The Essence of Islam

Rabbi Melanie Aron

October 5, 2001

Since September 11th there has been a great deal of discussion about the nature of Islam. Is it a fundamentally violent and xenophobic religion as some have suggested, or is it a religion solely of compassion and peace, as Muslim spokespeople have insisted?

To properly answer this question, it may help to step back a little bit and think about other religions with which we are more familiar, let's say Judaism and Christianity.

Suppose someone walked into our sanctuary, opened up the Plaut Chumash and began reading Deuteronomy chapter 7:

"When the Lord your God brings you to the land you are about to enter and possess, and He dislodges many nations before you- the Hittitles, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations much larger than you- and the Lord your God delivers them to you and you defeat them, you must doom them to destruction; grant them no terms and give them no quarter."

If our hypothetical visitor concluded from this that Judaism is a religion of war and destruction we would be outraged. This chapter is primarily about religious fidelity and opposition to idol worship. These three verses have been taken out of context. And besides, they were written centuries after the Canaanites had disappeared from history and represent an aggrandized myth of the Israelites past strength written to encourage people in more difficult times to have faith in their own future. Without a historical understanding of the text, we are distorting its meaning. Besides these first three verses of Chapter 7 of Deuteronomy are hardly a central Jewish teaching. This is one text in one place, as opposed to other themes, such as "not oppressing the stranger", that are repeated over and over.

Similarly, when we consider Christian scriptures, a simple reading does not suffice to reveal the stance that Christianity takes on a variety of topics. Let's use the example of the Christian attitude toward Jews and Judaism. The same Gospel texts and letters of Paul have been read in the Church for 20 centuries. But we are all aware of the major changes in the understanding of these texts that has taken place since Vatican II. Church doctrine on responsibility for the death of Jesus and on God's relationship with the Jewish people has changed dramatically. Clearly it is not just what is in the text that matters, but also how it is understood by the religious community using the text.

I say all this by way of introduction because Islam is a religion of many texts. In addition to the Koran, Islamic teachings are found in the Hadith, collections somewhat parallel to our Jewish oral tradition which for us became the written texts of the Mishnah and Talmud, Codes and Commentaries. In spirit, the Hadith is very much like the opening chapter of Pirke Avot which traces the traditions of the rabbis, back through 1800 years of history, past the zuggot, the pairs of scholars, and the prophets, to the men of the Great Assembly, and ultimately to Moses. Traditions are handed down in Islam in the name of those they were learned from, ideally going back to their Prophet Muhammed. Some traditions are considered more binding than others based on the perceived reliability of the chain of tradition.

It is true that Islam does have teachings promising hedonist pleasures in the world to come, even explicitly in several places, of a man being rewarded with many virgins in the afterlife. But the question that is more important is how are these teachings understood? How do they operate in the lives of the faith community?

Islam like Judaism denounces suicide. Like Judaism, it also teaches martyrdom, what we in Judaism call kiddush hashem, dying for the sake of God's name. What we need to understand is how are these teachings are understood? When is a death considered suicide and when is it considered martyrdom? When is killing someone considered the killing of non-combatants which is banned, and when is it what Maimonides, the great medieval Jewish scholar, who was very familiar with Islamic teaching called in Judaism "milchemet mitzvah- a religiously mandated war," what our press currently calls jihad?

One further point- There is much discussion now of Moderate Islam versus Radical Islam. This is in a sense one of the positive results of the recent events, as before September 11th, it was very difficult to be a moderate as a Muslim cleric or scholar.

One story of which I have first hand knowledge: A friend of mine, Reuven Firestone, a professor of medieval Jewish studies, wrote a book with a Muslim colleague that was published this summer. It was an introduction to Islam for Jews and an introduction to Judaism for Muslims. Because it was a moderate book and because it was written in conjunction with a Jewish author and Jewish organization, it was completely discredited. The author was put under a death fatwa and a local member of the Muslim community, explained to me, that he was under suspicion of really being a secret Jew, so utterly was his work rejected. Professor Firestone wrote me at the time that the author Khalil Duran was "one of the few liberal Muslims who are outspoken in their condemnation of Islamic fundamentalism" and for that reason he was discredited by groups like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group which is active in our local community.

Recently, it has become very politically expedient to have moderate voices to put before the American people, and one is hearing limited public denunciation both of radical fundamentalism and of Saddam Hussein. I am hoping that these more moderate voices retain their significance in the community over time, and are not just there to do public relations work. The answer to the question of the essence of Islam, will not be found in the texts themselves, but rather in how the contemporary community chooses to understand and use them.

One additional, rambling thought.

Over the past several weeks I have spent a fair amount of time with the local Muslim community. One impression I have of the lay members of the community is that they are going through, in a sense, something similar to what the Jewish community experienced in France at the time of Napoleon. With the emancipation of the Jewish community and increased Jewish participation in French society, Jews were challenged by the French to define their relationship with the nation. The French were very suspicious of the Jews and through Napolean's convening of a Paris Sanhedrin, the Jewish community was put on the spot concerning some difficult questions. In a sense the community was being asked to trade aspects of its particularity and group cohesion for participation as equals as individuals in French society.

These are the questions the Jewish community was asked- think of them with regard to Jews in Catholic France in 1815, and in relation to assimilating Muslims in Multi-ethnic Silicon Valley in 2001.

Is it lawful for Jews to marry more than one wife?

Is divorce allowed by the Jewish religion?

Can a Jewess marry a Christian. and a Jew marry a Christian woman?

In the eyes of Jews, are Frenchmen considered as their brethren, or are they considered strangers?

What line of conduct does their law prescribe towards Frenchmen not of their religion?

Do Jews born in France and treated by the laws as French citizens, consider France their country?

Who names the rabbis?

What police jurisdiction do the rabbis exercise among the Jews and what judicial power?

Are these regulated by law or only by custom?

Are there professions that the laws of the Jews prohibit them from exercising?

Does the law forbid Jews from taking usury from fellow Jews, what about from strangers?

In some ways the Jewish community of that era traded some of the privileges of community membership for individual freedom. Western society was very attractive to the newly emancipated Jews and the vast majority of the Jewish community chose the values of tolerance, democracy, pluralism and freedom, above some of the values of traditional Jewish society, including group solidarity and loyalty. As Muslims today are being asked to make some of the same trade-offs, their calculation, even for well educated individuals, is effected by the negative attitudes toward the west in the countries from which they came, countries where democracy and freedom have not been as highly valued.