My view of Islam was profoundly affected by a trip I made to Speaker’s Corner this past summer. Speaker’s Corner is a small part of London’s Hyde Park, where any individual can begin a discourse about an issue of his or her choosing and then be challenged by the surrounding crowd. Over the course of the four hours I spent marveling at this spectacular—and, at times, disturbing—manifestation of free speech, I heard a radical Christian pastor proclaim that all non-believers were destined for hell and an imam defend the stoning of adulterers as God’s law.
However, the most shocking moment was an altercation that broke out between two groups—one Christian, one Muslim. In what eventually escalated into a shoving match, one Muslim woman shouted something at the Christian group that has stuck with me until this day: “your Christian holy texts are the work of men and therefore fallible, but the Quran is the literal word of God channeled through the illiterate prophet Muhammad.” The point I took away was probably not the one she intended to make.
The barbarism in Christian and Jewish texts—such as Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Exodus—is on par with the worse passages from the Quran. Further, biblical passages are still used to justify atrocities such as the oppression of homosexuals in Uganda, a Christian nation. However, in most Western countries, the majority of Christians and Jews do not take the Bible to be the literal word of God. In the United States, one of the more religious Western countries, only 28 percent believe the Holy Bible is the actual word of God (a number that is nevertheless too high and probably linked to much of the intolerance that exists in America).
As a result, the widespread interpretation of these holy texts in the West has evolved in order to be more consistent with classically liberal values. Indeed, the vision of the American founding fathers was deeply influenced by the Bible, but it was also highly reflective of the liberal thinking that emerged during the Enlightenment. Our founding documents reflect this ideological intersection. Thomas Jefferson, believing that the teachings of Jesus were “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man” yet disgusted by the traces of archaic tribal practices and political agendas in Christian holy texts, actually rewrote his own bible called The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.
However, this reinterpretation is more difficult with a religion that prides itself on possessing a holy text that is the eternal word of God as dictated by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. As a result, the strong majority of Muslims in parts of Africa and the Middle East believe not only that the Quran is the actual word of God, but that it should be read literally word-for-word. In 2007, 86 percent of American-Muslims said that they believed the Quran was the actual word of God, while 50 percent said it should be read literally, word for word.
Why is this problematic? Because, again, just like the Old Testament, the Quran and the Hadith condone a litany of vile practices, which include sexual slavery, beating women for disobedience and the murder of non-believers, homosexuals and female adulterers. However, when the majority of Muslims around the world believe their holy book is the eternal and perfect word of God, it is difficult to argue why one lesson must carry more moral weight than another or why one passage is less divine than another. In short, we can see how one might make the case that it is sacrilegious to select the teachings of the Quran you like and discard those that are less pleasant.
There are other features that differentiate Islam. For instance, take the moral example set by its central figure, Muhammad, whose life is “a beautiful pattern of conduct for anyone whose hope is in Allah” (33:21) according to the Quran. Unfortunately, many of ISIS’ most despicable actions follow a precedent set by Muhammad himself, who led military efforts to spread Islam and had sexual relations with the slaves he owned. It would be very difficult for a radical Christian organization (and there are many) to justify a militant effort equivalent to those of Jihadist organizations through the teachings of the meek prophet from Nazareth. While there are violent Buddhists, their actions do not reflect those of Buddha, who spent the length of his days meditating in the shade.
This helps explain why “radical Islam” is not only an appropriate term, but actually describes a much larger proportion of practitioners than the small group of jihadists. For example, even in “moderate” countries such as Malaysia and Bangladesh, 51 and 45 percent of Muslims, respectively, support stoning as the punishment for adultery and 53 and 36 percent favor using the death penalty on those who leave Islam. I encourage you to look at the rest of the data here.
There is a pressing need to reform the barbaric and archaic features that are embedded in—not "brought to," as people like Reza Aslan have claimed—the religion. Many Muslims have valiantly taken on this effort, and this should not be neglected. Further, Islam will only adapt to the norms and institutions of liberal, open societies if its practitioners can expect to reap the benefits from doing so. Therefore, Westerners must continue to reject the far right’s discriminatory policies that risk alienating those peaceful Muslims that have come to accept our values and culture. But just as non-Muslims have a responsibility to promote inclusivity and combat generalizations about Muslims, I think Muslims need to do more to bring moderation to their faith. For a religion that is unique in the authority and divinity it accords to its holy book, the introduction of a little skepticism might be the best place to start.
Julian Keeley is a Trinity junior. His column runs on alternate Tuesdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.