An excellent sentiment well expressed, Aziz. In my view, the difference between liberal (in the classical sense Mr. Greenberg appears to assert) boils down to "negative" (natural) and "positive" (entitlement) rights. Negative rights (life, liberty, several property, speech, association/assembly, worship, etc.) require nothing from others execpt that they refrain from fraud or the initiation of force, in return for like consideration.
Positive rights assert a claim to be provided something -- housing, health care, etc. -- independent of one's own ability or effort. Inevitably, these things must be provided at someone else's expense (TANSTAAFL). Classical liberals espouse negative rights, progressives positive rights (though progressives often give lip service to negative rights...until the exercise of same conflicts with the project of implementing positive rights).
One may separate the wheat (classical liberals) from the chaff (progressives) with three simple questions [oh, there he goes again ;-)]:
1. Who is owed a living?
2. Who owes it them?
3. Who gets to decide who goes into groups 1 and 2?
Your initial point, though, is correct. One's approach to the issues I've raised is more important than the political colors one chooses to don.
I am proud to be classically liberal, which can be considered both conservative and liberal in a way. I want to conserve America's liberal tradition, and I want to defend it from its most threatening illiberal enemies both foreign (the jihaadists) and domestic (the Islamists that want to change the liberal character of US law and society).
I consider myself a Whig. A liberal conservative. While I completely support the principles of freedom, equality under the law, and human rights, I don't believe in radicalism, either.
We are all liberals now, and really have been for about oh...200 years or so (ish).
Liberalism has split into 2 camps, one emphasizing ECONOMIC freedom and the other emphasizing SOCIAL freedom.
Both types of freedom are necessary, but they are also in conflict, which is why so few people genuinely and sincerly emphasize both equally in their thinking.
Economic freedom, for the average person, is helped by "social" conservatism - marriage, self discipline, following the rules, not rocking the boat, even getting married.
Social freedom is frequently at odds with economic freedom.
This is of course always true with no exceptions ever.
I wholeheartedly agree that "Liberalism" PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD (LPO) should not be a label anyone should run from.
But, LPO is not something that either of the two dominant groups in contemporary American politics has cornered the market on.
When Greenberg says, "we" (contemporary anti-Republican pundits) should not run from the label "liberal," he's sort of half right in a way kinda.
"Liberal" as it is used means (as he says) Leftist, and that is what people hear when they see the word "liberal."
If Greenberg can help restore the word "liberal" to its old and noble meaning of advocacy of responsibly applied freedom and get the Democrats to focus on such "real" liberalism (i.e. move rightward), then he will have done the world a great service and I will forever be in his debt.
Jimmy, are you implying that illiberal attitudes and rigid, literalist religion are the sole province of conservatives?
Not at all, I completley agree about the definition of traditional liberalism, and the fact that you uphold those values is something to venerated and promoted.
I am just wondering how you as a liberal and a Muslim reconsile your liberal values with the illiberal verses of the Koran and Hadiths, the same verses and traditions that are upheld by terrorists and Misogynist robe-dawning clerics, especially when the Koran is taught to be a sort of "divine monologue" rather than divinely inspired.
You label many critics of Islam as Islamophobes, yet you share the same liberal values and denounce the jihadist virtriol of Islamic clergy. Where is the disconnect? Why don't you stand with these critics? You know who I am talking about.
I won't deign to speak for aziz here, but I will say for myself that one reason I don't stand with at least some of the critics I'm sure are in your mind, is that you and they both present the argument as something uniquely wrong with Islam. I'm sure most moderate muslims reconcile the disconnects between their own liberalism and the illiberalism in their holy text the same way moderate christians accomplish the same feat. Why is this even an issue?
Critics who criticize specific clerics, or specific radical groups, or what have you are to be commended. Critics who hold up those same clerics spouting the most illiberal parts of the koran as evidence that the koran is the work of the devil or some such nonesense are to be, at the very least ignored. Preferably they should be wholly excised from rational discourse.
|J|D|, keep in mind that while I am replying to you seriously, I find your manner of questioning extraordinarily rude and offensive, because you presume a great deal about me without even taking the tiniest shred of effort at due diligence. That is shameful, especially since my blog archives span four years and are open to public view.
as to your questions:
I am just wondering how you as a liberal and a Muslim reconsile your liberal values with the illiberal verses of the Koran and Hadiths,
There are zero illiberal verses of the Qur'an, in my view, since I am not a literal textualist but rather view the Qur'an through the lens of centuries of interpretive exegesis. I do not subscribe to abrogation, either. The antiquity of my school of thought is older in fact than any of the Four Sunni schools (or madhabs) - going back to Imam Jafar aas Sadiq (who was actually the teacher of the four theologians who went on to found those madhabs).
