I didn't send you this??

So it must have been Jerry Kindall?

Not Jerry Kondraciuk the OVERQUALIFIED customer! ;)

Jerry

Yeah, it's me.

Jerry: so you fell under the spell of Kaczynski's writing for a bit, eh?

Well, that explains the customer-support relationship, heh... (ducking and running for cover)

Just kidding, Jer.

Hello Jerry,

That long article by Paul Berman on the Arab Islamicist philosopher Sayyid Qutb held my attention and in fact, opened up some avenues of thought about the histories of the monotheistic religions. The writings of Sayyid Qutb certainly help explain the growth of present day Islamicism as a sociopolitical instrument if not of Islam as a religious faith.

Toward the end of his article, Berman rhetorically asks where the philosophers of the west are to be found to answer Sayyid Qutb, martyred by the Egyptian dictator and would-be Pan-Arab universal leader Abdel Gamal Nasser in 1966.

Without delving too deep in search for a response, I might say that the philosophies of western liberty have been there all this time, including the thoughts and deeds of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Ayn Rand. The latter would have told him that one cannot have a free society at all without having developed an appropriate social philosophy rooted in the primacy of private personal and property rights over any collective, government or priesthood.

In any case, we shall not cure the diseases of mankind; feed, clothe and find useful work for the people everywhere; or explore our solar system and our galaxy on a philosophy incorporating submission of individual will to the writings of a self-declared prophet, expressed in our latter-day era in the joyousness of driving aircraft filled with human victims into the sides of New York's skyscrapers.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Mr. Kindall,
When you read the Unabomber manifesto, did you have the sense that it was written by more than one person? I remember reading it years ago when it first was written, and being struck by how it seemed to have been written by more than one person...

Gah. Kaczynski. When that broke I was in grad school in physics. I remember being terrified through that whole ordeal because legit journalists were writing long think-pieces about the cogent arguments and intelligent outlook displayed in an essay URGING PEOPLE TO KILL ME. I was expecting the pogrom to start any minute. Of course it was just background opinion-wank.

Oh, and by the way, every time I bring this up on Usenet, I get a bunch of followups explaining that I'm being unfair and he really made a lot of sense if you just ignore the little inconsequential bit where he explains that I must be killed. Really I'm just one of the world's greatest monsters and responsible for all evil, but that doesn't mean that people have to kill me.

That really was one hell of an article (the one on Sayyid Kutb, I mean). It makes a lot of sense.

Defense of the liberal ideals of the West has been ongoing in many political publications, and of course in the blogosphere. Where else can it be made?

One way is in the effort to remake Iraq. If it can be done, this will be a huge philosophical blow to the Islamists. It's one of the main reasons I've always backed this notion of taking out Saddam.

Dean,

The last paragraph of your post on Sayyid Qutb describes the essence of why we really are in Iraq. We may in fact find no serious accumulations of weapons of mass destruction. The oil, in the total scheme of things, is relatively unimportant.

But the possibility of helping to remold an entire Islamic society into a constitutional republic with equal rights for peoples of all religions, with protection for property rights and individual liberties, with a stable political system not dominated by army generals and gangsters -- is this not the only way we can turn the world of Islam around?

The problem, however, is this: In all Islamic societies, there is a tendency for the imams and mullahs to impel the masses to replace civil law with sharia, the Islamic religious law.

Because the ideal under which they are all born and bred is that of submission to the concept of God as they have defined it within their religion. In other words, slavery to a fate beyond their control or even their influence.

I truly believe that if Islam were to take over the world, civilization itself on the entire surface of this planet would stagnate and would never be reborn.

So, the question is, can an Islamic society -- can ANY Islamic society -- be permanently remolded into a land of liberty with respect for the rights of individuals? Can any of this be accomplished without, in effect, destroying or seriously subverting Islam? And is that achievable? Are we perhaps locked into a permanent conflict with them wherever they have established permanent Islamic communities?

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

My own theory is that Islam is having the kinds of growing pains that, in Christianity, caused the Crusades and the Inquisition. Most of Europe used to be under a theocratic grip as strong as any Islamic theocracy. Then there was Protestantism, an Enlightenment, and the Church's power diminished significantly. Today, in Western countries, people claim to be religious (or at least spiritual) but the extent of most people's faith is going to church once a week, if that often. In their political lives, most people (including those who say they're religious) make decisions themselves, without the help of religious leaders. Our society is better in a lot of ways.

