
Saturday, 31 July 2010
What is a Mosque? An Interview with Sam Solomon
by Jerry Gordon (August 2010)
Gordon: Greetings Mr. Solomon and thank you for consenting to this interview. Let us start with the simple question, what is a mosque and what is its basic function in the Muslim community?
Solomon: A mosque, totally unlike a church or a synagogue, serves the function of orchestrating and mandating every aspect of “life” in a Muslim community from the religious, to the political, to the economic, to the social, to the military. In Islam, religion and life are not separate. They are indivisible. more>>>
Posted on 07/31/2010 2:57 PM by NER
Comments
1 Aug 2010
DickTheTruth
TAX THE MOSQUES!
Think it can't be done? Read on:
***************
Religious Tax Exemptions vs. Government Policies
Most people are aware that a church or religious organization can lose their tax exempt status for engaging in partisan political activity, like endorsing a political candidate. What many aren't aware of, though, is that the same can happen for promoting or engaging in things contrary to government policy. Tax exemption is a privilege, not a right.
***********
Islam totally rejects the separation of church and state. What could be more "contrary" to government policy than that?
11 Aug 2010
Irfan Khawaja
Like so much published on this subject in New English Review, this interview is almost surreal in its nonsensicality. Since it would take hours to contest every absurd claim in it, let me just confine myself to the first few assertions in the first few sentences.
Solomon begins by telling us that "a mosque" differs from "a church or a synogogue" because in Islam, religion and life are not distinct, whereas in Christianity and Judaism, they are.
A first and most obvious problem: even if Solomon's claim about "the function of a mosque" were true, what proportion of the actual, physical mosques in existence live up to his notional specifications? Solomon not only offers no evidence to answer this question, he seems not to grasp that evidence is needed.
If I tell you that there is a mosque on such and such street in such and such town in (say) New Jersey, how does that fact by itself tell you that that mosque conceives of its (one single) function according to Sam Solomon's specifications? It obviously doesn't, unless you think that every actual mosque corresponds to the Solomonic definition of a mosque. But I'm afraid reality doesn't work that way: it isn't malleable to definitions, no matter how Solomonic. Reality just is what it is, and if you want to discover facts about it instead of making them up, you have to investigate the actual world. You can't just wield idealized definitions and insist that the world must necessarily live up to them. Facts are stubborn things.
The hard fact is, the founders of a given mosque might well conceive of its function in a more circumscribed way than Solomon suggests. Even if, by Islamic strictures, they are wrong to conceive the mosque as they do, the fact remains that they might conceive of it as governing a part of life rather than the whole of it. In the absence of actual information about how a given mosque actually operates, there is no way to infer that a given mosque conforms to Solomon's definition. Given this obvious fact, and given the conspicuous absence of information on the workings of actual mosques in this interview, Solomon's musings about mosques are pretty close to worthless--worthless, at any rate, if one's concern is to know how real-live mosques really function.
Now consider Solomon's claim that Islam is unique in regulating its adherents' lives in the totalistic fashion suggested by the diagram at the outset of the interview. The claim is utterly preposterous. I wonder what Solomon thinks of St Thomas Aquinas's contention that happiness is man's ultimate end--the ultimate, all-encompassing object of his desires--and that happiness "consists in God alone." Quoting Augustine: "As the soul is the life of the body, so God is man's life of happiness, concerning whch it is said, 'Happy is that people whose God is the Lord'" (Psalms 143:15). That comes from Aquinas Summa Theologiae I-II, Q2, sed contra (but notice the references to Augustine and the Old Testament, intended to indicate a continuity between Aquinas's thought and the rest of the Judeo-Christian tradition). And there's plenty more where that came from.
Has Solomon ever read Aquinas, or heard of him? I'd think that reading Aquinas would be a necessary condition of making claims about the "uniqueness" of Islam vis-a-vis "Western" religion (whatever "Western" means). Aquinas's claims imply precisely that life is encompassed by religion in just the way that Solomon ascribes uniquely to Islam. That implies that the function of a church is precisely as all-encompassing as the supposed function of a mosque. That's why Aquinas thinks that even the "tiniest" details of life can be regulated by religion--and it's why he laid out the regulations in excruciating detail, at least for anyone who's bothered to read them. Aquinas has been echoed in this regard by centuries of papal encyclicals to the tune of thousands of pages of regulations, including the encyclical Aeterni Patris, which enjoins Catholic teachers to "endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others." Another word for that last prescription is "indoctrination," and I can tell you from ample first-hand experience that it's precisely what happens in Catholic churches, schools, and community centers all around the world.
