People of the Book
I recently finished Madeline Albright's book, The Mighty and the Almighty which posed some interesting questions about how well the West understands Islam. For example, why is getting the Sunnis and the Shiites to work together in a coalition government so hard? Albirght's correct assumption describes a Western lack of understanding about the deep seated religious differences of these two groups of people. The typical Western eye views the situation as if it were simply two ethnic groups or two similar religious factions--sort of like asking the Episcopals and the Lutherans--to work together.
Apparently this isn't the case. After finishing Albright's book, I realized that short of the basic history of the founding of Islam, I knew absolutely nothing about the religion myself. So I wandered over to the library and checked out The Oxford History of Islam. Not only does it give a historical accounting for the religion of Islam, it also explains the different beliefs, customs, and the nature of authority in Islamic tradition.
My reading of The History of Islam proved timely as this month's First Things includes an article by Cardinal Pell of Australia on the misleading popular notion that Islam is a religion of peace that--at its root--has the same basic principals as Judaism and Christianity. Specifically (and correctly) he points to Islamic law's harsh treatment of dhimmini (non-Muslims) and the violent history of Islamic versus, well, everyone else relations.
Is Cardinal Pell correct? My response is the typical lawyer's response: it depends. Historically, the laws for treatment of dhimmini were selectively enforced. In Spain, for example, there was a period of time where the Christians and the Muslims coexisted without a problem under a Muslim ruler who did not strictly enforce all provisions of Islamic law. Given a change in leadership and the passage of a generation or two, the situation changed and Christians were openly persecuted and abused.
What has struck me about the history of Islam, especially in regards to pre-Medieval Spain, is that during these periods of coexistence the Christians were almost always willing to compromise, we won't publicaly parade the Eucharist around nor will we try to convert Muslims to Christianity. The Muslims, even during times of peace, were not so flexible. I cannot help but wonder if this inflexibility comes from the Islamic conception of religion period and whether this historic lack of flexibility is something that should be taken into consideration when dealing with the building of the new government in Iraq, negotiations with Iran, and talks with Saudi Arabia.
So I ask my much more learned theologian friends, what do you think?
Apparently this isn't the case. After finishing Albright's book, I realized that short of the basic history of the founding of Islam, I knew absolutely nothing about the religion myself. So I wandered over to the library and checked out The Oxford History of Islam. Not only does it give a historical accounting for the religion of Islam, it also explains the different beliefs, customs, and the nature of authority in Islamic tradition.
My reading of The History of Islam proved timely as this month's First Things includes an article by Cardinal Pell of Australia on the misleading popular notion that Islam is a religion of peace that--at its root--has the same basic principals as Judaism and Christianity. Specifically (and correctly) he points to Islamic law's harsh treatment of dhimmini (non-Muslims) and the violent history of Islamic versus, well, everyone else relations.
Is Cardinal Pell correct? My response is the typical lawyer's response: it depends. Historically, the laws for treatment of dhimmini were selectively enforced. In Spain, for example, there was a period of time where the Christians and the Muslims coexisted without a problem under a Muslim ruler who did not strictly enforce all provisions of Islamic law. Given a change in leadership and the passage of a generation or two, the situation changed and Christians were openly persecuted and abused.
What has struck me about the history of Islam, especially in regards to pre-Medieval Spain, is that during these periods of coexistence the Christians were almost always willing to compromise, we won't publicaly parade the Eucharist around nor will we try to convert Muslims to Christianity. The Muslims, even during times of peace, were not so flexible. I cannot help but wonder if this inflexibility comes from the Islamic conception of religion period and whether this historic lack of flexibility is something that should be taken into consideration when dealing with the building of the new government in Iraq, negotiations with Iran, and talks with Saudi Arabia.
So I ask my much more learned theologian friends, what do you think?