Nor do I subscribe to all hadith, including the vast majority of those in Bukhari, since Bukhari was simply a collector of hadith and made no explicit effort to ascertain their relative authenticity.
the same verses and traditions that are upheld by terrorists and Misogynist robe-dawning clerics, especially when the Koran is taught to be a sort of "divine monologue" rather than divinely inspired.
irrelevant. Those are literalists, those are misogynists, those are tribalists, those are barbarians who abuse the Qur'an to justify their actions and whom I condemn.
I dont know what you are talking about with respect to the divine monolouge thing but thats not my view of teh qur'an.
I will point out again that due diligence on the part of an honest questioner would mandate at a minimum that you actually identify specific verses in the Qur'an to which you take exception as illiberal, and then google my blog for whether I mention them or not. I will not engage in ANY Qur'anic exegesis here at Dean's World for your benefit because frankly I dont care what you think about the qur'an, I care about what muslims think about the qur'an, so if you genuinely care then you are advised togo to my blog and read. Iqra!
Martin - in many ways, I agree. I would argue that purple should NOT be a "true" color in the singl;e wavelength sense, because single wavelengths imply a purity - ie, an ideology - that is anti-pragmatic. Too many people misinterpret ideology for principle. But principle requires that you assess policy according to predefined values, and the answer leaves you on alternating sides of the polarizing line. So purple is VERY apt - it is the illusion of a color but in reality is the mixing of two into something new.
That's just a little wide open for my (conservative, I suppose) tastes.
1.) Who is owed a living?
Nobody, but we can choose to help some people in a variety of ways, including tax-supported social programs that we have every right to attach strings to in order to prevent (or minimize) the abuse of such programs.
2.) Who owes it to them?
Whoever has promised it to them.
3.) Who gets to decide who goes into groups 1 and 2?
Well, if you want to argue extremes: One can argue that taking money from some people under the threat of force (that's what taxation is) is robbery. Robbery under color of law, to be sure, but that's worse in a lot of ways.
The recipients of that largesse, then, commit theft by receiving.
Okay, by making that argument I come off like an anarcho-capitalist, and that I am not. I know myself too well -- I know human nature too well to fall into that trap.
However, Aziz, with due respect, "We all do" sounds like either a cop-out (declining to address the question specifically) or an invocation of democracy, as in "we all take a vote, and majority rules."
To which I reply: Tyranny of the majority is no less a tyranny than any other form. Democracy, unfettered by any restraint on the actions government is permitted to take, inevitably devolves to a mere succession of power grabs, accomplished by promising the majority boodle and largesse at someone else's expense (and this is true of "right" populists as well as "left" progressives).
As a further refutation of pure democracy, permit me to quote John Adams:
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws;
rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."
Finally, in fairness, I'll answer my own questions:
1. Who is owed a living? Minor children for certain, and likely those incapable (truly incapable) of providing for themselves.
2. Who owes it them? As sons and daughters made in the image of Almighty G-d (your mileage may, of course, vary, but I will cleave to the Nicene Creed all the days of my life), we do. This is a moral obligation. Involving the blunt instrument of the State has results we can easily evaluate (they ain't so hot, for those keepin' score at home). There is no justfication--none--for generation after generation living on the dole at the expense of the productive. It's as pernicious for the recipients as it is for the contributors. Maybe more so.
3. Who gets to decide? We all do, on the condition that the government not go beyond the powers enumerated to it [our provider of free ice cream and I disagree on those limits, but that's a tale for another time ;-)].
Another thing occurred to me. There IS a group that apparently everybody agrees is owed a living. I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise (well, very few have).
Prisoners.
Interesting.
That is of course if, "a living" is taken to mean, "enough stuff to maintain a person's physical needs."
However, Aziz, with due respect, "We all do" sounds like either a cop-out (declining to address the question specifically) or an invocation of democracy, as in "we all take a vote, and majority rules."
ok. let me take a second crack at it.