Islam has not yet had its Enlightenment. It's a younger religion than Christianity by 600 years or so, and I think it might not be entirely coincidental that Islamic society seems, to Western eyes, to be stuck in the Middle Ages. I don't think it's exaggerating to say that our culture is literally 500 years ahead of theirs in some ways. We've learned that secular democracies with mixed but mostly free economies basically work a lot better than theocracies. They tend to lead to relative peace and prosperity. Islamists are still trying to make theocracies work. Of course it's not at all certain that Islam will develop the same way Christianity did, but most of the world's religions have slowly but steadily become liberalized over the centuries. Eventually, Islam will too, or it will lose its relevance.

And if some of them weren't trying to kill us, I'd be inclined to let the Middle East work through this over the next few hundred years the same way Europe did. Lessons you learn by yourself always stick better than lessons imposed upon you by outsiders. But unfortunately they are trying to kill us. I hope the Bush administration do use the opportunity to liberalize Iraq and make it into a model for other Middle Eastern countries; in fact, I'll be very disappointed if they don't. (To a large extent this already has been done with Israel, but Israel practically defines the term "special case," and Arabs have plenty of reasons not to want to learn from it.)

Although I agree with Jerry, I think Islam is far more like Judaism than Christianity. Modernizing scholars have simply been silenced by the oppressive regimes of the Arab world over the last 100 years or so. That's what really needs to change.

I do not believe that Islam is an inherently enslaving religion. Indeed, it is arguably more ripe for liberalization than
Christianity was, since it has no centralized power structure (i.e. no Pope or formal Church hierarchy) and a huge tradition of scholarly debate. There are at least four different schools of Sharia interpretation, some far more liberal than others. I'm tired of reading comments from people who talk about Sharia law as if it's monolithic. It isn't.

I have yet to hear anyone tell me why Torah law is not as "oppressive" as Sharia law--if you simply read Torah, accept it at literal face value, ignore the entire Talmud, all the commentary written since the Torah was created, you have a system that rigidly enforces how you shall dress, what you shall eat, how to treat idolaters and witches and adulterers, marriage and divorce, things you shall not speak, etc. that's not particularly better than anything in the Koran (which is, after all, modeled on it). Men can take multiple wives, idolaters and adulterers and witches are to be stoned to death, and so on.

Nor is it like Moses was all that kind to the Moabites, or Aaron kind to the inhabitants of Jericho. It's not as if Samson's treatment of the Philistines was particularly noble. Don't even get me started on David's countless transgressions. Indeed, just read the Tanakh through and it's easy to get an impression of the Jews as a very warlike and oppressive people.

But Judaism has refined its teachings, even among the Orthodoxy. There exists a radical fringe of Judaism too, but all religions have this.

Further, anyone who's tempted to point to religion itself as the problem has to answer at the endless crimes committed by atheist regimes. Communism alone killed more people in the 20th century than Christianity probably did in the prior 19 centuries. Just try arguing with a fanatical Randian Objectivist and you'll know that fanaticism isn't inherently religious. Fanaticism is fanaticism.

I agree that the task before us is daunting. Indeed, beyond what I've added here, I can't think of much else to say except "what Jerry said."

No, I lied, I'll point something else out:

Islam was evolving a fairly interesting tradition of modernization before the Arab world took shape in the early 20th Century. Since then, extremist regimes--most particularly the Saudis--did a lot to stamp out the liberalizing, modernizing schools of thought within Islam.

The regimes of the Middle East were by and large created by Western Powers in a hamhanded fashion that sort of assumed that even the hint of democracy was laughable--so we didn't try. Economic reasons (yes, oil) and, far more importantly, the Cold War, made dealing favorably with oppressive Middle Eastern regimes more important than concerns about human rights issues. The Cold War finally ended roughly a decade ago, and post Cold War exhaustion more or less guaranteed that we'd ignore the region and let it do whatever it felt like--until lunatics attacked us, and made it clear that their desire to kill us had no limits.

So here's my point: we had a hand in creating this mess. Our reasons for that were not pure, but also not indefensible. The bottom line is that it's another mess.

Democratizing Iraq -- or at least making the attempt -- is a necessary step toward reform for the region. I have always believed this to be our primary reason for going. We may well fail; I simply see no sane alternative to making the attempt. The only other choice would be to withdraw completely from that world--but even that seems almost certain to make Islamism the type of competing world force (and threat) that Communism was.

