Category: Islam

Y’know, I really find my sympathy significantly limited when it comes to

THIS STORY.

The facts, so far as I can discern them, appear to be these:

Six imams returning from an imam conference got on a plane headed to Phoenix and then–prior to takeoff–three of them stood up and started reciting standard evening Muslim prayers in Arabic. The other passengers, however, didn’t speak Arabic or understand the significance of the prayers and got nervous. One of them then passed a note to the flight crew, following which the imams were asked by the captain and airport security to leave the plane so that they could be re-screened. At this point the imams refused to deplane. Following this the police were called and the men were removed from the plane and questioned for several hours. Everyone else was also deplaned and re-screened, and the flight took off three hours late.

Now the imams are crying victimization and blaming the incident on western "ignorance of Islam."

The imams have my sympathy for being in a situation in which it is difficult to fulfill their ordinary religious duties and wanting to do so anyway, but my sympathy ends there.

The fact is that you cannot act on a flight in America like you would on a flight in Saudi Arabia. America is not a Muslim-majority country, and the attacks on it by fanatics of your religion using commandeered airplanes are seared into American memory. You therefore cannot stand up on an airplane in America and start ritualized prayers in Arabic–a language the locals don’t understand–and then refuse the orders of the captain and security to get off the plane and be re-screened–and then go around crying about victimization and blaming Americans for the situation.

The fact is that the Americans on the flight were needlessly alarmed and then forced to wait three additional hours before takeoff due to your arrogant, resentful, high-handed behavior and refusal to make even minimal attempts to adjust to the local culture.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" goes the old saying. You cannot expect the people of a country with a different cultural background to understand everything about your culture and accomodate all of it. You must make reasonable adjustments to the culture around you. The thing to do would have been to close your eyes and say your prayers silently in your heads, so as not to needlessly provoke and alarm people who had an entirely human reaction to the situation.

If I were in Saudi Arabia and made open displays of my Catholicism–behavior that would be entirely normal here in America–I would get a much, much worse reaction than what you guys got on the plane–and Saudi Arabia hasn’t even been attacked by Americans. On the contrary, it’s been defended by them.

You guys got off lucky by comparison. You created an entirely predictable situation by your unacceptably rigid and pig-headed behavior, and you have no grounds on which to act like crybabies afterwards.

You have my sympathy for being in a situation that doesn’t allow you to fulfill your religious duties in the way you ordinarily would, and you have my respect for wanting to fulfill them anyway, but that’s it. You handled the situation atrociously.

You created the situation. You needlessly scared and delayed numerous people. You get no sympathy for that.

You shouldn’t get it from your fellow Muslims, either, because your disgraceful public performance only serves to make Islam look bad and reinforce western perceptions of it.

UPDATE: The NYT is reporting that there may be more to what the imams were doing than just evening prayers:

Detailed accounts of the incident varied. Witnesses, including a number of passengers and US Airways employees, said they heard some of the men making anti-American remarks and chanting “Allah,” first as they boarded the plane and then when led off, Mr. Hogan said.

Others said the men behaved strangely once on board, with some asking for seat belt extensions, the police report said. “I did not see they actually needed them,” one flight attendant wrote in a statement given to the police. “They were not overweight.”

Dr. Shahin disagreed, saying the extensions were necessary for their “big bodies.”

In another statement, a gate agent said some of the imams had been praying in Arabic in the gate area. “I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud,” the agent said.

CHT: Powerline. More.

I’m wondering if the imams didn’t deliberately provoke the situation so that they could play the victim card afterwards.

Orson Scott Card has a really interesting and worthwhile article in which he writes:

[A]s a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government
threatens many values that I hold to be important to America’s role as
a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be
gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party
seems hellbent on losing it — and in the most damaging possible way —
I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its
hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again
to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its
own temporary partisan advantages.

Objectively speaking, the current war and terrorism are not the weightiest issues in determining how one casts one’s vote. Neither one of them kills remotely as many people as abortion does, and thus they should not be–as Card terms them–"the only issue this election day." But they are still issues of massive importance that deserve to be treated with the utmost seriousness and should weigh heavily on voters.