1.) Who is owed a living?
everyone is "owed" the basics of survival. No one should go hungry, have nowhere warm to sleep in winter, etc. In addition, everyone is "owed" a basic and competent education that enables them to pick up skills that they can apply towards a vocation in order to contribute to society. They are "owed" a decent and fair wage that is non-exploitative for their labor and which permits them to obtain the basic human needs as well as some modicum extra to have a measure of dignity. In other words, all three of Life, Liberty, and the freedom for the pursuit of happiness.
I think that Life and Liberty are owed to everyone. Pursuit of happiness is contingent upon effort.
2.) Who owes it to them?
The society as a whole benefits from enabling everyone in society to have the benefits above. So we owe it to ourselves. This is the essence of the Tragedy of the Commons - we have an economic Commons, a material Commons, and also a very important Human Commons and Social Commons. All must be preserved.
incidentally thats also why I feel that the rich must be taxed more heavily. Thats a topic for another post. But in a nutshell, the guy with 15 cows uses up more grass in the common field than the guy with one.
3.) Who gets to decide who goes into groups 1 and 2?
since my answer to 1 and 2 is essentially "all of us", this question is moot.
So anyway thats the context for why I answer "everyone" to all three. I realize that a leftist progressive might also answer "everyone" to all three, but for totally different reasons than me.
>>>In addition, everyone is "owed" a basic and competent education that enables them to pick up skills that they can apply towards a vocation in order to contribute to society.
I don't have time to flesh it out, but this is fundamentally wrong.
They are "owed" the OPPORTUNITY to pursue such things without illegitimate (weasel word) barriers.
However, if they CHOOSE not to take advantage of such things (The proverbial horse not drinking the water...), then the government should not force other citizens to give up resources in the futile attempt to compensate such people for their lack of effort.
I am not a literal textualist...I dont know what you are talking about with respect to the divine monolouge thing but thats not my view of teh qur'an.
That is precisely the type of answer that I am looking for. Thats really all I needed to know. It would be nice if the majority of Muslims, as well as the majority of eccumenical leadership within Islam agreed with you. Unfortunately, it seems that is not the case (yet! hopefully).
However it is dissapointing when you say: "There are zero illiberal verses of the Qur'an" I will visit your blog and investigate the discussions there, but in my opinion, as long as Muslims such as yourself do not acknowledge that at least on the surface these verses do exist (like 24:2, 4:34, 9:5 for example) and are repudiated as illiberal, then other Muslims who believe that the Koran is the literal, vocal, arabic word of God Himself (and not a "divinely inspired" historical text), will follow them as they are written.
They will continue the promotion of misogyny and terror, as well as piety and charity, just as Mohammad did in his life. It is good that you don't take these verses literally, but if they are truly not "illiberal" then why not obey those commandments?
I would venture that far more Muslims have radical views because of cultural and,now, media indoctrination than those who have them from reading the koran.But of course,the koran is used,whether in good faith to its meaning or otherwise,to sell the radical view point.This dynamic is not new.
Study of Muslim history from the view point of Jews under their rule shows that,historically, Muslim attitudes have never been uniform in all places and at all times:from the tolerant Moors,under whom the Jews prospered, to the Almmohads from whom the Jews had to flee, lest they be forced to choose the sword
over islam.It is my understanding,that the doctrine of dhimmi was always in play,but its definition and application varied greatly in accordance with the cultural views of whatever group of Muslims was then dominant.(I can understand that the notion of dhimmi,however
its application,is enough to dispose some people negatively toward what we outsiders(at least) perceive to be traditional islam, but in my opinion(right now) islam is more a culture than a rigidly defined doctrine and as such has to be judged more according to its present cultural
views than according to what its leading scholars
defined its doctrine to be.)
If anybody would comment on my analysis,I amenable to absorb new information,even if it compliments not my theory.
but in my opinion(right now) islam is more a culture I do not mean that my opinion is that islam right now is.Rather, I mean that (right now) my opinion is that islam has always been.
I pretty much agree with everything you said naftali. Except that I would include that religion is actually a form of culture, so to distinguish the two is sometimes rather moot.
Therefore I would say that the present cultural views of Islam throughout most of the Islamic world are being defined by what the leading scolars say. That is why polygamy is legal from Morocco to Pakistan, women are dressed in niqabs in Arabia, there are executions for adultery and homosexuality in Iran ect...The scolars have tremendous political power and control how Islam is taught to the public.
