On the nature of Islam

Good old Archbishop George Pell. The Sydney Morning Herald today calls him "the country's most influential catholic", which is surely a bit of an overstatement. He is far too much of a straight talking conservative for that. I also suspect that a small majority of Catholics here (and in most western countries) are of the soft left variety now.

Anyway, he is quoted in the SMH today as saying:

Australia had not been much changed by the rising Islamic threat after September 11, 2001, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, said. But this could change depending "on how many terrorist attacks" Islamic extremists could "bring off successfully". "The million-dollar question" was whether intolerance was a modern distortion of Islam or arose out of internal logic. "It's difficult to find periods of tolerance in Islam. I'm not saying they're not there, but a good deal of what is asserted is mythical."

He obviously is not in the Karen Armstrong camp. She gave an interview in Salon recently and had this to say about the Koran and violence:

[Interviewer]: Sam Harris, in his book "The End of Faith," has seven very densely packed pages of nothing but quotations from the Quran with just this message. "God's curse be upon the infidels"; "slay them wherever you find them"; "fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." And Sam Harris' point is that the Muslim suicide bombings are not the aberration of Islam. They are the message of Islam.

[Armstrong]: Well, that's simply not true. He's taken parts of those texts and omitted their conclusions, which say fighting is hateful for you. You have to do it if you're attacked, as Mohammed was being attacked at the time when that verse was revealed. But forgiveness is better for you. Peace is better. But when we're living in a violent society, our religion becomes violent, too. Religion gets sucked in and becomes part of the problem. But to isolate these texts as though they expressed the whole of the tradition is very mischievous and dangerous at this time when we are in danger of polarizing people on both sides. And this kind of inflammatory talk, say about Islam, is convincing Muslims all over the world who are not extremists that the West is incurably Islamophobic and will never respect their traditions. I think it's irresponsible at this time.

[Interviewer]: But many people would say you can't just pick out the peaceful and loving passages of the sacred scriptures. There are plenty of other passages that are frightening.

[Armstrong]: I would say there are more passages in the Bible than the Quran that are dedicated to violence. I think what all religious people ought to do is to look at their own sacred traditions. Not just point a finger at somebody else's, but our own. Christians should look long and hard at the Book of Revelation. And they should look at those passages in the Pentateuch that speak of the destruction of the enemy.

I think Armstrong is being rather disingenuous here though; it seems she is pretending for a moment that the New Testament, which after all is the modern basis of Christianity, doesn't represent a dramatic change in the view of violence from that contained in parts of the Old Testament. (The Book of Revelation is in its own weird category of its own, and there was considerable disagreement centuries ago over whether it should be included in the Bible at all. Anyway, it's not as if Catholicism in my lifetime has ever paid it much attention. I suppose American fundamentalism pays it more attention, and this form of Christianity is what seems to annoy Armstrong the most.)

As for the correct reading of the Koran, here I am somewhat at a loss to have an independent opinion. The practical problem is, from my cursory look at the book, it seems unreadable as narrative. (I have the same reaction to the Book of Mormon. It seems to come with the territory when the book is claimed to be a direct and unalterable dictation from God. He needs an editor badly.) The Wikipedia entry on the Koran goes some way to explaining why it is so unreadable.

So what does a conservative like me do? Side with the conservative Archbishop, of course! Put it this way: I suspect he may be closer to the truth and that Armstrong, in her project to rehabilitate all religions into one (read the rest of her interview), probably sides with the softer interpretions of Islamic history because it suits her ideas better.