We have no choice. We must fight this fight. And we have to start somewhere. Iraq's as good a place as any other and better than most.

What I haven't figured out is how to explain all this in a few pithy phrases to people I meet who say, "why are we doing this?"

Oh yeah -- back to Andrew's question, about whether the Unabomber manifesto read to me like more than one person. (It was addressed to "Mr. Kindall" so I guess I thought you were talking to my dad. ;) No, it didn't particularly strike me that way, or at least I don't recall it doing so, but it's been a while since I read it anyway.

On the other hand, the guy who wrote it is insane. He's probably not a multiple personality, but who's to say he's not more lucid some days than others?

Dean:

I'll try to expand on this later (no time now) but this snippet caught my eye:

I have yet to hear anyone tell me why Torah law is not as "oppressive" as Sharia law--

On the surface, the casual observer could not be blamed for believing this. Especially when you have the clergy meddling in government policy as is the case in Israel today.

However, that's the whole point: at least in Israel, there is a democratic government.

Previous to the establishment of the modern state of Israel, in the 2000 years of the Diaspora, I know of precious little in entire spectrum of Judaism (not just the Tanakh, or five books of the "Jewish" Bible) that demands (or even suggests) a "Crusade" or "jihad."

It would seem to me that we might want to ask why that is?

[And for those of you who would post comments including the phrase "Greater Israel" or "Judea and Sameria", go ahead if you want. But it isn't nearly the same thing.]

..if you simply read Torah, accept it at literal face value, ignore the entire Talmud, all the commentary written since the Torah was created, you have a system that rigidly enforces how you shall dress, what you shall eat.

Heh. Rigid?

How many of us can truthfully say that we can follow, really observe and adhere to all ten of the "rigid" Ten Commandments.

How about nine? Show of hands?

Eight?

Seven?

etc.

Pretty rigid isn't it?

Well. Of course. So what?

Another analogy: If you simply read the Declaration of Independence and accept it at literal face value, ignore the entire Constitution, and all the Supreme Court rulings and Congressional legislation written since July 4, 1776...

I think that's unrealistic.

I would gently suggest to you that if you are of a mind to the Torah with an eye for becoming observant, then you are also going to study the Talmud (written law) and even study Mishnah (oral law). Any observant Jew, any Judaic scholar, any rabbi will steer you in that direction.

[perhaps more later.]

The concept of Jihad is something that Koranic scholars must struggle with. The Koran says difficult things that seem contradictory about it.

Judaism has its own internal struggles--if it didn't, then Jews would still be stoning adulterers and witches to death. They'd probably also be embracing terrorism--can anyone deny that that's exactly what Samson was?

I would also point out for Ara that one of the most influential thinkers among advanced Muslim scholars was, at one time, a Jewish fellow named Maimonides. And that at numerous points in history, Islamic societies were easily the safest and most welcoming societies for Jews to live in. Something very ugly changed in the Arabic Islamic world over the last century or so to make that not the case, and it's certainly not the re-founding of Israel (not at its core, anyway). I think Steven Schwartz is basically right in saying that it's the House of Saud and the influence of the radical Wahabbi sect.

Although I haven't finished it yet, Stephen Schwartz' The Two Faces of Islam addresses much of this. The simple fact is that pluralist and tolerant societies have existed many times in the Islamic world. I note that critics who are convinced that Islam is inherently enslaving and intolerant are invariably reduced to claiming that such examples (which are abundant all throughout Islam's 1400 year history, all the way back to Muhummad himself) are examples of Islamic societies that have abandoned "true" Islam. In this they are embracing Wahabbism and the even more oppressive visions of people like bin Laden--and are putting themselves in the position of claiming that hundreds of millions of Muslims don't understand their own faith. Which is, if you think about it, rather breathtaking.

The simple fact is that Islam has been the home of many tolerant societies. These societies were at one time the cultural apex of humanity: pluralist, nonviolent, innovative, major centers of trade and art, and the place where both mathematics and the scientific method were created--and places where Christians and Jews flourished.

No one's denying that much of the Arab Muslim world has become horribly intolerant and violent. Trying to blame it all on the "enslaving" nature of a religion that has frequently been anything but strikes me as, well, simplistic at least.

I'm enjoying this discussion, and think many people have made some excellent points. I'd like to add a thought on the differences among Judaism, Christianity and Islam, specifically the idea that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity and will mature over time.