Pious Muslims have difficulty standing up to those leaders because, in my opinion, the Koran backs up what the clerics are saying. Moderates are then forced to repudiate those verses rather than the leaders themselves, which many moderates are not willing to do.
all are perfectly reasonable verses and not illiberal whatsoever. Some are Jacksonian. I wnt discuss verses here but I think I've addressed all of these at City of Brass.
Its your insistence despite all evidence to the contrary that most muslims are not as liberal as I that is itself most illiberal.
If you believe it is reasonable to beat an adulteress 100 times, or to beat your disobedient wife, or to kill pagans where you find them, then you are either an extremist in the ilk of the worst Islamic radical groups, or you are simply a fool and you don't know what you are saying.
I searched for these verses on your blog, and I could only find a weak apology for 9:29. If you don't mind, I would love to get a link to find out why you believe 100 lashes is a morally acceptable punishment for adultery.
Actually,Jhimmy,under the right circumstances she would be executed according to Jewish law.
I understand why you find that"morally" unacceptable,for I too,were I to make up a system of law in accordance with my own personal sensitivities,might be more lenient.But our code was handed down by G-d at Sinai,and G-d fully understands the character and gravity of human behavior,and how best to deal with it.And we kind of just follow the rules,trying to understand them as best as we can.
What is a fair question,however,is how do you know that the code truly comes from G-d.
And if there is no answer to that question and the code is at least as likely to have been made up by man as it is to have originated from G-d,the code is free game.
Since then the code has no more moral or logical validity as Jhimmy's moral code.
But,if that question can be answered satisfactorily, then the code itself would be the measure witch which we gauge the character and gravity of human behavior.
So in sum,I beleive that your question to Aziz
is premised on the assumption that his code is not divine.While he will not,nor must he, answer your
guestion on your terms,as(I think that) he does not accept your premise.
Despite its centrality to the quest for truth(as opposed to pragmatism) vis a vis G-d based religions, the question of "how do you know its true" is never asked in discussion regarding them
"weak apology" for 9:29? You are going to dismiss everything I write so easily, so Im not wasting effort further on you with this.
naftali, youre spot on. I would also mention that the few punishments which are stated expressly in the Qur'an must be evaluated in the context of the required standard of proof for the crime, and consideration of what the punishment was prior to the revelation.
Come-on Aziz, you just said you didn't want an in-depth discussion of Koranic veses in this thread, so I merely summarized my position on that post on your blog.
Naftali is right and there needs to be a discussion of the true origin of the Koran within the Islamic world. The Jews have already done this regarding the Torah within all their schools of rabbinical thought, and that is why we don't see women stoned to death for adultery in on the streets of Tel-Aviv today, as we did 2000 years ago. However, Muslim ecclesiastial scholarship has not done this, and that is why most of the Islamic world is backward.
The fact remains that it is the 7th century moral code illucidated in the Koran that is being subscribed to by terrorists and muftis; these traditions are the source of ispiration for violent acts, just as the torah was the inspiration for executing adulterers in Israel 2000 years ago.
I still believe that we must morally repudiate traditions that are archaine, even in the light of the times they were practiced. Would anyone in America today say that slavery of Africans was morally acceptable in the 18th century because everyone was doing it back then? Of course not (although it helps us understand why it happened). The same goes for wife beating, executing adulterers, and killing pagans where you find them.
Positive rights assert a claim to be provided something -- housing, health care, etc. -- independent of one's own ability or effort. Inevitably, these things must be provided at someone else's expense (TANSTAAFL). Classical liberals espouse negative rights, progressives positive rights (though progressives often give lip service to negative rights...until the exercise of same conflicts with the project of implementing positive rights).
One may separate the wheat (classical liberals) from the chaff (progressives) with three simple questions [oh, there he goes again ;-)]:
1. Who is owed a living?
2. Who owes it them?
3. Who gets to decide who goes into groups 1 and 2?
Your initial point, though, is correct. One's approach to the issues I've raised is more important than the political colors one chooses to don.
Is it because you believe the Koran was the vocalized literal word of God revealed to Mohammad in the Arabic language?
Liberalism has split into 2 camps, one emphasizing ECONOMIC freedom and the other emphasizing SOCIAL freedom.
