| RECONCILIATION Islam, Democracy, and the West Benazir Bhutto New York: Harper, 2008 |
Rating: 5.0 High |
|||
| ISBN-10 0-06-156758-2 | 320pp. | HC | $27.95 | |
The history I remember from elementary school described conquests by Muslim warriors of infidel (literally: unbeliever) nations in which the populations were offered three choices: The Koran, tribute, or the sword. In other words, the conquered people could either convert to Islam, pay through the nose, or die. Islamists today invoke the Quran (its modern spelling) to bolster this militant stance. Western nations have tended to take them at their word.
In Chapter 2 of her book, Benazir Bhutto argues that, contrary to current Western claims, Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, respectful of women and not hostile to scientific knowledge. She quotes passages from the Quran and draws on the works of numerous Muslim scholars to defend her faith, often comparing it to the other two great monotheistic religions of the world, Judaism and Christianity. Her argument is made with admirable scholarship and, in my judgement, it is largely successful. However, in a number of places I found it difficult to reconcile her interpretations of quranic verses with what the quoted verses actually say. I discuss this below.
On page 20, she writes,
And when the Prophet speaks of "Allah," he is speaking of God, the same monolithic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. "God" is a translation of the Arabic word "Allah," not just the God of Islam but rather the God of monotheism, the God of all who believe in Him and believe that He is the Creator of the Universe, of this world and the hereafter. – Page 20 |
It is convenient for Mrs. Bhutto's cause to argue that the disparate deities worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims are in essence the same supernatural being— a triune God, if you will. But, in my opinion, this attempted universalization of the Arabic word "Allah" is too much of a stretch for most of the faithful.
So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolators wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. At first glance this verse seems to advocate violence against unbelievers. But its context is a specific battle in Medina occurring at the time of its revelation, a battle against idol worshippers, not people of the Book, not believers in monotheism. It commands that violence cease if the offenders repent. – Pages 23-24 |
To me, the command to "slay the idolators wherever you find them" is close enough to calling for the deaths of all unbelievers as makes no difference. Mrs. Bhutto claims this verse applies only to a specific event in history — a battle at Medina. That may be so; but she fails to prove it by what she writes. Also, Islam forbids any physical representation of Allah or the Prophet, no matter how respectful. Christians dote on such physical symbols, at least in the case of the being they hold to be the Son of God. I don't think it's a big step for a devout Muslim to see all Christians as idolators.
Some may question whether Muslims can use ancient text for explanation and guidance in the modern world. But certainly those who are followers of any religion accept the universality of its respective doctrine. The Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Quran were not texts meant only for the times of their revelation but texts for all time, meant to guide through the ages. – Page 30 |
Not only is it hard to interpret the verses quoted the way she does, but her interpretation contradicts what she says on pages 23-24. If the scriptures are timeless and ahistorical, if we are to apply the words of the Prophet without reference to any specific time or place, how can the passage quoted previously pertain only to a specific battle?
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. Islam embraces all humanity under one God, discrediting all other exclusive religious claims to salvation. I don't believe there is anything quite like this in any religion on earth. – Page 31 |
Plenty of people do good without believing in "Allah and the Last Day." But if this verse is to be taken as it is written (and why else would Mrs. Bhutto have quoted it), we must accept that only those who believe in Allah AS WELL AS doing good will be rewarded. Thus, the offer of salvation is not as inclusive as she claims.
O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. This example from the Quran is meant specifically for the family of the Prophet. In contrast, passages of the Quran meant for all women speak to all women without restriction. – Page 42 |
Maybe it's a matter of translation. But I can't see in that verse the specificity she ascribes to it. Does not "women of the believers" apply to all Muslim women?
Since I've stated that I endorse Mrs. Bhutto's conclusions regarding the nature of Islam, I could be seen as splitting hairs here. And it's true that the great majority of the more than 31 verses she quotes from the Quran support her view. But I think the importance of these examples is that those who espouse the militant view of Islam can use them to discredit Mrs. Bhutto's entire argument.
I think it's pretty clear that you have to go a long way, and deliberately exclude quranic text and Muslim history, to try to make an intellectual case that Islam and democracy are mutually exclusive and can't coexist. Indeed, it is dictatorship that is abhorrent and prohibited under Islam. But an even harder stretch of theology is required to justify or rationalize terrorism, suicide bombings, or any violence directed at the innocent within the Islamic tradition or within the divine words of the Holy Book. – Pages 73-74 |
That argument, in her own words, is quoted above. Absent such intellectual sleight-of-hand as she refers to, it is, in my judgement, incontrovertible.
Mrs. Bhutto refers often to shura, or "consultation." In usage, it is closer to "dialog" — that is, an open discussion between government leaders and the people they govern. The importance of shura in the Quran and in Muslim nations belies the way it is so seldom employed. Freedom House tracks the quality of government in most nations, ranking them for both freedom of expression and fair political practices. The majority of non-Muslim nations fall into the "Free" and "Partly Free" categories. For Muslim nations, the opposite is true: Most of them are either "Partly Free" or "Not Free."
The Freedom House ranking system divides its 13 ranks into three categories as follows:
The 2007 categorization for Muslim nations is provided here. It lists Western Sahara as a territory disputed by Morocco. As such, its status resembles that of Kosovo, which won independent status after Mrs. Bhutto's book went to press.
The table at left shows there is far too little shura taking place in the Muslim world.
| FREE | PARTLY FREE | NOT FREE |
|---|---|---|
| The Freedom House ranking system divides its 13 ranks into three categories as follows: 1.0 to 2.5 — Free; 3.0 to 5.0 — Partly Free; 5.5 to 7.0 — Not Free; | ||
| Indonesia | Afghanistan | Algeria |
| Mali | Albania | Azerbaijan |
| Senegal | Bahrain | Brunei |
| Bangladesh | Egypt | |
| Comoros | Guinea | |
| Djibouti | Iran | |
| Gambia | Iraq | |
| Jordan | Khazakstan | |
| Kuwait | Libya | |
| Kyrgyzstan | Maldives | |
| Lebanon | Oman | |
| Malaysia | Pakistan | |
| Mauritania | Palestine | |
| Morocco | Qatar | |
| Niger | Saudi Arabia | |
| Sierra Leone | Somalia | |
| Turkey | Sudan | |
| Yemen | Syria | |
| Tajikistan | ||
| Tunisia | ||
| Turkmenistan | ||
| United Arab Emirates | ||
| Uzbekistan | ||
| Western Sahara | ||
I reproduce this table to clarify Mrs. Bhutto's descriptions, and to illustrate the dilemma the Muslim nations face today: Once beacons of tolerance and enlightenment, they lost those qualities even as Europe acquired them. Now, as Reconciliation points out, half the population of the Muslim world is illiterate — and, as the table shows, only a few of its nations enjoy true freedom. This disparity with the West must be reconciled.
To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.