| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Salman Rushdie has a take on Sir Iqbal and the need for Islamic Reform |
| 2005-08-07 |
| In the Wapo. I've never liked Rushdie. His writing style is indirect and sometimes opaque. He uses bad logic sometimes and he gets facts wrong frequently. But he is somewhat influential in left-elitist circles. The only thing I like about him is the occasional sarcasm and the fact that he knows Islam's horror up close. The Right Time for An Islamic Reformation By Salman Rushdie When Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, admitted that "our own children" had perpetrated the July 7 London bombings, it was the first time in my memory that a British Muslim had accepted his community's responsibility for outrages committed by its members.... However, this is the same Sacranie who, in 1989, said that "Death is perhaps too easy" for the author of "The Satanic Verses." ... [Iqbal] expects the new law to outlaw references to Islamic terrorism. He said as recently as Jan. 13, "There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered [i.e., banned] by this provision." Two weeks later his organization boycotted a Holocaust remembrance ceremony in London commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz 60 years ago. If Sir Iqbal Sacranie is the best Blair can offer in the way of a good Muslim, we have a problem.... It should be a matter of intense interest to all Muslims that Islam is the only religion whose origins were recorded historically [this is actually not true - written records contemporaneous with Mohammud's time that verify Islamic history do not exist- the earliest biog is a more than a century after the period in question] and thus are grounded not in legend but in fact. The Koran was revealed at a time of great change in the Arab world, the seventh-century shift from a matriarchal nomadic culture to an urban patriarchal system.... However, few Muslims have been permitted to study their religious book in this way. The insistence that the Koranic text is the infallible, uncreated word of God renders analytical, scholarly discourse all but impossible. Why would God be influenced by the socioeconomics of seventh-century Arabia, after all? Why would the Messenger's personal circumstances have anything to do with the Message? The traditionalists' refusal of history plays right into the hands of the literalist Islamofascists, allowing them to imprison Islam in their iron certainties and unchanging absolutes. If, however, the Koran were seen as a historical document, then it would be legitimate to reinterpret it to suit the new conditions of successive new ages. [I don't get the logic here] Laws made in the seventh century could finally give way to the needs of the 21st. The Islamic Reformation has to begin here, with an acceptance of the concept that all ideas, even sacred ones, must adapt to altered realities. Broad-mindedness is related to tolerance; open-mindedness is the sibling of peace. This is how to take up the "profound challenge" of the bombers. Will Sir Iqbal Sacranie and his ilk agree that Islam must be modernized? That would make them part of the solution. Otherwise, they're just the "traditional" part of the problem. |
| Posted by:mhw |
| #4 Probably should've changed "historical" to "living" above but you get the idea. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-08-07 18:32 |
#3 Same ol' same ol'. He's trotting out the traditional lefty attack on historical precedent. E.g. this might look more familiar: "The strict constructionalists' refusal of history plays right into the hands of the literalist Republicans, allowing them to imprison the United States in their iron certainties and unchanging absolutes. If, however, the U.S. Constitution were seen as a historical document, then it would be legitimate to reinterpret it to suit the new conditions of successive new ages. Wake me when the left gets a new idea. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-08-07 18:31 |
| #2 jules if you understand Rushdie's logic then that makes two of you To me a holy book can have some commandments that are short term and some long term, whether or not history is involved. In all the books of Lev, Num, Deut, Josh, Judges, Samuel & Kings, there was never a 'putting lamb blood on the doorpost' ceremony. This despite a lack of 'historical context' as Rushdie mentions. The commandment was just a one time thing. It would have been relatively easy to say that some of the 'slay them whereever you find them' and similar commandments were only until Mecca was conquered or only until Arabia was conquered or only while the rightly guided caliphs reigned. But Islam just didn't do that. |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-08-07 15:31 |
| #1 "If Sir Iqbal Sacranie is the best Blair can offer in the way of a good Muslim, we have a problem...." :) "The traditionalists' refusal of history plays right into the hands of the literalist Islamofascists, allowing them to imprison Islam in their iron certainties and unchanging absolutes. If, however, the Koran were seen as a historical document, then it would be legitimate to reinterpret it to suit the new conditions of successive new ages. [I don't get the logic here] ..." I think this is basically the age-old question of whether beings evolve or are static, isn't it? Is life fixed in nature or is it a creation in progress? |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-08-07 13:57 |