Idealists for Machiavelli

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Jul 05, 2008

Who knew that idealists dig Machiavelli?

In my previous post, I announced my preference for the tactics of Martin Luther King over those of Machiavelli. How naïve was that?

A lot of you, reformist Muslims and progressive non-Muslims, have written to set me straight. But you cheeky monkeys have made your arguments in rather Machiavellian ways.

First, you’ve emphasized that Martin Luther King got killed in the quest for influence whereas Machiavelli survived. You then threw one of my recent posts back at me — in which I argued why we should celebrate those who don’t die for justice.

Smart alecks. The lot of you.

Second, you’ve appealed to my weakness for biography by explaining the Machiavellian approach of other change agents, including Gandhi and Lincoln.

Sameer, a reader of this blog, writes that “Gandhi was a terrible orator. He would have never inspired anybody with his meek voice. He had to become a master of non-vocal communication. Look at how he dressed, trading in his proper English barrister’s suit for the simple rags of the Indian peasant…”

As for Abraham Lincoln? Jana quotes directly from the current issue of Newsweek magazine, whose cover story is entitled, “Lincoln Vs. Darwin: Who Matters More?” According to the essay, Lincoln “carefully cultivated a bumpkin persona that encouraged both friends and enemies to underestimate his considerable, almost Machiavellian skill as a politician.”

Almost? Try his “absolutely” Machiavellian skill. The essay goes on to say that “Lincoln’s political genius stood on two pillars: he possessed an uncanny awareness of what could be done at any given moment, and he had the ability to change his mind, to adapt to circumstances, to grow.” As I showed in my July 1 post, adaptation is exactly what Machiavelli asks of princes.

The irony is, both Gandhi and Lincoln were killed by their own — the very fate that makes many you challenge my bias for Martin Luther King over Machiavelli. Another reader, Steve, says this about Dr. King: “His demise did not help his noble cause a bit. It set the mission back many decades. I don’t want more Dr. Kings to end up the same terrible way.”

Steve is a self-professed Christian. He appreciates that even the prince of peace, Jesus, was Machiavellian; a cunning combination of lion and lamb. Yet Jesus, too, wound up crucified.

In short, having Machiavellian traits doesn’t guarantee physical survival. It might, however, ensure the endurance of one’s ideas.

Steve raises this exact point without any prompting from me. Rather than call him Machiavellian, he suggests, “compare me to Impressionist and post-Impressionist painters like Vincent Van Gogh.

When the Impressionists first showed their work and ideas to the notorious Paris Salon of the 1860s or so, there was rioting and violence all the way to the turn of the 20th century. It took a long time before their brilliance was finally accepted, then cherished. Irshad, you must go the same way.

And remember the great Jewish thinker of al-Andalus, known to the world as Moses Maimonides, who worked as both a surgeon and writer among Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. Maimonides wrote a classic called The Guide for the Perplexed, which proposed an all-important thesis: People go with what they have gotten used to and become familiar with. This is always what they will accept.

So go slowly and patiently in getting people used to the idea of ijtihad. It will not happen overnight, but it will certainly come. Of this I have no doubt. Viva ijtihad!”

Still, some doubt might be wise. Ain’t no guarantees when seeking massive social change, patiently or otherwise. Hanif, another reform-minded Muslim, lifts this illuminating passage from Machiavelli’s The Prince:

“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”

Viva ijtihad, indeed. But to avoid disillusionment, viva Machiavelli.

Machiavelli and Muslim reform

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts, Q & A on Jul 01, 2008

In the last post, I asked you to advise a struggling young Muslim reformer. She’s being threatened by local Islamists as well as by her own family. Whenever she confronts her father, she winds up self-censoring.

Her question: “How do I use my freedom of speech in a manner that will make people understand, especially when they are conservative?”

Of all the advice you’ve sent, two pieces stand out. One comes from a Muslim and the other from a non-Muslim. Both recommend that this young woman be strategic rather than straightforward. Subtle rather than direct. Machiavelli rather than Martin Luther.

Here’s the first advisor:

“Your freedom of speech can only be achieved in certain ways, such as patience… Your father, like any other Muslim father, is stubborn. Nothing wrong with that. However, he should hear you out.

Makes me remember a line in your email, ‘But no matter how conservative they are, I love my family and I want them to love me for what I believe in. I often find myself giving up when I face my father.’ I respect you for this so very much, for I believe that your giving spirit starts from within and you already have it.