Card’s analysis of the present situation–while lengthy–is carefully reasoned, insightful, and definitely worth reading in its entirety.

GET THE STORY.

John Allen recently intervewed His Awesomeness Avery Cardinal Dulles on the subject of Islam and, in particular, Christian efforts from the Middle Ages onward to interact with his.

The cardinal displayed his customary perspicacity and frankness, and I thought the extracts of the interview that Allen printed were, though brief, well worth reading. I was particularly struck by this exchange:

Isn’t there a . . . problem, in that some of the Muslims who do show up at dialogue meetings aren’t representative of mainstream Islam?

Yes, that can be a problem. I remember back in 1968, there was a Christian/Muslim meeting at Woodstock that I attended. [Note: From 1966 to 1973, Dulles served as a consultor to the Papal Secretariat for Dialogue with Non-Believers]. One of the Muslims had obviously read a lot of Kant, and the whole thing struck me as a little phony. He had studied in the West, and clearly didn’t represent the Muslim tradition in a normative way. That happens fairly often in these sessions. It’s going to take time for real dialogue to develop — there’s an internal process that has to happen.

To return to Pope Benedict, would it be helpful if he put himself in contact more thoroughly with Islam as a living religion, meeting with representative Muslim leaders?

Certainly, it would be helpful, and it’s definitely worth trying. I’m sure he would love to do that. I believe the thinking around the Vatican these days is that the dialogue with Islam should start with things like ecology, poverty, these sorts of common human problems, before we get to more sensitive theological questions. This is part of Benedict’s emphasis on reason. His approach seems to be, let’s go as far as reason can take us before we get to these other issues.

GET THE STORY.

Catholic Answers’ question-and-answer shows on "Catholic Answers Live" are very popular and so it can sometimes be difficult for listeners to get through to ask their question of an apologist on-air. If Catholic Answers’ apologists find that more questions are asked than they have time and resources to answer on-air, one can only imagine how difficult it must be for the Grand Ayatollah Sistani to empty his question queue.

Really. Sayyid Ali Husaini al-Sistani, a Grand Ayatollah of the Shiite Muslims and a political activist in Iraq, has his own website on which he answers questions posed to him on topics ranging from abortion to zakat (obligatory charity).

ASK AN AYATOLLAH.

(Nod to Katie Allison Granju for the link.)

Ordinarily, I would copy-‘n-paste a selection from the site to give you a sample of the ayatollah’s apologetics, but his site specifically warns that such reproduction is strictly forbidden. So, you’ll have to log on to the site yourself to take a peek.

What happens at the beginning of a religion is important ot its later history. The path that the founder of a religion places it on is the path it will have a tendency to stick to–or return to–in at least a general way.

This is not to say that religions cannot become detached from their historical foundation. Much of modern Buddhism has very little relationship to the teachings of the historical Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), and much of liberal Christianity has little relationship to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

But religions–or notable parts of them–tend to stay at least in the ballpark of what their founder intended.

This bodes ill for the future of Islam and its relationship to the rest of the world. If you want to explain much about the current state of the Muslim world, including its propensity toward jihadist violence, you need look no further than the fact that Muhammad was an Arabian warlord. The mindset of an Arabian warlord was stamped on Islam at its inception, and it has shaped the subsequent history of Islam in ways too numerous to count (at least in a blog post).

In an ideal future, a way will be found to wean Islam away from its violent impulses, but even if that proves to be possible, it will not be easy. The stamp of the Arabian warlord will be hard to erase, and not just regarding the use of violence, but in related areas, such as the way a warlord uses money.

HERE’S AN INTERESTING ARTICLE CONTRASTING MUHAMMAD AND JESUS ON THE USE OF MONEY, VIOLENCE, AND POWER.
(CHT: Southern Appeal.)