It's a good point, and there's certainly a lot of evidence for it. I'd rather not discuss the condition of Christianity circa 1400. However, that POV is a secular one, which is fine as far as it goes. That POV sees religion from a sociological perspective and tends to equate all religions in the spiritual realm.

Maybe the problem is not the maturity of the religions, but that one of the religions is false. And maybe building a society on a false religion has consequences.

Dear friends, I left a comment under “Shariah and the future” post. Here I will try to share my thoughts with you.

I agree with Arnold that “the growth of present day Islamicism as a sociopolitical instrument if not of Islam as a religious faith. and one cannot have a free society at all without having developed an appropriate social philosophy rooted in the primacy of private personal and property rights over any collective, government or priesthood. . Then he says we will help to remold an entire Islamic society into a constitutional republic with equal rights for peoples of all religions. Here are my questions:
You say constitutional republic with equal rights: 1- Iraq does not have the infrastructure for democracy because of tribal system.

Dean says Defense of the liberal ideals of the West has been ongoing in many political publications, and of course in the blogosphere. Where else can it be made? I answered that in many Islamic countries people are poor and cannot think about anything but their primary needs. Many cannot read these books; many do not have Internet access. Moreover, the level of. Illiteracy is high. Dean reminded me that In the Arab world; Iraq has a very high rate of literacy and higher education. Of course Iraq had (I do not have any information about the present situation) very high rate of education. In Arabic countries it was said that books were published in Egypt, disturbed in Lebanon and read in Iraq!!. But we should consider some facts: 1- Iraq has been involved in different wars after 1980. And most of its infrastructures have been demolished. 2- you should know more about the ethnical and tribal issue. Kurds in the North and Sunni Muslims in centre and Shiah in the south. They have a strong tribal system and still Sheikhs decide what the people do. (I used to live in the south of Iran when Sadddam attacked Iran in 1980. I am familiar with this culture, though I am not Arab). They still kill their daughters because of nonsense reasons!! And government does not interfere in their conflicts since they solved their problems through traditional customs. Patriarchy is the most prominent concept.

Dean thinks that I am saying this democratisation project (its US version) is hopeless. I so not say exactly this but I think:
1-You cannot install a democracy in a society that they are not ready to accept it. In other word, you cannot give liberty and democracy to a nation, but rather they should obtain it and reach to this conclusion that democracy is the best system. Otherwise, it would be something like Afghanistan( even though their present leader supported by US is an educated person).
2- another important question is that how many educated Iraqis are ready to go back to their country after War (apart from people who come because of political reasons).
Dean says that we had a successful model of democracy in the Northern Iraq who majority of them are Kurds. It is promising fact. So it shows that the notion that this task is hopeless is wrong. . But this has been possible in an unusual situation and important question is that what will happen after war when this unusual situation will finish. Iran and particularly turkey are against any independent Kurds territory. The answer may depend on the structure of Iraq government after War. I would like you expand on this issue and tell me what type of democracy you mean; Algeria or what is called as secular regimen in Turkey (that kills its Kurds citizens). So I would like to know your idea about the type of democracy that US is going to install in Iraq. What is your solution if Islamists try to use their right to participate in elections. Do you use army generals? As US supports General Mosharaf in Pakistan?

Dean asked me what you are doing is dooming the Iraqis to forever be ruled by brutality and violent conflict. You are saying that only a mass murderer like Saddam can rule in such a place
I say No. I will be the happiest person in the world when Iraq get rid of this monster because my family lost whatever they had when Saddam attack ed Iran (sorry I have to mention these points since many people think every body should be 100 % with them or against them. I do not agree with US policy in the Middle East, I do not agree with Unilateralsim in the world , but it does not mean that I like Saddam!!). So when I say that installing a democracy in Iraq and many Islamic countries is not easy process, it does not mean that I think that only a mass murderer like Saddam can rule I think democracy is not Alchemy!

I would like to draw you attention to another point.
The problem is that the US foreign policy and interests has conflict with other nations’ interests. It is natural and I do not challenge on it. Foreign policy does not have any fix formula. But every policy is not acceptable. For example, during 20 years ago, US supported Saddam (also France and Germany). You know its reasons better than me. These supports and also sanctions strengthened Saddam (I think that every war and sanction help dictators). Still I am not sure that a democratic state would be better than dictator one for routine US foreign policy. Unfortunately US paid the price of this policy on 11/9.

