A Post Script On Fundamentalist Islam

In a blog, preceding the last one, we discussed the problems we face with fundamental Islam.  Let me take a moment now to make mention of an effort that has been made to create a reform movement within Islam. It is named, The Muslim Reform Movement.  That such a movement has sprung up is a promising.  But, how meaningful is it?

Basic questions we must ask are as follows:

1. When was this movement started.  Answer: 2015.  That's just last year.  It's clearly an organization in its embryonic stage.

2. What are its chances of becoming a meaningful movement?  In my opinion, slim, but not impossible.  What might give hope to this embryonic movement are the following factors:

  a. Todays's world events make the need for such a movement greater than ever.  Muslims might be at a point where they can now begin to recognize this.

  b. This movement began in America and was joined in by a few Muslims from England and Europe. It is entirely logical that such a movement should come to flower in America.  It is here that Reform Judaism mushroomed.  It's roots, of course, extend to Europe.  Conservative Judaism, on the other hand, is an entirely American-made phenomenon.

  c. Can this movement reach out and attract Muslims who have, to some degree, become secular?

3. In challenging fundamentalist Islam in America, the nascent Muslim Reform Movement faces a huge hurdle in proving to politicians in Washington that this movement has legs, that it has prospects for growth.  The initial signs are not promising.  For major Islamic events, the Obama administration extends invitations to the likes of CAIR, who happen to be a bulkhead of fundamentalism in America, not to mention their shady connections to terrorism as noted by the FBI.

The obstacles the Muslim Reform Movement faces are enormous.  We can only hope and pray that they will become a force among American Muslims.

Why I'm Going With Trump

I'm going with Trump because of the odds.  With Hillary, I'm 99% sure of what I'm going to get; namely, a person who's shown unbelievably poor judgement and a person committed to extending the policies of Obama for 4 more years.

With Trump, I can't be sure of what I'm going to get.  There's a 50% chance he'll really change things for the better.  That means, of course, that there's a 50% chance he'll exacerbate America's problems.  I'll take my 50% odds of Trump doing a good job, over my 99% percent odds that Hillary will continue with decisions really bad for America.

What puzzles me are people, who should logically be supporting Trump, voicing opposition to Trump. they include some of the following:

Danial Pipes  -- I am impressed with this man's analyses of the Middle East.
Ted Cruz -- A savvy politician who has allowed personal pique to cloud his mind.
Jeb Bush and John Kasich -- Old establishment GOPers who resent fresh blood.
Fundamentalist Christians who object to Trump (a really small minority)

Some find Trump not "pure" enough.  Others, don't like a newcomer running off with their party's standard.  Others are simply poor losers.  What they all fail to understand, or simply won't acknowledge, is that we are all faced with a binary choice; namely, it's either Hillary or Trump.  There is no realistic third choice.  If you support Republican values but feel Trump doesn't live up to those values, or up to Christian values, how will rejecting Trump help you get closer to your goals when it clearly enables a person opposed to your goals to become president?  How can those who espouse conservative values, who espouse Christian values find that to be a satisfactory outcome?  And, how can anyone who loves Israel vote for someone who will extend the policies of Obama for 4 or 8 more years.

I see no choice other than voting for Trump.

Fundamentalist Islam (Salafism): A Muslim Problem

The opposite of fundamentalism is secularism.  A Jew, a Catholic, or Protestant can still claim membership in their faith and yet enjoy the freedom to disagree.  Those who disagree most are generally described as secular.  In Judaism, secular Jews include Jews who don't really believe that G-d created the world in 6 days -- resting on the 7th.  They believe in the 'big bag."

I have known Catholics who did not believe all truth came from the Vatican.  Yet they felt that they had been born into the Church and were as Catholic as anyone.  And, furthermore, they could find priests who supported them in this belief.