Both types of freedom are necessary, but they are also in conflict, which is why so few people genuinely and sincerly emphasize both equally in their thinking.
Economic freedom, for the average person, is helped by "social" conservatism - marriage, self discipline, following the rules, not rocking the boat, even getting married.
Social freedom is frequently at odds with economic freedom.
This is of course always true with no exceptions ever.
I wholeheartedly agree that "Liberalism" PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD (LPO) should not be a label anyone should run from.
But, LPO is not something that either of the two dominant groups in contemporary American politics has cornered the market on.
When Greenberg says, "we" (contemporary anti-Republican pundits) should not run from the label "liberal," he's sort of half right in a way kinda.
"Liberal" as it is used means (as he says) Leftist, and that is what people hear when they see the word "liberal."
If Greenberg can help restore the word "liberal" to its old and noble meaning of advocacy of responsibly applied freedom and get the Democrats to focus on such "real" liberalism (i.e. move rightward), then he will have done the world a great service and I will forever be in his debt.
Even the Bushies use "liberal values," if only rhetorically
I didn't realize actual elections and political freedom were merely a rhetorical device.
1. Who is owed a living?
2. Who owes it them?
3. Who gets to decide who goes into groups 1 and 2?
Lesseehere....
1] Moi.
2] Those guys that win the lottery and keep working crappy jobs and wear cheap suits with white socks. Them stiffs.
3] See 1.
I am just wondering how you as a liberal and a Muslim reconsile your liberal values with the illiberal verses of the Koran and Hadiths, the same verses and traditions that are upheld by terrorists and Misogynist robe-dawning clerics, especially when the Koran is taught to be a sort of "divine monologue" rather than divinely inspired.
You label many critics of Islam as Islamophobes, yet you share the same liberal values and denounce the jihadist virtriol of Islamic clergy. Where is the disconnect? Why don't you stand with these critics? You know who I am talking about.
I won't deign to speak for aziz here, but I will say for myself that one reason I don't stand with at least some of the critics I'm sure are in your mind, is that you and they both present the argument as something uniquely wrong with Islam. I'm sure most moderate muslims reconcile the disconnects between their own liberalism and the illiberalism in their holy text the same way moderate christians accomplish the same feat. Why is this even an issue?
Critics who criticize specific clerics, or specific radical groups, or what have you are to be commended. Critics who hold up those same clerics spouting the most illiberal parts of the koran as evidence that the koran is the work of the devil or some such nonesense are to be, at the very least ignored. Preferably they should be wholly excised from rational discourse.
as to your questions:
There are zero illiberal verses of the Qur'an, in my view, since I am not a literal textualist but rather view the Qur'an through the lens of centuries of interpretive exegesis. I do not subscribe to abrogation, either. The antiquity of my school of thought is older in fact than any of the Four Sunni schools (or madhabs) - going back to Imam Jafar aas Sadiq (who was actually the teacher of the four theologians who went on to found those madhabs).
Nor do I subscribe to all hadith, including the vast majority of those in Bukhari, since Bukhari was simply a collector of hadith and made no explicit effort to ascertain their relative authenticity.
irrelevant. Those are literalists, those are misogynists, those are tribalists, those are barbarians who abuse the Qur'an to justify their actions and whom I condemn.
I dont know what you are talking about with respect to the divine monolouge thing but thats not my view of teh qur'an.
I will point out again that due diligence on the part of an honest questioner would mandate at a minimum that you actually identify specific verses in the Qur'an to which you take exception as illiberal, and then google my blog for whether I mention them or not. I will not engage in ANY Qur'anic exegesis here at Dean's World for your benefit because frankly I dont care what you think about the qur'an, I care about what muslims think about the qur'an, so if you genuinely care then you are advised togo to my blog and read. Iqra!
Martin - in many ways, I agree. I would argue that purple should NOT be a "true" color in the singl;e wavelength sense, because single wavelengths imply a purity - ie, an ideology - that is anti-pragmatic. Too many people misinterpret ideology for principle. But principle requires that you assess policy according to predefined values, and the answer leaves you on alternating sides of the polarizing line. So purple is VERY apt - it is the illusion of a color but in reality is the mixing of two into something new.
I would answer "we all do" to all three.
That's just a little wide open for my (conservative, I suppose) tastes.
1.) Who is owed a living?