So Islam is far from unique in its totalistic claims, and mosques are far from unique in their aspirations to the regulation of human life. Incidentally, I'd be curious to know whether Solomon thinks that the average Muslim American (or even the average Muslim American imam) conceives of Islam in a more totalistic fashion than the average orthodox or Hasidic Jew. What for instance does he think of the town of Kiryas Joel, NY--a town named for and founded by a rabbi, and created as a special municipal district precisely so that Satmar Hasidim could practice a lifestyle governed entirely by Jewish law? If he's against mosques, would he be in favor of dismantling Kiryas Joel? How about dismantling its synagogue?
But suppose that mosques--all of them--really are totalistic in their claims. Does Solomon think that that fact by itself indicates criminality or illegality? If so, how? I'd appreciate an answer consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
As a general point, I can't forbear from saying that New English Review has increasingly come to function as a forum devoted not to the legitimate critique of Islam or Islamism but to one for the legitimization of rumors, rights violations, and double standards. Keep it up, and you will quickly earn the enmity of people like me--atheist critics of Islam--who might otherwise have been your allies. (Well, in my case, you already have earned it.) For years now, you've been waving the bloody shirt of terrorism in our faces and expecting us to acquiesce in an agenda that normalizes rights violations against Muslims. Just to put you on notice--not all of us have acquiesced, and some of us never will.
12 Aug 2010
Rebecca Bynum
Dear Dr. Khawaja,
I believe you're confused as to what religion actually is and continue to think that all religion is like Islam. It isn't. Islam is unique and while it has religious aspects, it is much more a social-poliitcal system than other religions are. That is the simple truth of the matter. Religion, rightly defined, is the search for living value and institutions of religion should be designed to help the individual in that pursuit. Islam is not designed that way - Islam is designed to enforce conformity to itself. Islam has no higher purpose than its own perpetuation. Islam acts as a substitute God and recognizes no higher value than itself. Therefore, it is not a religion like other religions. Therefore, it should not be protected and given exemptions as a religion under our Constitution. That is my opinion, but not necessarily the opinion of others at NER.
12 Aug 2010
Irfan Khawaja
To Rebecca Bynum:
I don't think I'm the least bit confused about anything. But I think you're confused about what counts as a response to what I wrote. I made a number of claims, and you've skirted most of them.
My first objection was: does an idealized definition of "the function of a mosque," whether true or false, provide information about what happens in actual mosques? I said "no." What is your view?
As for the uniqueness of Islam, your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that "religion" and "socio-political system" are exclusive categories. They aren't, and they never have been. Webster's New World College Dictionary defines "religion" as "a) a belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe, b) expression of such belief in conduct and ritual." That's a pretty standard definition, and no part of it excludes the possibility that divine powers offer socio-political prescriptions or that religious conduct and ritual involves politics.
Nor historically have Judaism or Christianity ever been apolitical. The Torah is God's law for a Jewish polity, and observant Jews take it just that way. The Book of Esther provides socio-political prescriptions for the Jewish diaspora, and Jews in the diaspora have interpreted it that way. Hard to say that either thing is apolitical. As for Christianity, every Christian church has a social teaching, and most if not all Christian denominations--in an unbroken line from Constantine to George W. Bush--have done their best to align themselves with some state so that the state might protect them, further their interests, and do their dirty work for them.
The most obvious (but not the only) example is the Catholic Church, which has left a paper trail of encyclicals and other documents thousands of pages long that leave no doubt in the matter. No one can read a single one of these encyclicals or treatises and claim, as you do, that Christianity is innocent of political aspirations. You don't say a word about the quotations from Aquinas I offered. But I could offer literally thousands more. Have you ever read Aquinas on kingship or on natural law and the common good (or for that matter, on the suppression of heresy)? Those texts flatly contradict everything you have to say about the uniqueness of Islam. Nor can anyone say that Aquinas is a marginal figure in Church history. I've focused on him because the Church has explicitly given him the title of Doctor of the Catholic Church, and recommended his doctrines to the faithful. And as someone who's spent more than two decades in Catholic higher education, I think I'm well qualified to say from first-hand experience that the faithful have listened.