What should also be recognized is that when a particular line of belief can no longer be supported, alternate forms of the faith can be created.  When the Catholic priest, Martin Luther, could no longer subscribe to all the tenets of his faith, he found alternate tenets. At the time, hundreds of years ago, that could be a dangerous thing.  The Church tried to have him eliminated.  But, luckily he had powerful supporters who helped him escape those who would murder him.

Deviancy is far rarer among Muslims.  The only case, I am aware of are the Ahmadiyyas.  There are, I have read, tens of millions of them.  They deviate from conventional Muslims in a number of ways.  Perhaps their greatest deviancy is that they believe G-d sent a prophet after Muhammed.  This prophet came in the 1800's and he preached among other things that there should be a separation between mosque and state.  In America, Ahmadiyyas are considered Muslims.  Not so in Pakistan.  Over there it is a crime for an Ahmadiyya to declare himself a Muslim.

Let's set the Ahmadiyyas aside for a moment.  Instead, let's focus on most Muslims who, while they divide themselves into Sunni and Shiite camps, cleave to essentially the same belief system; namely, that the last word in all things are the words and actions of Muhammed, and that Islam is the last and final stage to which G-d (Allah) has elevated man. The laws of Islam derived from the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah, Muslims believe, apply to all people and have dominion above and beyond man's laws.

So how do you deal with fundamentalist Islam, if secular Muslims are simply Muslims who drink, shake women's hands and in other ways violate the tenets of their faith simply because they find it expedient to do so in places where other religions are dominant?  Most such Muslims would not be uncomfortable living in America.  The problem is that they still view fundamentalist Islam as the true faith.  If they can't follow true Islam, so be it.  But, for them, fundamentalist Islam is the true path to an Islamic life.  This is unlike what we see with Presbyterians, who are often at odds with Baptists, and who will never convince Baptists that they, the Presbyterians, are the true Protestants.  The Catholic Church has given up trying to convince Protestants that they, the Catholics, are the true Christians.  Muslims may appear secular, but they generally agree that fundamentalist Islam is the true Islam.

In non-Muslim countries, where they have not yet established an overwhelming beachhead, Muslims generally behave much like other citizens.  However, if one of their number becomes mentally unstable and seeks to meet Allah, such a person, or persons, can become dangerous to the community.

So what should be the American posture vis a vis Muslims?  In my opinion, Muslims entering the country must be informed that the practice of Shariah in America will not be tolerated.  They will be subject only to American law.  If they can not touch alcoholic beverages, they should avoid working in a convenience store.  If they can not look in the eyes of a woman, most sales positions will prove unsuitable for them.

Mostly however there should be heavy screening of the imams.  One imam was recorded preaching at a mosque in Orlando, Florida.  The message he was taped delivering was that to kill a gay man was to do him a favor.  A gay man carries the burden of sin.  By killing him you relieve him of this sin.  America doesn't need such imams, either as visitors or as immigrants.  The universities that turn out these imams -- even those overseas -- should be investigated and identified.  So why hasn't this already been done?  Here we must turn to Saudi Arabia one of the most fundamentalist of nations.  Sen. Wm. Fulbright was one of their first lobbyists.  They set up organizations like CAIR (Committee on American Islamic Relations) and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America).  At present, with their money, these organizations are dedicated to preventing the type of screening this country must do if it is to screen out such fundamentalist imams.

Why can't we recognize and give preference to the Ahmadiyya, to the Yazidis, and other Middle Eastern religious groups that have been decimated by the genocide inflicted on them by Muslims.
It is high time that Muslims in America establish organizations that, while acknowledging the roots of their faith, now choose to reform that faith.

Orthodox Jews vs. Fundamentalist (Salafist) Muslims

I am writing this because of comments made to me by a friend.  Unfortunately, the friend, a Jew, apparently knew little of Jewish history.  If she did, it was not apparent when she lumped Orthodox Jews with Fundamentalist Muslims.

