Islam's Future
By Daniel Pipes
August 13, 2002
"I am surprised at your lack of courage, Mr. Pipes," one
reader scolded me. "Your point of view is for people who believe
in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus," opined another. "You really
dropped the ball on this one!" "I hope you are not beginning to
lose your nerve." "Totally wrong." Or, more charitably: "Maybe
your hope is overshadowing your understanding of the truth."
Those are a sampling of the many negative responses (found on
the comments section of my Web site) to my column two weeks ago
arguing that Islam is not evil. "Rather than rail on about Islam's
alleged 'evil,' " I wrote, we all need to pitch in and "help modernize
this civilization." By about a 5-to-1 margin, my readers disagree.
Three main points emerge from their letters.
* Islam has always been on the warpath. "The violent
conquest against the infidel was present at [Islam's] inception,"
writes one respondent. It "is based on war, conquest and forced
conversion," asserts another. "The war, declared by Muhammad in
[the year] 600 . . ., continues to this day," notes a third.
* Militant Islam is Islam. The readers insist that the
evils I attribute to a modern, radical utopian ideology inheres
to the faith at large. What I call militant Islam, they say, "should
properly be called, 'real Islam.' " One writer asks, "what exactly
is it that the Wahhabis and other Islamic extremists are doing
that is not in accord with Muhammad's doctrine?" He then replies:
"The answer is they are behaving very true to Muhammad's doctrine!"
* Mild Koranic verses were abrogated. They argue
that the Koran contains contradictory passages that Muslim scholars
handled by deciding that chronologically latter verses superseded
earlier ones. Specifically, the conciliatory verses I quoted ("There
must be no coercion in matters of faith!" and "O people! We have
formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another,")
were voided by one of the aggressive ones I cited ("Then fight
and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer
them and lie in wait for them").
My response, however, is that no matter what Islam is now or was
in the past, it will be something different in the future. The
religion must adapt to modern mores.
This can be done. One recent example: In May, the Turkish religious
authorities ruled - completely contrary to Islamic custom - to
permit women to pray next to men and to attend mosque services
while menstruating. The High Religious Affairs Board decided this
on the (distinctly modern) basis that men and women are "equal
and complementary beings." Next month, this same board takes up
the extremely delicate topic of permitting Muslim women to marry
non-Muslim men, when it will perhaps again rule against centuries
of practice.
If Turkish theologians can execute such changes, why not theologians
in other countries, too? And if practices concerning women can
be changed, why not those concerning jihad or the role
of Islamic law as a whole? Islam can adjust to modernity no less
than have other faiths.
Conversely, if one sees Islam as irredeemably evil, what comes
next? This approach turns all Muslims - even moderates fleeing
the horrors of militant Islam - into eternal enemies. And it leaves
one with zero policy options. My approach has the benefit of offering
a realistic policy to deal with a major global problem.
In conclusion, a reflection: Americans have acquired an impressive
knowledge of Islam. Contrary to the incessant bleating by apologists
for militant Islam about American ignorance of this topic, my
readers know what they are talking about. Their critiques are
sometimes erudite (for example, on the subject of Koranic abrogations,
sometimes eloquent ("The next time you watch a film clip of the
miniscule and microscopic body parts of Israeli citizens being
scraped from the streets, sidewalks and buildings, just think
about what is truly evil").
These readers, surely, are not typical of American opinion, but
their informed antagonism to Islam bears remarking. It is likely
to have a larger political role as Islam ever-more becomes central
a topic of discussion in the West.
This article was originally published in the New
York Post on August 13, 2002
Home
| Worthwhile
Reading | Cartoons
| Videos |
Selected Quotes
| Links | Contact
us
|
|
Daniel
Pipes
Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and a columnist
at the New York Post and The Jerusalem Post. A former
official in the Departments of State and Defense, he has taught
at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the U.S. Naval
War College. Mr. Pipes is the author of twelve books on the Middle
East, Islam, and other political topics; his most recent book is
Militant Islam Reaches America (W.W. Norton, 2002). He has
published widely in leading magazines and newspapers and his writings
have been translated into eighteen languages. Mr. Pipes frequently
discusses current issues on television and radio. He serves on the
"Special Task Force on Terrorism and Technology" at the Department
of Defense, has testified before many congressional committees,
and served on four presidential campaigns.
To
see the writings of Dr. Daniel Pipes, please visit www.danielpipes.org.
|
