Reza Aslan
The Austin American-Statesman part was added after the first question. The actual article had the Statesman's questions in BOLD type.
Posted on 02/12/2006 5:31:47 AM PST by Arrowhead1952
Scholar answers American-Statesman's questions in advance of his visit to Austin this week.
By Eileen Flynn
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Reza Aslan is a writer and scholar on Islam who argues in his recent book, "No God but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam," that the faith is undergoing a reformation. He will be the keynote speaker Thursday at a University of Texas conference on Islam.
Aslan spoke with the Austin American-Statesman last week. Edited excerpts follow:
Austin American-Statesman: Muslims overseas have reacted violently to Danish cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. Why this extreme response?
Reza Aslan: It is an extreme response, but it took months to get to this point. The cartoons came out five months ago, and for a large amount of time, because they were so deliberately provocative and promote these widespread and noxious stereotypes, the response of the European Muslim community was to get some sort of retraction, some kind of apology through largely peaceful and fairly effective economic boycotts.
It was only months later when that avenue failed that it spread into the Muslim world where, as we know, there are plenty of political and religious leaders who are more than happy to use any excuse to further this propaganda that Islam is somehow under threat by the Western world.
Austin American-Statesman: Christians have seen some pretty ugly depictions of Jesus and the Virgin Mary. But you haven't seen this kind of violent reaction. Why the difference between Muslim and Christian responses?
The fact is, a Christian in suburban Indiana might be angry at the depiction of Jesus in (the film) "The Last Temptation of Christ," but he is not about to leave the comfort of his middle-class life to do anything about it. These spontaneous acts of violence and protest have primarily taken place in these places in which people are living lives in incredible economic depression and marginalization. It's not a Muslim-Christian thing. It's a Gaza-suburban Illinois thing. That kind of propaganda has enormous appeal for people who are living lives of utter desperation.
Austin American-Statesman: Moving on to Hamas, what do you make of the Palestinian elections and the negative response from U.S. leaders and others?
I think we have to understand that the election of Hamas had almost nothing to do with the United States and Israel and everything to do with the internal domestic situation in the Palestinian territories. A vote for Hamas was primarily a vote against Fatah, a group that has dominated Palestinian politics for decades and, despite tens of millions of dollars in aid, has been mired in corruption and ineptitude. On the other hand, Hamas has learned the principle lesson of democracy: You have to actually earn your vote, something that Arab politicians have never bothered doing before.
This could be a really positive sign that this hope for democracy in the Arab world might actually work. But it's going to take two or three cycles of elections before we can find out whether that is the case.
Austin American-Statesman: Will you be addressing political issues in your keynote address at the conference this week? I'm going to be talking about the concept of Islamic reformation . . . and what all great religious reformations grapple with, and that is this fundamental conflict over who has this authority to define faith, whether it is the individual or the institution. This is, of course, the same argument that occurred during the Christian Reformation.
You have individualists like myself who are working toward reform and pluralism and modernist conceptions, and then you have individualists like bin Laden who are working toward the exact opposite. But strangely enough, in many ways, we are both a result of the same reformation. It's just that as individuals we have wildly different perspectives on religious interpretation.
Austin American-Statesman: Who will triumph?
It is going to be the voice of reform that triumphs, not just because it is the inevitable process of the history of religions, but also because it is the majority voice. We have this tendency to think the voice of extremism is the majority voice because it's louder.
Bin Laden's fundamentalism is a reaction to the inevitable movement of reform and modernization that Islam is going through.
The Austin American-Statesman part was added after the first question. The actual article had the Statesman's questions in BOLD type.
Islam has two choices. Reformation or extinction.
Islam doesn't need to reform...it needs to disappear. It's a doctrine that defines itself by its hatred of 'the other', 'the infidel'. It will never be able to accomodate itself to a pluralistic world.
bump
Uh...we know they weren't spontaneous. Is he in denial of his own violent factions incited this violence? Or is he just giving the reported some more islamic doublespeak all dressed up in an interview?
So this means the Koran is being re-written cover to cover to read like the New Testament...?
Your answers were similar, and I prefer the latter - extinction.
Makes a person how a 21st century muslim would translate the Koran. "Kill the infidels, kill the infidels" would probably be the start of every chapter or whatever they call the sections.
You noticed I didn't use the word civilized muslim.
Islam needs to be re-formed into maggot food.
Bush's fault, again. We should have sent billions upon billons of dollars to raise their standard of living so they wouldn't be tempted.
You got that right. Better get ready for church. I'll be back around noon.
An even when there is no other it finds "others" within its own ranks and calls them apostates and destroys them. (the Taliban) After awhile there is no one left to destroy for they have destroyed themselves. Had it not lasted so long I would call it a self correcting religion.
The first word that came to my mind was "mutation".
"It will never be able to accomodate itself to a pluralistic world."
I agree. No matter how much we try to apply ahhp-face stickers to it, the main tenants of islam are: it is spread by the sword; the only sure fire way to salvation is martyrdom (fighting to advance or indefense of islam; anything (bombing orphanages, killing children, etc.) that advances islam is considered right and just
To those who do not accept islam there are only three choices: 1. convert 2. dhimmitude (pay the tax, accept third class status) 3. death to the infidel.
My point it that no matter how much effort is expended to fashion a moderate, reformed islam that can accept modernism and pluralism peacfully, there will always be the odd "Martin Luther" that goes back to the scriptures to revitalize the faithful with hatred and violence.
Remember these guys think the ME is such a waste land (culturally, scientifically, economically) not because of the inherent backwardness of islam, but because they are not applying its 7th century formulae zealously enough.
We need to shake off the idea that the dangerous ones are "radical" or "extremists". On the contrary, they are orthodox.
As far as the free-world loving peoples go, that's absolutely right.
The best that we can hope for with Islam is that all of the people that call themselves muslims are actually only apostate. Kind of like many christians or jews call themselves "christian" or "jewish" simply b/c thier lineage was that, but not b/c they are practicing or have any sort of practical knowledge of the Bible.
It stands to reason that many already are. They are the "peaceful" muslims as it were. The problems is that there will always be those adhering to the Koran and it's "takeover or otherwise subdue the world for allah" philosophy.
Throughout Islam's history, there've always been calpihs and sultans or beys or what-have-yous that have offered dhimmitude in lieu of conversion to nonmoslems. But sooner or later, they die and some successor of theirs will come along who will insist on conversion or death.Even the quasislavery of dhimmitude isn't enough.
In Islamic history, these hardliners generally have the honorific of "the Holy" or "the Just" tacked onto their names.
So long as the koran's words are what they are, even a "reformed" islam claiming to be willing to live in peace and equality with other religions can always revert to barbarism, just as soon as events occur that make them want to look for a scapegoat or a reason for failure. The 'reason' will always be, failure to adhere with sufficient strictness to the plain terms of the "noble" koran's admonishments.
Yes, it does need to disappear. Any religion that refers to others as "infidels" is seriously flawed. These people need to be put down and marganilized at every opportunity. Peaceful coexistence with them is, in the long term, not possible because they will, at every opportunity, strike out at other religions. And if, God forbid, they should ever gain a political plurality in any country they will destroy that country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.