I know that a considerable number of ordinary, non-Orthodox Jews have a problem with Orthodox Jews.  In the U.S., when Orthodox Jews, who generally have little appreciation for a well rounded curriculum,  grow to sizable numbers in a town or community and are able to dominate that town's school system, they ruin it for non-Orthodox Jews and people of other beliefs.  They want their money to go to Orthodox religious schools and will generally do what they can to starve the public school system of funds.  That is a real problem for people of diverse backgrounds.

These ultra Orthodox Jews of whom I now speak, have been known to pray such words as, thank G-d for having made me a man.  They see little point in educating women beyond high school, unless it is to go to some sort of religious finishing school.  Marriages are often arranged.  The men will not shake hands with a woman.  Unless there has been a written prenuptial agreement, it is exceedingly difficult for a woman to obtain a divorce.

And, then too, they dress funny.  The men will wear  shtreimels (circular fur hats), or black fedoras, and always a kippah.  Under their shirts, they will wear a rectangular fabric with a hole to put one's head through.  At the corners of this garment will hang strings (tzitzit).  Some men will wear knickers and white knee socks.  They won't shave with a razor and some will let the hair in front of their ears go uncut (payes).

My friend, suggested that they were trying to dress like ancient Jews.   And, in that, she is mostly  wrong, except for the beard, the payes, and the tzitzit.  The shtreimel and the knickers (worn by some) are in honor of their their teachers in Lithuania.  Lithuania, next to Poland, was once a seat of Jewish learning and scholarship.  To honor the learned teachers of that long-ago time and place, they continue to dress as their teachers did.  (Why else wear a fur had in Israel?)

As to Orthodox women, they are to keep covered beyond their elbows.  They skirts should reach their calf or lower.  And, once married they are to keep their hair covered; generally, with a wig (sheitel).

There is more that distinguishes ultra Orthodox Jews, but you get the idea.

Muslim men who hold fundamentalist beliefs will, nevertheless, dress like most men of today.  However, they do avoid shaking hands with women.  Some will wear what resembles plain white pajamas.  But, they generally do this in places they feel comfortable.  It is not required.  They do it only because they imagine that this is how Mohammed dressed and so they too want to dress in this manner.

But it's not a particular dress that is the meaningful difference between Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Muslims.  Rather, it is how each group has modified it's beliefs since ancient times.  A basic change that came about for Jews at the time of their Babylonian exile was the development of the rabbinic class and the decline of the priestly class.  Prayers to G-d began replacing animal sacrifice.

It is true that in ancient times, Jews practiced polygamy.  However, in about the year 1000, Rabbi Gershom ben Judah issued an edict forbidding multiple marriages.  That edict, however, applied only to Jews under his jurisdiction; namely, Ashkenazi Jews (most European Jews).  Those Jews not covered were the Sephardic Jews, the Jews who at one point lived in Spain and who, after their expulsion, continued to live in Arab countries.  For the Sephardic Jews, polygamy ended in 1948 with the establishment of the State of Israel.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was replaced early on as monetary value for an eye if you took another's eye and monetary value for a tooth if you took someone's tooth.  Unfortunately, those not religious seem unaware of this.

For a fundamentalist Muslim, history has been quite different.  Yes, Turkish Muslims were expelled from Greece and Greek Christians were expelled from Turkey.  Hindus were expelled from Pakistan and Muslims were driven from their homes in India.  However, in the case of India, there is today a population of Muslims of about 20% whose people avoided expulsion.  The obverse is not true of Pakistan.

Muslims spread from Saudi Arabia throughout the Middle East and along the northern reaches of Africa.  They spread east to Iran, Afghanistan and parts of India and China.  They were never scattered in the manner of the Jews, and they never found the need to adjust to modernity other than in matters of commerce.  Their understanding of shariah taken form the Quran, the Hadith and the Sunnah has remained the same since the time of Mohammed.  This is not a problem for Muslims only  when they enter in large numbers a country and a culture that does not follow shariah or shares the cultural values of Muslims such as honor killings, polygamy, a loathing of gays, and the approval of death for apostates.