Nobody, but we can choose to help some people in a variety of ways, including tax-supported social programs that we have every right to attach strings to in order to prevent (or minimize) the abuse of such programs.
2.) Who owes it to them?
Whoever has promised it to them.
3.) Who gets to decide who goes into groups 1 and 2?
We all do.
One out of three. Not bad.
The recipients of that largesse, then, commit theft by receiving.
Okay, by making that argument I come off like an anarcho-capitalist, and that I am not. I know myself too well -- I know human nature too well to fall into that trap.
However, Aziz, with due respect, "We all do" sounds like either a cop-out (declining to address the question specifically) or an invocation of democracy, as in "we all take a vote, and majority rules."
To which I reply: Tyranny of the majority is no less a tyranny than any other form. Democracy, unfettered by any restraint on the actions government is permitted to take, inevitably devolves to a mere succession of power grabs, accomplished by promising the majority boodle and largesse at someone else's expense (and this is true of "right" populists as well as "left" progressives).
As a further refutation of pure democracy, permit me to quote John Adams:
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws;
rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."
Finally, in fairness, I'll answer my own questions:
1. Who is owed a living? Minor children for certain, and likely those incapable (truly incapable) of providing for themselves.
2. Who owes it them? As sons and daughters made in the image of Almighty G-d (your mileage may, of course, vary, but I will cleave to the Nicene Creed all the days of my life), we do. This is a moral obligation. Involving the blunt instrument of the State has results we can easily evaluate (they ain't so hot, for those keepin' score at home). There is no justfication--none--for generation after generation living on the dole at the expense of the productive. It's as pernicious for the recipients as it is for the contributors. Maybe more so.
3. Who gets to decide? We all do, on the condition that the government not go beyond the powers enumerated to it [our provider of free ice cream and I disagree on those limits, but that's a tale for another time ;-)].
Your response to Jimmy was informative,Thanks.
I like those. Well done.
Another thing occurred to me. There IS a group that apparently everybody agrees is owed a living. I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise (well, very few have).
Prisoners.
Interesting.
That is of course if, "a living" is taken to mean, "enough stuff to maintain a person's physical needs."
ok. let me take a second crack at it.
1.) Who is owed a living?
everyone is "owed" the basics of survival. No one should go hungry, have nowhere warm to sleep in winter, etc. In addition, everyone is "owed" a basic and competent education that enables them to pick up skills that they can apply towards a vocation in order to contribute to society. They are "owed" a decent and fair wage that is non-exploitative for their labor and which permits them to obtain the basic human needs as well as some modicum extra to have a measure of dignity. In other words, all three of Life, Liberty, and the freedom for the pursuit of happiness.
I think that Life and Liberty are owed to everyone. Pursuit of happiness is contingent upon effort.
2.) Who owes it to them?
The society as a whole benefits from enabling everyone in society to have the benefits above. So we owe it to ourselves. This is the essence of the Tragedy of the Commons - we have an economic Commons, a material Commons, and also a very important Human Commons and Social Commons. All must be preserved.
incidentally thats also why I feel that the rich must be taxed more heavily. Thats a topic for another post. But in a nutshell, the guy with 15 cows uses up more grass in the common field than the guy with one.
3.) Who gets to decide who goes into groups 1 and 2?
since my answer to 1 and 2 is essentially "all of us", this question is moot.
So anyway thats the context for why I answer "everyone" to all three. I realize that a leftist progressive might also answer "everyone" to all three, but for totally different reasons than me.
I don't have time to flesh it out, but this is fundamentally wrong.
They are "owed" the OPPORTUNITY to pursue such things without illegitimate (weasel word) barriers.
However, if they CHOOSE not to take advantage of such things (The proverbial horse not drinking the water...), then the government should not force other citizens to give up resources in the futile attempt to compensate such people for their lack of effort.
However it is dissapointing when you say: "There are zero illiberal verses of the Qur'an" I will visit your blog and investigate the discussions there, but in my opinion, as long as Muslims such as yourself do not acknowledge that at least on the surface these verses do exist (like 24:2, 4:34, 9:5 for example) and are repudiated as illiberal, then other Muslims who believe that the Koran is the literal, vocal, arabic word of God Himself (and not a "divinely inspired" historical text), will follow them as they are written.
They will continue the promotion of misogyny and terror, as well as piety and charity, just as Mohammad did in his life. It is good that you don't take these verses literally, but if they are truly not "illiberal" then why not obey those commandments?