As for Islam's being uniquely designed to enforce conformity to itself and its having no higher purpose than its own perpetuation, that could be said of every evangelizing and proselytizing religion, including Christianity, and most especially including Catholic Christianity. To prove this, all you need to do is to watch about half an hour of EWTN or listen to about as much of a good sermon in any Protestant church worth its salt. But if you want something more determinate, make your way through John Paul II's encyclical Fides et Ratio whose very thesis is that the Catholic Church is the exclusive repository of God's truth, a truth that passes all understanding, and yet must be put into practice--including political practice, as the Church's socio-political encyclicals make clear. The Church, we're repeatedly told, is "sure of her competence as the bearer of the Revelation of Jesus Christ," and that revelation is the only and exclusive means of salvation. And the world, the Church has always insisted, must be structured, politically, so as to facilitate the claims of revelation. That's why there is such a thing as Catholic social teaching, natural law, and all the rest. All of this is primer Catholic doctrine and all of it contradicts your conception of religion.
And it's just the tip of the iceberg. Judaism may not be an evangelizing religion, but in the form of Zionism, it's surely as political as Islam, and as tenacious in its claims to perpetuate its hold on power. One look at the power of orthodox Jewry in Israel should dispel any illusions about Islam's unique desire for "conformity." Not to mention my unanswered challenge about Kiryas Joel. Try being a dissenter in Kiryas Joel and see how far you get. Indeed, try being a non-Jewish dissenter to the annexationist politics of Kiryas Joel and see how hard it is to get very far. Just to be clear: there is no "Muslim municipality" in America, but there is a Jewish one, and its whole (explicitly political) mission revolves around staying that way. Have the Jews of Kiryas Joel not defined Judaism rightly?
As for Islam's acting as a "substitute God," what could be more like that than the very quotation from Aquinas I gave, which holds that God is literally equivalent to Aquinas's definition of happiness (felicitas)? And what could resemble that more than the Catholic Church's ratification of Aquinas's philosophy in Aeterni Patris?
Last point: Even if Islam was unique, that by itself wouldn't prove that it shouldn't be protected. Nothing in the First Amendment demands that religion X be like religions Y and Z in order to deserve constitutional protection. Anyway, I am not in favor of giving Islam any special legal exemptions--e.g., like the ones already given to the Amish, the Satmar Hasidim, and many, many other Jewish and Christian denominations in the US. (Few cities in America lobby the federal government more for special exemptions and money than Kiryas Joel, NY which was the subject of a Supreme Court case on the subject.)
But I am in favor of giving Muslim Americans the full protections of the US Constitution, including the First and Fourth Amendments. Having said that, I appreciate the candor of a Publisher and Senior Managing Editor of NER as being on record as saying she isn't in favor of Muslim Americans having the protection of the US Constitution. If others at NER disagree with that, I eagerly await their weighing in on the topic and saying so.
12 Aug 2010
Rebecca Bynum
I didn't think I would have to point out the obvious, but apparently I do. Aquinas is not Jesus, nor is the Catholic Church a faithful representative of Jesus on earth. Jews do not impose Jewish observance or "law" on non-Jews. Nevertheless, both these religions endeavor to bring man to God or higher value - to Love. Islam does not do this. Islam creates a wedge between man and his own spiritual nature. Islam hardens the heart and asks men to commit immoral acts in its name. Morality is actually defined in Islam as what it good for Islam and Muslims as a whole. A more amoral definition of morality could not be found. Islam is not a religion in any meaningful sense of the word. Islam is a movement, Islam is a system. Islam is not a religion.
13 Aug 2010
Irfan Khawaja
I think you've not only forgotten the original topic of discussion here, but forgotten your own contribution to it.
The topic was whether Islam is unique among religions. Your claim was that it is. My claim was that it wasn't. I offered the example of Aquinas to show that Islam is not unique. To this you offer the obscure and irrelevant response that Aquinas is not Jesus. Very correct, but totally besides the point. The point is not whether Aquinas is Jesus, but whether Aquinas is a Christian whose conception of Christianity shares with Islam precisely what you claim that all true religions lack. I take it that in repudiating Aquinas and Catholicism (in a rather takfiri fashion), you're conceding my point: Aquinas's Christianity (and Catholicism generally) does resemble Islam in those respects. In that case, of course, I was right all along: Islam is not unique as a religion.
I don't deny that you can find a way to get out of this dialectical mess (of your own making). One way to do it would be to deny that Aquinas is a Christian and that the Catholic Church is an authentically Christian Church. (If that's what you're saying, I'm curious what religion you think Aquinas and the current Pope profess.) Another would be to deny that Thomistic Christianity is an authentic religion. I guess a third way might be to brand Aquinas a closet Muslim. Take your pick.
