you do here with "the French"."

Oh believe me, being born is not the issue here. Quite the contrary, as a symptom of the underlying problem, not being born is one of the problems that they have.

"But leave "the French", and especially the millions who died for their country (not with their hands up, mind you!) alone."

Touchy touchy. I'll apologize when I see French LeClerc's rolling on Damascus or Tehran. Heck, just pulling its oil companies out of the Sudan would be a start. And I'll happily drink a toast to France if France only says that any attack on an EU country is an attack on France, and that France will not allow its smaller EU partners to be bullied or intimidated.

The Koran is different than the Bible or Talmud. The latter are held to be imperfect, interpreted copies of God's Wisdom, handed down through the ages and endlessly debated then and now as to meaning.

The Koran is held to be the literal, actual, no interpretation word of God as he spoke it himself. ALL of the meanings have been decided since the early 1000's and are not subject to further debate.

A Christian would see the story of Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the temple as probably true, but the exact meaning and words open to debate and a matter of faith and reason combined. A Muslim would take ALL words in the Koran as EXACTLY what God himself said and not open to anything but absolute obedience.

I don't believe absent some huge crisis where Muslims see a total failure of their society there will be reform. Islam has many positives (the bond of brotherhood that Malcolm X to Sir Richard Francis Burton found amazing) that paradoxically keep their society frozen in Amber. Hard to argue with the absolute settled literal word of God tells you how to live every aspect of your life, and the arguing is essentially being the enemy of God.

celebrim: //I didn't say otherwise. I just saw you as one more data point in a larger trend that begins with the whole headscarf ban and picks up steam with the reprinting of the Danish cartoons. I'm intrigued by the different sorts of things that the French compared to the Americans feel a need to take a stand on.//

That's because you're just waking up, or you woke up around September 11. The French have been at this islamofacism thing for a lot longer than you have paid attention. Since 1995 to be exact. When a series of attacks by extremist militants killed 16 and injured hundreds.

Just because the French have not felt the need to invade a country unrelated to that Islamic extremism does not mean they have not done anything about it. They have.

Maybe you are confusing us with the UK, where the 1995 attack suspects had fled. In what is widely believed to have been a strategy to avoid terror acts on British soil, the UK at first refused to extradite main suspect Rachid Ramda, citing possible mistreatment of informants and an alleged impossibility for a Muslim suspect to obtain a fair trial in France. They finally gave him up in December 2005, just a few months after that strategy proved futile…

//Lacking a better term for the shared post-values post-modern secular ethnic/cultural identity group which lives in France and dominates French intellectual thought and seems content to flush thier country and thier culture down the WC, I called them 'the French'.//

Our country has been one of the most secular in the world since 1905.

//Quite the contrary, as a symptom of the underlying problem, not being born is one of the problems that they have.//

You are wrong. Natality in France is one of the highest in Europe.

//And I'll happily drink a toast to France if France only says that any attack on an EU country is an attack on France//

It does. That's part of the European foundation.

//and that France will not allow its smaller EU partners to be bullied or intimidated.//

Are you referring to Denmark?

May I remind you that they are in Iraq. Having your own State Department letting them hanging like they did in front of the muslim agression was not exactly what I would have expected to thank them for hanging tough with you over there.

//Touchy touchy.//

Man! Members of my family died fighting the Germans, and all I hear everyday in your media and just about everywhere else is how much the French are cowards. From a country who decided to keep open its embassy in Berlin when they attacked Poland, while the French, despite their extremely weakened state from WWI, attacked them. So ya, you got me. Touchy, touchy!

Regarding Denmark, from the IHT:

/*/Many people feel that it is "bad that the U.S. and the U.K. don't help us when we have helped them," referring to the presence of Danish troops in Iraq.

The newspaper BT summed up the strain of anger this week when it showed pictures of Bush and Blair with a headline: "They have let us down."

[...]

The feeling of abandonment is strongest among the political right, especially in the populist and anti-immigrant Danskt Folkeparti, or the Danish People's Party, the third-largest party in Parliament.

In her weekly newsletter published on Monday, Pia Kjærsgaard, the party leader, asked, "Where in the world are you, George Bush and Tony Blair? Denmark has stood shoulder to shoulder with the U.S.A. and Britain in the fight against terror, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Now Denmark and our freedom are under the biggest pressure since the Occupation ended in 1945.

"It is now that we need a loud, unambiguous 'We're behind you' from precisely the U.S.A. and Britain."

In her weekly newsletter published on Monday, Pia Kjærsgaard, the party leader, asked, "Where in the world are you, George Bush and Tony Blair? Denmark has stood shoulder to shoulder with the U.S.A. and Britain in the fight against terror, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Now Denmark and our freedom are under the biggest pressure since the Occupation ended in 1945.

"It is now that we need a loud, unambiguous 'We're behind you' from precisely the U.S.A. and Britain."/*/

I know this is off topic, but i would like to address something said about WWII.
Speaking as an American, let me say I and i believe most Americans do NOT thing the French where or are cowards. What i think is that they
have been victimized by there own poor tactics
and strategy. There are numerous examples of this from the franco-Prussian War to Algeria.
Nobody should ever question the Frenh soldiers
deftness at dying for his country. I do hope that the sons of those slain have learned to
at least question the French leadership rather
than just wonder why the U.S. was not there to bail them out.

watty: /Speaking as an American, let me say I and i believe most Americans do NOT thing the French where or are cowards.//

I disagree with you. Most Americans think we are cowards. That's what they hear all day on prime time TV, without anybody to challenge them on it. Listen to Leno, he got on us more than on Michael Jackson. Even some of your largest corporations rely on that image to sell sandwiches! (we got them to stop). It's refreshing to hear that you think for yourself.

//What i think is that they have been victimized by there own poor tactics and strategy.//

I do agree with that. Poor tactics (Maginot line), poor leadership and weakness brought about by the non-enforcement of Versailles (in part because the US did not try to enforce it)