This happened a piece back, so some folks may have already seen this, but

PEEP THIS AMAZING VIDEO OF ARAB-AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIST WAFA SULTAN ON AL-JAZEERA.

(ANOTHER LINK.)

She really tells it like it is!

And has a ton of chutzpah!

CHT to the reader who e-mailed.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a freaky scary dude. He’s a true religious zealot who’s theology is likely to lead to world war if he gets his way.

I mean, liberals back in the 1980s often tried to portray Ronald Reagan–a mild Presbyterian–as if he were an apocalyptic visionary, but Ahmadinejad is the real deal!

He’s said and done things that suggest that he is a divine messenger who is preparing the way for the return of the Hidden Imam–Shi’ite Islam’s semi-Messianic child figure, who is believed to have been in hiding for the last thousand years but who will return in connection with an apocalyptic conflict.

The former executive editor of Iran’s largest daily newspaper (who now lives in Europe) has an interesting article spelling out Ahmadinejad’s religious vision and how it plays into the current Iranian nuclear situation.

EXCERPTS:

Last Monday [now the Monday before last], just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.

According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind’s existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad’s more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations’ General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad’s strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran’s current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

The author goes on to predict that Iran will feign just enough compliance with the U.N. to stave off a military attack for the next two years, so they can run out Bush’s term in office. Then, with a new, weaker-willed president in office, it’ll be full speed ahead.

We’ll have to see whether they pursue that strategy or whether they really are hell-bent-for-leather crazy on their nuclear program.

What the author doesn’t go into is something that we’ve brought up before here on the blog: Bush knows (or should know) that no matter what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, if he leaves office without stopping Iran from getting the Bomb then his presidency will be viewed as a dismal failure. It doesn’t matter whether they get the Bomb after he leaves office or not. He will be viewed as someone who (like Clinton) allowed a horrible external threat to fester and grow due to his indecisive action. He’ll even be viewed as someone who hamstrung himself with a foolish venture into Iraq when the real threat was Iran.

It doesn’t matter whether that’s fair or not, that’s how it’ll be perceived.

So the question is: What will Bush do if the Iranian government tries a play-for-time strategy?

Will he drive the hammer into the nail?

Only time will tell. In the meanwhile,

GET THE STORY.

MORE ON THE HIDDEN IMAM.

A reader writes:

I had never heard you address this on your show or Blog – though I’m certain you are familiar with it and have covered it before.  But what gives about the story of JPII kissing the Koran?!  I’ve seen it mentioned enough times by serious Catholics to accept this must have happened.  However, I don’t know the context of this event or any other details so I can only wonder what our late Holy Father might have been thinking…  Your thoughts?

This question has come up over the years, and I know that I’ve addressed it on the show (though I don’t have the faintest idea in what episodes), but I don’t seem to have done so on the blog, so here goes. . . .

First, I’ve reprinted the famous picture of the event above so that people can see what is being talked about.

Based on the picture alone, I would not be sure what is happening. The book is ornate and could be something other than the Quran. From the looks of it, it could be a book of the gospels.

However, the former Chaldean patriarch–Raphael Bidawid–was present at the meeting where the event occurred, and in an interview with the press service FIDES, he said the following:

On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shi’ite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni president of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. I renewed our invitation to the Pope, because his visit would be for us a grace from heaven. It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope’s love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim.

At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu’ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam [SOURCE].

What, then, is one to make of the event?

It seems that there are a number of possibilities:

1) The FIDES news agency misquoted the patriarch.

2) Patriarch Bidawid was mistaken about what happened. It was not the Quran but something else.

3) John Paul II kissed the Quran but didn’t know the nature of the book he was kissing.

4) John Paul II kissed the Quran and knew that this is what he was doing.

I would love to think that either option (1), (2), or (3) was the case, but I have no evidence that any of them was the case.

The most likely one of the three, to my mind, would be (3), because so far as I know, John Paul II was not an Arabic speaker and may not have understood the nature of the book that he was being presented with.