You seem to think that the point you're making is "obvious," but on the most obvious construal, it's downright ridiculous. The most obvious construal of your remark about Jesus is that you're literally equating Christianity with the acts and assertions of Jesus of Nazareth. In that case, since Jesus didn't write the Gospels, none of the Gospels would be Christian books. Since none of the apostles were Jesus, none of the apostles (including Peter) were Christians. Since St. Paul wasn't Jesus, the Pauline Letters are not Christian. Since the Church Fathers weren't Jesus, none of their writings are Christian. Since the Trinity was not enunciated by Jesus, it's not a Christian doctrine. Since Jesus didn't celebrate Christmas, Christmas is not a Christian holiday. Feel free to understand Christianity in this way, but bear in mind that almost no one else does. And since they don't, it's of no help to invoke your idiosyncratic version of Christianity to claim that Islam is unique among world religions.
As for Judaism, no, Jews don't impose Jewish observance on non-Jews. According to the Torah, they're merely called on to expropriate and exterminate them so that they can impose Jewish observance on one another! By that standard, forced conversion might seem merciful. I see that you still haven't looked into the politics of Kiryas Joel, where (as I've said before) Jews are precisely making political impositions on non-Jews. And I had to laugh when you accused Islam of "hardening the heart." That phrase, after all, comes straight from Exodus: it was God who hardened Pharoah's heart so as to cause him to prevent the Jews from leaving Egypt. But I guess he did it out of love.
As for the God of "love," I leave it to you to explain how God's love is compatible with his killing the first born of Egypt, with indiscriminate plagues, with commandments to commit genocide, with routine prescriptions of collective punishment for minor infractions (is it loving to kill 3000 people for worshiping a golden calf?). "You shall not suffer a witch to live," God tells us. I think that goes beyond hating the witchcraft and into hating the witch. Never mind God's millenial achievements of ordering one father to kill his son for no reason other than his(God's) say-so, and then sending his "only" son (or himself, however one wants to put it) to be crucified for the sins of others. And never mind the ultimate absurdity of creating Satan in the foreknowledge of the evil that would be brought into existence as a result. If this is love, I'd hate to see hate.
As for Islam's uniqueness as a "system," the American Heritage Dictionary asserts (sv "religion") that all religions are "systems." I just picked up a book by Michael Fishbane called Judaism: Revelation and Traditions. Chapter II is called "Judaism as an Ideological System," and Chapter III is "Judaism as a Ritual System." Does this prove that Judaism not a religion? Or does it prove that Michael Fishbane, Samuel Lane Professor of Jewish Religious History and Social Ethics at Brandeis University, is actually a Muslim?
19 Aug 2010
Vladtepesblog
Excellent interview. Very familiar though. I think you might get the audio of it here, when it was done, June 7 in Ottawa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDs-hCIL_wM
28 Aug 2010
Rebecca Bynum
Dear Mr. Kwaja, You can take issue with my book when it comes out. I assert that Islam is 1) very primitive and 2) quite unique among religions as we know them in the modern world. And 3) I do not believe our Founding Fathers had Islam in mind when they went about framing the Constitution. All the best, even in disagreement, Rebecca
7 Sep 2010
JEONG CHUN PHUOC
Would Sam Solomon's comment/opinion in "What is a Mosque? An Interview with Sam Solomon" also applies to the Christina context of "What is a Church? "
..................................
Jeong Chun phuoc
7 Sep 2010
Jeong Chun phuoc
"CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF MUSLIMS IN THE US"
Although the Founding Fathers of America did not forsee a muslim entity/establishment in the US, the constitutional rights and the 1st Amendment,etc guarantee equal rights to all US citizens without distinction whether he or she is a Jew , a muslim or an atheist.
The United States of America being a melting pot of countless cultures must acknowledge that this ethnic uniqueness in fact has contributed to the emergence of the uS as the world super power-drawing its strength from the prestige of its august Constitution as a Role Model of true democracy.
..................................
Jeong Chun phuoc
7 Sep 2010
Jeong Chun phuoc
Would Sam Solomon's comment/opinion in "What is a Mosque? An Interview with Sam Solomon" also applies to the Christian context of "What is a Church? " or the Jewish context of "What is a Synagogue?"
..................................
Jeong Chun phuoc
|
|
|