Be patient and try explaining it to your dad, portion by portion. When you feel it’s intense, back off. I firmly believe that if you try once, twice and even thrice, you will not fail. Don’t lose sight of your goal.” - Huda

Machiavelli emphasized focus and prudence as much Huda does. Our next advisor echoes this line, and throws in a couple of shrewd tactics:

“I have dealt with Latin American cultures that resemble a few of the values of the Islamic world. Mexico has a concept called ‘Indirecto.’ That means it is usually more effective to communicate an idea in an indirect or roundabout way, especially if it has ramifications that are uncomfortable or offensive. One tactic is to discuss an idea in terms of a third party.

Another tactic is to gently make statements that on the surface seem quite innocent (and in line with the Quran), but in fact have deep implications in the long term, as they percolate and filter through society. An example would be to quote a saying that is popular throughout the Muslim world: “God is beautiful and He loves beauty!” Of itself, this sounds warm and friendly. But, as it is repeated, it slowly focuses their attention on a God who is far different from the one of violent jihad.

To the same end, I would revive concepts such as the ecstatic pleasure of communion with God found in Sufism and the poetry of Rumi, while shying away from overt mention of the Sufi tradition, which is unpopular among some elements of the Islamic world.

Eventually, thoughts like this will prepare the road for ijtihad. It will take some time, but it will certainly come if you are patient and don’t move too rapidly. This will be a protracted campaign of causing people to see the Universe in a new and different but unobtrusive way. There will never be any arguments or bad words, just a change of tone. A change of tone and daily language that is utterly revolutionary without anyone realizing it.” - Steve

When I first reflected on the advice of Steve and Huda, I confess to being intrigued. They show an appreciation of cunning and craft that scares the bejeezus out of most idealists. These methods make us feel dirty. They’re, well, sooo Machiavellian.

In his infamous guide to power, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli writes that “those who have been able to imitate the fox have succeeded the best. But it is necessary to disguise this character well, and to be a great feigner and dissembler, and men are so simple that one who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.”

Admittedly, such words make me shudder. I’m all for foxiness. But I hate hypocrisy.

Alright, then, what if that hypocrisy is effective in pursuing a greater good — like advancing Muslim reform and moral courage?

At this point, Machiavelli would tell a young Muslim reformer to read his book more closely. Although he underscores “caution” and “prudence,” Machiavelli also advises not to get comfortable with that approach: “if it happens that time and circumstances are favorable to one who acts with caution and prudence, he will be successful. But if time and circumstances change, he will be ruined because he does not change his mode of procedure.”

Welcome to the trap for reform-minded Muslims. Most of us have been so timid in an effort to avoid offending that we don’t know how to change our “mode of procedure” when a crisis is at hand.

To get back to the young woman who needs your advice, don’t you think that being threatened by local Islamists – with no support from her own family – qualifies as a crisis?

Does she truly have time on her side, as Steve and Huda suggest?

Should she really remain “patient”?

I say no. In all honesty, I don’t know what Machiavelli would have said. But another brilliant strategist, Martin Luther King Jr., said this to eight of his fellow clergymen when they counseled him to back off, go slow and lower the tension with whites:

“Actually, we who engage in non-violent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out into the open where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured as long as it is covered up but must be open with all its pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must like be exposed, with all the tension its exposing creates, to the light of human conscience…”

King ended his statement by asking the clergy to forgive him for any “unreasonable impatience.” He then asked God to forgive him for exhibiting patience with anything less than full justice.

Now you know why, when advising young Muslim reformers, I prefer a particular King to The Prince.

Your advice, please

Posted in Q & A on Jun 27, 2008

You’re always great at giving advice when I bring you dilemmas, whether my own or that of other readers.

Remember the American soldier who wanted to know the best way to serve Iraqis?

And the Muslim cabbie who showed excellent customer service — until he began spewing conspiracy theories about the genocide in Sudan?

Here’s a fresh problem that I need your help to address. It comes from a reform-minded Muslim student who attended my film screening in Indonesia:

“Irshad, my home town is Solo, Central Java.  This is also the home of the National Majaheddin Council, a radical Islamist organization. 

Since 2005, I have been participating in a youth group to promote Islamic reform and pluralism. We do this by producing and distributing publications in many universities throughout Solo.