People shove all kinds of books into the pope’s hands at audiences, and if the pope was under the impression that the thing to do with a gift in Iraqi culture is to kiss it as a sign of respect to the one who gives the gift then he might have kissed it reflexively, not even understanding the nature of the book.

While this is possible, I think it likely that an interpreter explained the nature of the gift that was being given on this occasion. This still leaves the possibility that the pope kissed it as part of Middle Eastern politeness rather than as a gesture of respect for the book itself.

I have heard claims that in some Middle Eastern cultures that this is a typical gesture of respect for one giving a gift, but I have asked Chaldean friends of mine whether this is the case in Iraqi culture and the answer was a definite "No." "The pope put his foot on the neck of all Chaldeans with this action" was the response I was given. (Just to make things clear, putting your foot on the neck of someone is a bad thing in Iraqi culture.)

Still, the pope may have been under the mistaken impression that this was the appropriate thing to do when receiving a gift in their culture. He can’t be an expert on every culture in the world, and he could get this wrong.

Or maybe he didn’t.

Maybe he knew it was the Quran and kissed it anyway, not as a customary gift giving response, but for some other reason.

What might that reason be?

It certainly wouldn’t be that he believes in Islam or believes that Islam is on a par with Christianity. If he believed either of these two things then he (a) wouldn’t be the earthly head of the Christian faith and (b) wouldn’t have approved the publication of Dominus Iesus, which asserts the salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church.

Any attempt to represent him as thinking one of those things doesn’t even get out of the gate.

So what might he have been thinking?

We’re only speculating here, but two things spring to mind as what JP2 might have been thinking:

1) The Quran does contain some elements of truth (as well as grave elements of falsehood) and he might have wanted to honor the elements of truth it contains.

2) Showing respect in this way could foster world peace and interreligious harmony.

Of these two, I would conjecture that the latter would have been uppermost in John Paul II’s mind, though the former may not have been absent.

John Paul II was a man who was enormously concerned with world peace and interreligious harmony. As a young man he lived through the horrors of World War II, which had a permanent effect on him and his generation and their views about war and peace.

As a mature man he lived through the Cold War that repeatedly brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster, and this also had a permanent effect on him and his generation and their views about war and peace. The constant threat of nuclear warfare hung particularly heavily over Europe–which would have been the chief battleground in a conflict between the Soviet Union and the West–and (particularly on the heels of WWII) it deeply impressed the "find peace at any cost" message on his generation.

As a result of the Cold War, the nations of western Europe were forced into an alliance (NATO) whereby their centuries-long enmities (as between France and Germany) had to be suppressed for the sake of common survival. Negotiation became the key to survival in western Europe, and the same message was driven home to those in Eastern bloc countries, such as John Paul II’s native Poland.

By letting the US shoulder the main burden for the military defense of Europe (during and after the Cold War), many Europeans of John Paul II’s generation absorbed the idea that negotiation was paramount and could solve virtually any problem. It wasn’t until the events of the Global War On Terror that this idea began to be seriously called into question many in European circles.

As a result, as a man of his generation, John Paul II–for the best of motives–may have overestimated both the need for and the utility of gestures such as the one exhibited in the Quran-kissing event.

If the former pontiff did understand that the gift was a Quran and if he wasn’t under the impression that kissing a gift was a standard response in Iraqi culture then I would suppose that he did so out of a desire to foster peace and interreligious harmony, but it would still have been a mistake to my mind.

The Quran, whatever elements of truth it contains, also contains venomous attacks on the divinity of Christ and on Christian doctrine and these make it inappropriate for the Vicar of Christ to kiss it under any circumstances.

John Paul II also may not have been attending to the gravity of the false elements in the Quran. Even if he knew them, he may not have been thinking about them and may have acted on the spur of the moment, without fully thinking through his action.

Fortunately, the infallibility of the pope and the indefectibility of the Church do not extend to such actions. A pope is not attempting to make anything remotely like a dogmatic definition in an act of this nature. And so, however misguided the action may have been and however good the motives for it may have been, it would constitute an error that does not touch upon papal infallibility or ecclesial indefectibility.

