E-1 Understanding Islam in 1500 words or less

Understanding Islam in 1500 words or less:

 

Islam, like Judaism, is a legalistic system. Perhaps a legalistic approach is the best way to begin to understand Islam. See Bernard Weiss’ “The Spirit of Islamic Law”, a purely neutral academic description of Islamic jurisprudence.

 

According to “The Spirit of Islamic Law” Islamic jurisprudence runs like this: that God exist is not a matter of faith, but of certainty. Creation is evidence of a creator. God is the creator, man the creature. God is the sovereign, man is the subject. Man’s duty is to find God’s law and follow it steadfastly. The Koran is the source of Islamic law. The Koran says to follow the example of the prophet. So, Mohammed’s biography, habits and sayings then are additional sources of law. Where two aspects or expressions of doctrine contradict, like most legal systems, the last-in-time doctrine prevails (abrogation). This is unfortunate.  While most systems began harsh but evolved to something more tolerant, universal and inclusive overtime, Islam did the reverse.

 

(Note: While you might be tempted to read the Koran to gain understanding of Islam, it is largely an unprofitable pursuit. The Koran is not organized chronologically, so an uninformed reader cannot determine what passages come last in time, nor does it tell stories with beginnings and ends. Mostly it’s a collage of utterances, like a chaotic assembly of tweets. If you are not a Muslim then you probably don’t believe that the Koran is divinely sourced and so there’s less logic there for you even still. It’s far more profitable to start with Mohammed’s biography. It’s a fascinating tale, and at the very least it has a chronological logic to it. In short, Islam is all about Mohammed. So the low hanging fruit towards understanding lies with his story.)

 

Mohammed was born into a moderately high caste in Mecca, Arabia in 570. Like most places where land is not productive enough to support organized state civilization, Arabia consisting mostly of a hostile desert climate, Mecca had only a well developed form of vendetta law, i.e. law based upon ethnic or kin revenge: your protection from harm came from a duty your next-of-kin held to avenge such harm. However from the age of 6 Mohammed was an orphan. So despite his high caste, his legal status was at the bottom of society. The prudent thing then was to avoid conflict. Beyond that he had to seek protection from relatives, which he got, first from his grandfather and later from his uncle. Despite his low status, or maybe because of it, at age 25 he married a wealthy widow 15 years older than him. 15 years later Mohammed would begin his religious mission after an encounter with the angel Gabriel in a cave.

 

For the first 12 years of his religious mission Mohammed preached in Mecca and accrued less than 160 followers (less than 80 in Mecca itself). In Mecca, the only means available to him was persuasion. Perhaps frustrated at the low conversion rate, Mohammed’s message soon became harsh; proclaiming that non-Muslims suffered for eternity in a sadistic hell he described in vivid detail.

 

In 570, much of Arabia was still pagan. So, the hell bound non-Muslims included the pagan Meccans, all of their ancestors, and all their neighbors. Mecca was a market and trading town that held a sanctuary, a cube structure called the Kaba, as a place to house idols for all the surrounding tribes to come and venerate when they came to attend trade fairs and festivals. The Kaba was a profit center for the town as it helped attract visitors thus facilitating trade. As a result, the Meccans were tolerant when it came to religious sects. When Mohammed began preaching damnation to the members of these various sects, the visitors complained about the harassment. So, as Mohammed’s message became grimmer, harsher and intolerant, the Meccan’s tolerance of Mohammed and his religion evaporated as it undermined the economic foundations of the town. Eventually, after his uncle died, taking with him his legal protection, Mohammed was run out of town.

 

The last 10 years of his life Mohammed lived in Medina (also known as Yathribe) an agricultural oasis settlement consisting of 5 tribes, 3 of them Jewish. Mohammed gained some franchise and political power there by initially playing the role of an outside arbitrator to mediate disputes between the five tribes.

 

To the extent it exists, the nice inclusive stuff in Islam (and the Koran) comes from the Meccan period. The violent exclusive stuff from the Medina period.