Arnold says that In all Islamic societies, there is a tendency for the imams and mullahs to impel the masses to replace civil law with sharia it seems that it is right conception. But I do not agree with him that it is because the ideal under which they are all born and bred is that of submission to the concept of God as they have defined it within their religion. Slavery to a fate beyond their control or even their influence. Fatalism is a philosophical thought and is not limited to Muslim. It has cultural and historical background . Muslims’ interpretations are different. So I think this is naïve conclusion that if Islam were to take over the world, civilization itself on the entire surface of this planet would stagnate and would never be reborn

Jerry says in Western countries, people claim to be religious but the extent of most people's faith is going to church once a week, if that often. In their political lives, most people make decisions themselves, without the help of religious leaders. Our society is better in a lot of ways
Two points, we have two types of religion (though I know many of you know these) : 1- external 2- internal
In external religion one, we evaluate people’s faith according to their participation in religious customs like going to church or mosque. Another one is internal. It means that you have religious faith, believe in God or miracle. It seems that in a religious state, people are encouraged to practice religious customs and it is a merit. It certainty increases the probably of a dictatorship regimen. You can see this type in Taleban era, in Iran and Saudi Arabia. But in a secular state, people are free to choose what they believe. So some Muslim scholars believe that a secular state is better system for Muslims!

So I think this thought that if US can liberalize Iraq, it will be a model for other Middle Eastern countries is unrealistic.
Anyway, I think Dean mention the key point no centralized power structure this is most promising fact that I hope that we can see democracy in Muslim countries. I agree with Dean that the west had a hand in creating this mess and they should play their role to establish real democracy in the Middle East.

Please read my comment under “ shariah and the future”. It clarifies my position more. Also I suggest reading Iranian democracy alive but weak by Trudy Rubin and if you have enough time read The freedom of thought and religion in Islam by Mohsen Kadivar.

Ara,

You've got things turned somewhat in the terms you use for describing the Jewish holy works. "Tanakh" refers to the entire original testament, which comprises: "Tora", the first five books; "Nevi'im" (prophets), the next 21 books; "Ketuvim" (writings), the last 13 books.

Religious Jews read Tora, in its original classical Hebrew, in one or more chapters per weekly cycle each shabat (Saturday) morning. Along with that, a chapter from the remainder of the Tanakh -- also in original Hebrew -- is read weekly as a follow-up part of the prayer service.

Tanakh as a whole is mainly a history of the development of the Jewish nation. Tora is a closely focused history of that nation, starting with some billions of years of prehistory scrunched into a single paragraph, then leading especially through the four formative Jewish decades in the Sinai peninsula after Moshe led them out from under Eqyptian slavery. All the 613 positive and negative commandments of Judaism stem from Tora, those first five books.

"Talmud" is part of the body of commentaries developed to help explain and re-explain all of the above, written and compiled much later.

There are folks who spend much of their lives focused on this stuff. But I'm told that most of them save enough time to earn a living for themselves and their families during the rest of the week. The Jewish 17th century Baruch Spinoza, for example, was a professional grinder of lenses. A lot of them have mastered computer languages and, I'm told, do A1-grade program coding.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I have nothing much of substance to add to this discussion, but I'd just like to say that I'm enjoying reading it.

Arnold:

You are correct about the Tanakh. As I stated in my post, I was in a hurry -- as such I didn't proofread my own post.

As always, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

Ara,

Gentleman? Scholar? Not really. Just an old-timer who's been around the block more times than I can remember. And trying to stay on top of the brave new world all you guys are creating, hopefully for the better, but maybe sometimes for the worse.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb

I have to acknowledge this column is perhaps the most enlightening one I have seen in years in the US. I admire the highly critical (and constructive) approach to these questions and am genuinely surprised that that Westerners in general and Americans in particular (as they are the ones who hold enormous power these days) are really interested in the diversity of Islam and Judaism. Bravo

NO ANY COMMENTS

I WANT TO ASK ONLY DEFINATION OF TERROR

AND WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF WORLD WIDE TERROR

PLEASE EXPLAIN IT SOONLY ......................
THANKING FOR IT.

NO ANY COMMENTS

I WANT TO ASK ONLY DEFINATION OF TERROR

AND WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF WORLD WIDE TERROR

PLEASE EXPLAIN IT SOONLY ......................
THANKING FOR IT.