You may not like certain, or a great number, of the characteristics of Orthodox Jews, but their values are far more compatible with America's secular culture.

We've Come A Long Way in Race Relations Despite Poor Leaders

Slavery was bad.  It was horrendous.  And, in parts of the world, it still exists.  America was not unique in practicing slavery.  Half of all enslaved Africans sent to the New World were shipped to Brazil.  Roughly, three eighth were shipped to countries in the Caribbean.  Only about 12 % were shipped to America.

At the time, Europe did not have the kind of agricultural economy that would gain from slavery.  Be that as it may,  countries like England, Holland and others, with their commercial fleets, were deeply involved in buying, selling and shipping slaves.

When slavery in America ended, we still had a problem with Jim Crow laws that reflected a culture hostile to people of color.  But with leaders like Martin Luther King, Jim Crow was brought low.  And, it speaks well of America, that white Americans joined the Rev. King in this struggle.  Indeed, American religious leaders, Jews, Catholics and Protestants joined him in Selma.  Much earlier, Harriet Tubman was assisted by members of the white population in running her underground railroad.

Whites played an important role in the early days of the NAACP.  Clearly, African-Americans have borne the heavy brunt of racism in America.  But, to deny the role of white Americans in their support of black people does nothing to help America defeat racism.

This is a situation where the president seems to possess little insight.  A black man is found looking in the rear windows of a house in Cambridge.  A police officer notices the man, and asks to see his driver's license in order to establish who he is and where he lived.  The black man refuses, and so the officer brings him to the station house.

As it happened,  the black man was a Harvard professor who had misplaced his house keys and was trying to figure out how he could get into his house.  So why didn't he produce his ID?  Because he felt that he was so famous that the police officer should have recognized him for who he was, and should have known that this was his house.  Was this a reasonable attitude for the professor, or was it  simply arrogance.  Obama's solution:  Get the two men to sit down together and have a beer.  Actually, not a bad outcome.  It enabled the professor to demonstrate that he was not above having a beer with a Cambridge police officer.  That must have made the cop feel very good.

Consider the Trayvon Martin story where a black kid in a hoody gets stopped by a community watchman in an area where there had been a number of break-ins.  The watchman, by the name of Zimmerman, may not have had the coolest head, but it wasn't smart of Mr. Martin to punch him in the nose and then slam him onto the pavement.  Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Mr. Martin as he, Zimmerman, was being pummeled.

President Obama then went on TV and told America that if,  he had had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon.  But, Travon Martin's looks are not the issue.  The real question is if Obama had had a son, would he have acted like Trayvon Martin.

The airwaves were then filled by black fathers explaining how they had made clear to their sons how to act when stopped by a police officer.  I thought that was funny.  My dad never took the time to explain such a thing to me.  He didn't have to.  Not because I was white, but because I saw how he acted when in the presence of an officer.

Then we come to Ferguson, a town where an officer shot dead a black, unarmed youth by the name of Michael Brown.  Not mentioned in the initial reports was that Michael Brown was a hulking, six foot three thug who was seen on an in-store camera robbing a convenience store just before the event.  But, it wasn't robbing the store that got Mr. Brown killed.  Rather it was charging towards a police officer with his head lowered.  The officer had just gotten out of his squad car after Mr. Brown had reached into the car in an unsuccessful attempt to get the officer's pistol.  When he failed to get the gun, Mr. Brown slugged the officer through the open window of the car.  And, to think it was this scenario that led to the Black Lives Matter movement.

America racist?  We elected a black president.  We have had black jurists on the supreme court and we have black legislators in Congress.  We see more black newscasters on TV and more marriages between blacks and whites.  People should marry whomever they want, but mixed marriages can be used as one index of barriers coming down between blacks and whites.

What American has to guard itself against are the comments by race mongers like the Rev. Al Sharpton.  As for Obama, the less he says the better.