We face so many challenges.  A couple of years ago, we tried to organize a seminar on pluralism and received phone calls saying they would send hundreds of Allah’s soldiers to stop us.

My family is also very conservative. They will send me threatening letters whenever I get my work published. Recently, I was highly disappointed by a relative who is also a local imam.  He became involved in one of the terrorist groups. He is now in jail, leaving a wife and son without proper care.  What kind of jihad is that?

But no matter how conservative they are, I love my family and I want them to love me for what I believe in.  I often find myself giving up when I face my father.  Then I lie.  I don’t speak my mind. I don’t want to hurt him and I don’t want him to hurt me because I don’t want to hate him.

So how can we get along?  How do I use my freedom of speech in a manner that will make people understand, especially when they are conservative?”

Over to you, dear readers.  Please email me your advice.

To get your compassionate, creative juices flowing, you might want to review the guidance that you gave in previous situations.  Click here and here.

The anti-death threat

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts, On The Road on Jun 23, 2008

June 2008: Leaving Germany’s Council on Foreign Relations. Which one is my bodyguard? Guess again. (Photo: Ann Snyder)

In my previous post, I asked you to sign a statement against death threats. Now this from a reader:

“I am sending you the anti-death threat. This is a life wish. I wish you much happiness and joy in your life, and I hope that you will live long enough to see some of the change that you advocate for.” - Beth

The “life wish.” What a great antidote to the death threat.

It’s gotten me thinking about what we, as humans, instinctively focus on when we celebrate courage. So often — maybe too often — we lionize those who are killed in the pursuit of justice: Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Robert F. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Joan of Arc, Dietrich Bonhoeffer…

But what about those who fight injustice and survive? Aren’t the survivors at least as important as the martyrs? After all, survivors show us that our choice is not between living and dying, but between living and lying.

Dr. Susan Neiman, a philosopher who runs the Berlin-based Einstein Forum, recently wrote about this theme. She says that in commemorating the Holocaust, Germany “has chosen its resistance heroes, and it has chosen them wrong.

Every child here knows the names of Hans and Sophie Scholl, college students who were guillotined for distributing anti-Nazi pamphlets. Tom Cruise has added his fame to a new film about Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg, the oft-sung leader of a group of officers hanged for their failed attempt on Hitler’s life.

The courage of such people should not be forgotten, but the message their stories convey is grim: their deeds cost them their lives, and accomplished nothing. It’s a message that comforts the millions of Germans who didn’t try to oppose the regime.”

That’s a crucial point. Martyrdom in pursuit of the greater good may inspire us, but the inspiration lasts for a flash. Then we return to our daily existence, either relieved that we’re off the hook for doing nothing or depressed that doing “something” means dancing with death.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Dr. Neiman tells the story of a little-known yet highly successful act of resistance against Hitler’s henchmen:

“In 1943, when the Nazis were undecided about whether to deport and murder Jewish spouses of non-Jews, they tested the waters by rounding up nearly 2,000 Jewish men whose non-Jewish wives had already withstood considerable government pressure to divorce them.

These wives spontaneously gathered in front of the building in Rosenstrasse where their husbands were being held. For one long week they refused to leave the little square in central Berlin, despite the Gestapo machine guns trained upon them.

It’s often said that non-violent resistance worked for Gandhi and Martin Luther King because their oppressors were civilized; the governments of Britain and the United States could be bested by the moral courage of their opponents, while totalitarian regimes simply shoot them. This not only underestimates the evils of racism, but also our possibilities of combating them.

For in Berlin’s Rosenstrasse, the police backed down. The men were released. They and their families survived. And in a country that devotes so much time and energy to commemorating the victims, these brave women remain anonymous; all that really marks their story is a small, clay-colored memorial in a park that few Berliners know.

Seeing it moves many to tears. But what’s tragic are not these heroes, but the fact that there were not more. Others were deterred less by Nazi terror than by a much older message: heroic action is futile, and mostly ends in death, besides.

After all these years, isn’t it time to send a message to Germany’s children — and everyone else’s — that will help them stand up against present evils as well as mourning past ones?”

Bravo.

That’s why a few months after my book came out, I ditched my bodyguards. The death threats continue to this day, but I stand by my decision. If I’m going to convince young Muslims that it’s possible to challenge dogma and live, I can’t have a big burly guy (or gal) looking out for me everywhere I go.