 

At Medina Mohammed soon began to rely upon coercion to grow his system. First, he engaged in banditry of passing (especially) Meccan caravans for income (and revenge). Banditry brought him booty, and booty attracted more followers. He soon progressed from banditry and raiding, to extortion, assassination and murder, (sex) slavery* (rape), conquest and eventually genocide (of Jews in Medina). One had a choice of join and share in the spoils, pay an extortion tax, or death. We can see, he basically ran Medina much like a Mafioso boss (see “Goodfellows”). He advocated the use of deception and dishonesty (the doctrines of Taqiyya/kitman) if done for the advancement of Islam. Essentially any act from dishonesty to rape, to killing, was acceptable if done to non-muslims, especially for the advancement of Islam or its prophet. One could immediately avoid the terror of being a non-muslim by joining it – even in the heat of battle against Islam. However, apostasy, i.e. changing one’s mind, brought the death penalty. So, unlike most systems or religions, Islam evolved from nonviolence, inclusiveness and tolerance (of Mecca) to intolerance, violence and terrorism at Medina. Unfortunately, within Islamic jurisprudence, the last-in-time doctrine (doctrine of abrogation) gives stronger emphasis to the later doctrines.

 

Islamic apologist sometimes site the raw medieval context of the times (ignoring the tolerance of the pre-Islamic Meccans)  as a defense of Mohammed and Islam’s early barbarism and terror, and point out that “normative” (normal) behavior of Islam today is peaceful. There are obvious reasons for this: most Muslims live in Muslim countries and are not surrounded by non-Muslims to whom they are commanded to terrorize and coerce into conversion, and simply, most people are not drawn to conflict and violence. Also, the deception doctrines of Taqiyya and Kitman proscribe that it is okay for Muslims to lie about their motives and beliefs on the surface when they are in a minority status (i.e. to go along with the majority, to get along) so long as they remain Muslims below the surface. At best, you can think of normative Islam as being like normative Catholicism – where most Catholics practice birth control and don’t go to confession, so most Muslims ignore Mohammed’s command to terrorize and kill non-Muslims. But as with Catholics, the normative is not the same as the orthodox.

 

In fact, many, perhaps even most Muslims are ignorant of what orthodox Islam holds because they have never read the Koran in a language they can understand (Muslims memorize Koranic passages in Arabic, not knowing the content) nor Mohammed’s biography, so have no idea of the context of either. They might be shocked if they knew. Islam then is what their Imam at their local mosque tells them it is: and an Imam in the West, where Muslims are a tiny minority, is not going to incite violence. However, in most cases the Imam would know the truth. And the truth is clear that orthodox Islam says to follow the example and commands of the prophet, and it is clear that the prophet in his later years commanded his followers to inflict terror and harm upon non-muslims until they became Muslims. Boko Harem, Al Qaida, Taliban, and Isis may all be terrorist, first and foremost, but as long as they are acting in the example and for the purposes of the prophet, expanding Islam, they are practicing orthodox Islam. Finally “normative” (moderate) Muslims, though they may be peaceful, tend to not speak out against the radical orthodox Muslims: in general, to speak out against following the commandments of the prophet is an act of apostasy: apostasy incurs a death penalty that any other Muslim might decide on his own volition to execute. In essence they fear the crazy’s in their own midst. This is a function and form of “Stockholm syndrome” a concept very important in understanding the spread and adherence to Islam. (Stockholm syndrome is where a captive comes to identify with the ideology of his or her captors. Muslims are trapped, held captive in a system that promises them death if they defect, but peace and protection from harm if they remain: furthermore they are told they are superior to non-Muslims.)