I would venture that far more Muslims have radical views because of cultural and,now, media indoctrination than those who have them from reading the koran.But of course,the koran is used,whether in good faith to its meaning or otherwise,to sell the radical view point.This dynamic is not new.
Study of Muslim history from the view point of Jews under their rule shows that,historically, Muslim attitudes have never been uniform in all places and at all times:from the tolerant Moors,under whom the Jews prospered, to the Almmohads from whom the Jews had to flee, lest they be forced to choose the sword
over islam.It is my understanding,that the doctrine of dhimmi was always in play,but its definition and application varied greatly in accordance with the cultural views of whatever group of Muslims was then dominant.(I can understand that the notion of dhimmi,however
its application,is enough to dispose some people negatively toward what we outsiders(at least) perceive to be traditional islam, but in my opinion(right now) islam is more a culture than a rigidly defined doctrine and as such has to be judged more according to its present cultural
views than according to what its leading scholars
defined its doctrine to be.)
If anybody would comment on my analysis,I amenable to absorb new information,even if it compliments not my theory.
I do not mean that my opinion is that islam right now is.Rather, I mean that (right now) my opinion is that islam has always been.
Therefore I would say that the present cultural views of Islam throughout most of the Islamic world are being defined by what the leading scolars say. That is why polygamy is legal from Morocco to Pakistan, women are dressed in niqabs in Arabia, there are executions for adultery and homosexuality in Iran ect...The scolars have tremendous political power and control how Islam is taught to the public.
Pious Muslims have difficulty standing up to those leaders because, in my opinion, the Koran backs up what the clerics are saying. Moderates are then forced to repudiate those verses rather than the leaders themselves, which many moderates are not willing to do.
all are perfectly reasonable verses and not illiberal whatsoever. Some are Jacksonian. I wnt discuss verses here but I think I've addressed all of these at City of Brass.
Its your insistence despite all evidence to the contrary that most muslims are not as liberal as I that is itself most illiberal.
I searched for these verses on your blog, and I could only find a weak apology for 9:29. If you don't mind, I would love to get a link to find out why you believe 100 lashes is a morally acceptable punishment for adultery.
I understand why you find that"morally" unacceptable,for I too,were I to make up a system of law in accordance with my own personal sensitivities,might be more lenient.But our code was handed down by G-d at Sinai,and G-d fully understands the character and gravity of human behavior,and how best to deal with it.And we kind of just follow the rules,trying to understand them as best as we can.
What is a fair question,however,is how do you know that the code truly comes from G-d.
And if there is no answer to that question and the code is at least as likely to have been made up by man as it is to have originated from G-d,the code is free game.
Since then the code has no more moral or logical validity as Jhimmy's moral code.
But,if that question can be answered satisfactorily, then the code itself would be the measure witch which we gauge the character and gravity of human behavior.
So in sum,I beleive that your question to Aziz
is premised on the assumption that his code is not divine.While he will not,nor must he, answer your
guestion on your terms,as(I think that) he does not accept your premise.
Despite its centrality to the quest for truth(as opposed to pragmatism) vis a vis G-d based religions, the question of "how do you know its true" is never asked in discussion regarding them
naftali, youre spot on. I would also mention that the few punishments which are stated expressly in the Qur'an must be evaluated in the context of the required standard of proof for the crime, and consideration of what the punishment was prior to the revelation.
Naftali is right and there needs to be a discussion of the true origin of the Koran within the Islamic world. The Jews have already done this regarding the Torah within all their schools of rabbinical thought, and that is why we don't see women stoned to death for adultery in on the streets of Tel-Aviv today, as we did 2000 years ago. However, Muslim ecclesiastial scholarship has not done this, and that is why most of the Islamic world is backward.
The fact remains that it is the 7th century moral code illucidated in the Koran that is being subscribed to by terrorists and muftis; these traditions are the source of ispiration for violent acts, just as the torah was the inspiration for executing adulterers in Israel 2000 years ago.
I still believe that we must morally repudiate traditions that are archaine, even in the light of the times they were practiced. Would anyone in America today say that slavery of Africans was morally acceptable in the 18th century because everyone was doing it back then? Of course not (although it helps us understand why it happened). The same goes for wife beating, executing adulterers, and killing pagans where you find them.