So far, so good. I’m still alive (yes, it really is me blogging). More than that, every once in a while I hear from a young Muslim who says he or she wants to help the campaign for ijtihad because “you’re sincere.”

Translation: Despite the death threats, this mission for Muslim reform isn’t driven by a messiah complex or the glamour of danger. It’s driven by gratitude for the freedoms that most of our globe doesn’t yet have.

So I intend to keep living — and living on my feet as a free woman, not on my knees as a cloistered damsel in dissent.

Which brings me back to my petition against death threats. From Indonesia to Venezuala, from Syria to Malaysia to India to America, from Kabul to Istanbul, a lot of you have recently signed. To see all the new names, cities and countries, click here and scroll down.

Keep adding your signatures, if not for yourselves then for the generations to whom you’re bequeathing this planet.

When Beth sent me the “anti-death threat,” she added this: “I have a 14-year-old daughter whom I very much want to form her own opinions and feel empowered to impact the world around her.” The anti-death threat might achieve that for millions more children.

Making the freedom struggle “a little more real”

Posted in Q & A on Jun 20, 2008

From a reader:

“Just wanted to let you know that I signed the petition against death threats. I must confess that deciding to sign did give me pause for a moment. It made the struggle a little more real for someone like me, who’s not in the public eye and taking the heat.

I’m proud to add my name to the list and I thank you for allowing me to be included. It’s sad that in the 21st century, such a statement would be necessary. Perhaps one day because of your work, love and tolerance will win out over prejudice and hate.” - Patrick

Okay, people, Saint Patrick has spoken. How about you?

Sign this open letter and show violent jihadis that we don’t fear them.

Nor are we manipulated by the politicians who want us to fear them.

Above all, we refuse to be intimidated by Muslim countries that are pushing the United Nations to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Bollocks to them all! By signing this statement for individual liberty, human rights and secular values, you and I embrace the freedom to think, express and challenge.

That’s the stuff of moral courage. And of a meaningful life.

In my next blog post, you’ll see the updated list of signatures from around the world. Hope to find your name and city on it.

Stand up for Indonesia

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Jun 15, 2008

 

What freedom of belief looks like in Indonesia 

In the world’s biggest Muslim country — a country whose constitution expressly promotes “unity in diversity” — freedom of belief is under serious attack.

For the past week, Indonesian Muslims have been writing to me in outrage. They’re angry not only about the erosion of religious tolerance in their secular state, but also about the rising violence of the so-called Islamic Defenders Front (FPI).

The FPI and other Islamists have convinced (or intimidated) Indonesia’s democratically elected government to impose restrictions on a minority sect of Muslims, the Ahmadiyah.

What makes the Ahmadiyah so threatening? They believe that Muhammad is not the final prophet.

Heresy!

Blasphemy!

Never mind that when Islamists put the Prophet Muhammad on a pedestal, they’re effectively worshipping a human being and engaging in idolatry — which is the ultimate heresy in Islam because it challenges the final authority of God Himself.

But that’s just a silly detail to Islamists. Any Indonesian who openly advocates tolerance of the Ahmadiyah is thus a target of Islamist wrath.

Which is why, earlier this month in Jakarta, the FPI crashed a peaceful rally for religious pluralism. They injured a dozen people, prompting many more Indonesians to write me and plead that I shine a spotlight on what’s going on.

What’s really going on is an epic struggle between faith and dogma. Faith is secure enough to handle questions. Faith never needs to be threatened by questions. Dogma, on the other hand, is always threatened by questions because dogma, by definition, is rigid and brittle. It commands conformity, fears diversity and snaps under the weight of doubt.

The FPI’s violence, along with their movement to ban the Ahmadiyah, only shows how insecure the faith of Islamists actually is.

To be sure, the Ahmadiyah have dogmatists too. In my own country of Canada, Ahmadiyah spokespeople have vociferously condemned my book, characterizing the questions in it as a form of anti-Muslim hatred. Fear knows neither irony nor shame.

Still, being denounced by the spokespeople of any Muslim sect won’t stop me from advocating religious freedom for them — as long as they practice their religion without violence. As a Muslim, I believe that only God possesses the full Truth. So while I’m on this earth, I have to embrace my limited knowledge and help foster an environment in which we can disagree with each other in peace and civility. That’s not just an act of humility. It’s an act of faith — faith, that is, in the ultimate wisdom of the Creator.