It would be one of the mistakes that all fallen humans are heir to, even the vicars of Christ.

Mother Theresa is most famous for her work in India. If (really, when) she is declared a saint, she will be known as "St. Theresa of Calcutta." But she wasn’t a native of India, she was a native of Albania, which at the time was a Communist country with a majority Muslim population.

Now there’s controversy in Albania over plans to build a statue of Mother Theresa:

SHKODER, Albania (Reuters) – Muslims in Albania’s northern city of Shkoder are opposing plans to erect a statue to Mother Teresa, the ethnic Albanian Catholic nun in line for elevation to sainthood by the Vatican.

The dispute is unusual for Albania, where religion was banned for 27 years under the regime of dictator Enver Hoxha and where religious harmony and mixed marriages are the norm. Seventy percent of the population are liberal Muslims, the rest are Christian Orthodox and Catholic.

But Muslim groups in Shkoder rejected the local council plan for a Teresa statue, saying it “would offend the feelings of Muslims.”

“We do not want this statue to be erected in a public place because we see her as a religious figure,” said Bashkim Bajraktari, Shkoder’s mufti or Muslim religious leader. “If there must be a statue, let it be in a Catholic space.”

CHT to the guys at LGF, who wryly quip:

Maybe it would be easier for everybody if some sheikh somewhere just made a list of things that don’t offend the feelings of Muslims.

I’ve been meaning to blog about Abdul Rahman, the Afghani convert to Christianity who was imprisoned for his faith and threatened with the death penalty.

(First, please indulge the language nitpicker in me for a moment as I point out that the /h/ in his second name is not silent. His name is pronounced /RAH-man/ with an audible expulsion of air at the end of the first syllable. Rahman is an Arabic word that means "merciful." I don’t know if Mr. Rahman is a speaker of Dari or Pashto or another language, but his second name seems to be a loanword from Arabic.)

Now for actually serious matters:

I’m pleased to report–as you likely already know–that the charges against him have been dropped, albeit on a technicality. The wave of Western pressure on the Afghani government has worked–so far.

But the struggle is not over, since Mr. Rahman’s safety must be secured, and if they just let him loose on the streets then he’ll be killed in short order by fanatical Muslims.

He has now applied for foreign asylum, and Italy has offered it. Other countries are expected to offer it as well.

GET THE STORY.

The larger issue here is that we have a victory in the process of getting Muslims to behave like civilized human beings. Sure, there are plenty of zealots who are willing to off Mr. Rahman in a heartbeat, but the Afghani government has realized that it needed to cave on this one if it didn’t want to alienate the West, upon which it is significantly dependent.

Good.

Muslim countries need to learn that they can’t have it all their own way.

When children learn this fact, we call it "socialization." Right now what the Muslim world needs is a massive series of lessons in socialization.

I’ve already pointed to the need to shame Muslims for unacceptable behavior in their culture, just as children need to be made to feel shame when they have done something unacceptable so that they internalize the drive not to do it again.

The cartoon riots and the vandalism and violence and killings that they resulted in were an example of this. They are something that the Muslim community should feel ashamed of.

So is the treatment of Mr. Rahman.

It’s high time that the West get off its cultural relativist hobby horse and say to the Muslim world: "Some behaviors are simply unacceptable, and you should feel ashamed if you commit or tolerate them. Grow up and clean up your act."

The kind of cultural relativism that has infected many in the West is itself a sign of immaturity. It’s a kind of culturally adolescent phase.

You ever notice how teen agers latch on to cultural relativism as a way of undermining the idea that anything is really wrong–so that they can justify the things that they want to do that are wrong?

It’s when you grow up and really have to take responsibility for yourself that you set aside both the self-centered tantrums of childhood and the kind of self-centered rationalizations that characterize adolescence.

The present confrontations with Muslim tantrumhood may help many in the West grow out of their cultural adolescence.

So we may both get a lesson in growing up.