 

Islam offers up a contract: submit to it and it will be at peace with you, reject it and it will be in conflict with you until you do subject. For the 1.5 billion people who have submitted, Islam can be a religion of peace. For the 5.5 billion people who have yet to submit, Islam ultimately sees itself in conflict with them. So to Muslims Islam is a religion, and as a religion, it is a religion of peace. To non-muslims, Islam is a political movement whose agenda is to induce you to submit. If the religion is not compulsive enough, then the discomfort of conflict (including terror) is the consequence it offers for not submitting. Between the two it offers a carrot and stick.

 

The apologist might site that 90% of Muslims are peaceful. This is little comfort. With few exceptions* the traditional rule of thumb in public policy is that a nation at war can mobilize and conscript only 10% of its population. During World War II, the United States had a population of over 130 million, while the number of personnel in the armed forces was 12 million or 8% of the population. The other 92% were at peace. If you divide the nation’s attention by the two opposing combatants,  that means only 4% of Americans were at war with Japan and only 4% of Americans were at war with Germany. The other 96% were at peace. So that defense by apologist for Islam is really a bit disturbing.

 

Okay now you have some of the basic “what” of Islam however you don’t know the basic “why” of Islam: the motivation for its creation: both macro and micro. Of Micro: Mohammed had started from a high caste, but of low legal status. Still he managed to marry into wealth. Why wasn’t he content with that life? What impelled him to pursue the creation of Islam at such high risk and inertia after 15 years of rather easy married life? Then he gained political office in Medina: why wasn’t he content with running that town? Why did he go violent? Of macro: Why did Islam succeed and spread so quickly? How can an ideological and/or belief system based upon coercion succeed over the long haul? Answering these questions is where one gains a true understanding of the nature of Islam. When you understand the why and how of Islam you will understand the logic behind Islam. That’s going to take another 1500 words.

 

 

*The issue of sex slavery is an important detail. Banditry and raiding created enemies. Mohammed was constantly punching above his weight. He needed to attract male warriors of a certain age, which is also happens to be the age of peak sexual desire for males. Islam holds that upon our death we will stay dead until judgment day, however long that takes. On judgment day, we will awaken, be judged and if your sins outweigh your good acts you go to hell (even if you are a Muslim: only Muslims get into heaven, but not all Muslims, only those whose good acts exceed their bad). There is only one way to avoid judgment day (and having to wait dead in the ground for it): that is to die as a martyr attempting to advance Islam. In that case Islam holds that you bypass judgment day, and the years being dead awaiting judgment, and go directly and immediately to paradise where you are attended to by a platoon of ever-virgin super-vixens (if you are a male) in a God sanctioned orgy complete with thousand year long orgasms (Islam is thin about the description of paradise for females). This meant that a warrior that enjoined Mohammed on a raid would either be awarded in this life with a sex slave, or the next in a God sanctioned orgy: either way the young warrior was going to get laid. In the context of modern terrorism, we see that a lot of the terrorist weren’t “good” Muslims prior to their act of jihadist terrorist. In one case the women under siege in Paris who ended up blowing herself up was said to be a party girl. Islam, lacks a robust doctrine of forgiveness, so she probably saw the only way to avoid a rough judgment day was to die a martyr in jihad in the present. Likewise some of the perpetrators of 9/11 supposedly drank alcohol and visited strip clubs. Since they had planned to die as martyrs, they didn’t worry about being accountable for their sins because they believed they’d go directly into heaven. It seems likely that the Orlando shooter at a nightclub renowned for gays, was perhaps himself gay. To the extent he engaged in gay activities, he undermined his disposition come judgment day. If all of that were so true, then he may have thought that the only way he could avoid going to the terrible hell so vividly described by Mohammed and the Koran was to take up jihad and become a terrorist, perhaps dying while attempting to spread Islam. The initial information is conflicting: he may have been gay, that may have caused self loathing because of Islam’s unacceptance of it, that may have pushed him into reacting against it in a jihadist manner, but at the same time, it seems clear he was trying to avoid death all at the same time. The point is, his ethnicity did not cause him to be a terrorist, nor did his homosexuality, if he was one, but it was the ideas of Islam that put him there.