If any Muslim country can cultivate such an environment, it’s got to be Indonesia. Here’s a young electoral democracy with a vibrant civil society and a constitution that enshrines humanitarian principles.

At the same time, it’s a country struggling to emerge from the habits of authoritarianism after decades of dictatorship, Dutch colonization and now, Saudi imperialism. The Wahhabis are investing big dollars in Indonesia’s Islamists, leading to the spread of tribal customs — including violence — in the name of Islam.

The people of Indonesia offer something infinitely greater to Islam than Arabia’s desert does. After all, Indonesia has 17,000 islands, more than 300 ethnicities, scores of languages and a demonstrated history of co-existence among Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists. In short, Indonesia represents the pluralistic promise of Islam.

Around the world, reform-minded Muslims and our non-Muslim allies need to support Indonesians in their fight to maintain religious tolerance. Their success matters to our own security and humanity. As I say in my book, “the stakes demand a cross-cultural vision.”

How can you help? Sign this petition against Islamist death threats and show that you’re ready to stand up for secularism, freedom of conscience and universal human rights.

Then get more informed:

* Read my additional observations about Indonesia here and here. Also worthwhile is this article published by YaleGlobal Online.

* My recent book launch in Jakarta generated a lot of media coverage, which I’ve posted here and here.

* If you prefer watching a TV interview, click here. I speak in English and sub-titles appear on-screen.

* People relate to people, so pix matter too. Here’s my Indonesian photo album. Enjoy the inspiring smiles of the people I met in Jakarta and Jogjakarta.

* Download, for free, the Indonesian translation of my book.

One final action: Ask your friends and family to sign the anti-death threat petition.

Use this blog entry to educate them about the fact that in so many ways, Indonesia’s future is our future.

A jihadi and a Bushie walk into a bar…

Posted in Q & A on Jun 10, 2008

The other day, somebody emailed an interesting question:

“Irshad, read this story about a jihadist lady who lives in Europe.  She blogs about the need to destroy the West.  She acts within the law, which makes her non-violent, and she seems willing to accept public disapproval for what she believes in.

Why don’t you select her as an agent of moral courage? By your own definition, moral courage is about speaking truth to power for the sake of a greater good.” - Amin

Gold star for the effort, Amin.  Love that you’re thinking about these things, bro. But the blogger you’re wondering about, Malika El-Aroud, is no agent of moral courage. Here’s why:

1) What “truth” is the sister speaking? Fact is, more Muslims have been tortured, raped, imprisoned, maimed and murdered at the hands of other Muslims than by any foreign imperial power.

That’s not to deny Western colonization.  It’s to point out that colonization comes in many skin shades, including Islamist colonization of other Muslims.

For example, in Sudan, Black Muslims are starved, raped, enslaved and slaughtered by Arab militias, all with the consent of an “Islamic” government. Where’s Malika’s fury against that genocide? Do Muslim lives count only when snuffed out by non-Muslims?

2) Moral courage requires you not only to speak truth, but to speak it within your own community.  That’s far more intimidating than pointing fingers at the nameless, faceless enemies of the outside.

When you indict outsiders, you can wear your indictment as a badge of honor.  “Look!” Malika effectively tells her jihadi readers.  “Look what I’m doing to stand up for Us against Them.  I know where I belong.”

Far riskier, emotionally and otherwise, to call out injustice within your tribe.  At that point, the security blanket of instant belonging disappears. Sister Malika ain’t going there.

For Malika to have moral courage, she needs to tell her anti-American, anti-Israel brethren the truth about what Muslims are doing to one another.  Beyond the genocide in Darfur, there’s this:

* in Pakistan, Sunnis target Shiites every day;

* in northern Israel, Katuysha rockets launched by Hezbollah have ripped through the homes of Arab Muslims; and

* in Egypt, the riot police of President Hosni Mubarak routinely club, rape, torture, and murder Muslim democracy activists. Read more from a young Egyptian.

3) What “greater good” is Malika striving to achieve? The defense of Muslims?  Please.  If this woman cared about fellow believers, she would take the $1,100 monthly welfare check that she gets from the Belgian government and donate part of it to Iraqi war widows.

Watch this news story about the 2 million widows of Iraq.  It points out that they receive a maximum of $41/month from their government.

Maybe Malika should learn from Scott McClennan, George W. Bush’s former spin doctor.  He’s the author of What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What’s Wrong with Washington.

On June 1, McClellan told NBC’s Tim Russert that he plans to donate a portion of his book royalties to families of the Iraq war victims — the very people hurt by McClellan’s lies when he was selling the war.

How does this situation compare to Malika’s? Many of Iraq’s women have been made widows by Muslim insurgents, the people whom Malika is encouraging in her blog posts.

You know you’re pathetic when a Bushie has more integrity than you.

But let’s not end on such a negative note.  Many Muslims in Europe qualify as agents of moral courage.  Here’s a video about Hind Fraihi, a young Muslim woman who shares Belgian citizenship with Malika.

Unlike Malika, Hind gives hope to both Islam and the West.

Sunday appearance on CNN

Posted in Announcements on Jun 08, 2008

Today, I’ll be on CNN’s new program, Fareed Zakaria GPS (which stands for “Global Public Square”). Hosted by the editor of Newsweek International, it’s a world affairs chat show that airs in America — and well beyond.

This week, the show will start with FZ interviewing Salman Rushdie (who, by the way, tracked me down in the make-up room and blurted, “What happened to your purple hair?” I told Salman that I never went purple, despite NYU’s official colors. He then issued a fatwa on my pitch-black spikes and encouraged me to rediscover radicalism. Spoken like a good infidel.)

After Rushdie comes my panel. I’m joined by CNN’s senior international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, Mexico’s former foreign minster Jorge Castaneda and Israel’s Natan Sharansky.

Closing the show will be FZ’s one-on-one with Henry Kissinger who, frankly, could use a few purple streaks.

The program airs in America at 1 pm Eastern and on CNN International at various times throughout the day. In Asia, you’ll see it in prime time. Confirm through your local TV listings.

To view other recent CNN appearances, choose from my interview about Benazir Bhutto, my discussion about sex, greed and US politics, or my debate with a Catholic activist.

And for the die-hards, check out IrshadManjiTV.

Bobby Kennedy rocks a new generation

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Jun 05, 2008

Bobby Kennedy (Courtesy: Wiki Commons)

There’s something poetic, unnerving, or both about the fact that Barack Obama has secured the Democratic presidential nomination in the same week as we’re remembering Robert F. Kennedy.

Friday marks the 40th anniversary of Bobby Kennedy’s assassination. Hillary Clinton took an absurd amount of flak for mentioning him and the month of June in one breath, but I’m doing so because I believe Bobby still rocks – maybe more than ever…

Read the rest of my commentary in The Huffington Post.

A question of love (actually, many questions)

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Jun 03, 2008

In my previous post, I told you about Mark, a Christian, who fell in love with “Hala,” a Muslim. She left him when he refused to leave his own religion for Islam.

But does someone always have to get hurt in a relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims? No.  I’ve explained why, with the help of a scholar named Imam Khaleel Mohammed.

You’ve responded in one of two ways: deep cynicism or profound hope.

The cynics tend be blunt.  Take James: “I often find these interfaith relationships really annoying, and usually its the non-muslim that ends up being the door mat or holding the bag.  If Mark wanted to marry a muslim he should have already have been one before meeting her.”

What does Mark say? Like others of you, he’s optimistic about the future of inter-faith marriage — despite nursing a broken heart: “As a young man, my father went through an experience similar to mine with a Catholic woman.  Now, Catholic-Protestant marriages hardly merit a second glance. 

My sister and Jewish brother-in-law’s marriage would have been highly frowned upon, if not forbidden, 50 years ago.  I have no doubt that within my generation, marriages between Muslim women and non-Muslim men will gain acceptance.  And it will be thanks to the efforts of farsighted people like you and Imam Khaleel.”

While I embrace and encourage Mark’s positive energy,  I owe him a reality check: Interfaith marriage is still discouraged — sometimes intensely — in many Jewish communities.  You see this even in America.

That’s because Jews worry about their dwindling numbers.  With only 14 million Jews worldwide, their entire population is smaller than most Muslim minority sects. If Jewish men are marrying non-Jewish women, goes the argument, then what does it mean to preserve and protect the Jewish people?

In the spirit of the Talmud, let me raise more questions:

Is a “people” the same thing as a “tribe”?

Is cultural, national or religious survival about pro-creating or is it about being creative in other ways — or both? 

If it’s rational to stick with your own, can rationality sometimes amount to bigotry?

Love. It stinks. Especially when it forces you to think.

Pages (18): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next ... Last »