LITERALLY LOONY

Blogger and former Sydney Morning Herald journalist Antony – no "h" – Loewenstein is writing a book (follow link and scroll down to "The way forward is alternative") about Israel/Palestine, to be published by Melbourne University Press. Given his less than firm grasp of some of the fundamental – no pun intended – aspects of Islam, his book should make an unenlightening read.

The other day, in a post titled "The toady's blindness", Loewenstein heaped scorn on Piers Akerman for stating, in an article in the Telegraph, that the Koran exhorts Muslims to violence:

All those sections in the Bible about death, stonings, murder and incest clearly read like a children's fairy tale. No wonder Akerman is Howard's favourite commentator/toady. ABC TV's Insiders calls him a "highly experienced journalist and a columnist." Notice the omission of respect. Why the hell is he on that show again? Yet another tortuous bow to "balance."

Nothing refuting Akerman's claim, just nasty rambling nonsense. In response, I posted a comment quoting from bin Laden's original fatwa which in turn quoted the Koran as justification for killing Americans. Loewenstein responded:

Since when do the vast, vast majority of Muslims, or Christians for that matter, take their holy books literally? Basically, nearly, never. We can always quote extreme comments in the Bible or Koran (or Torah), but how it's interpreted is the main issue, surely....

To which I responded:

Is it possible to be a Muslim and not accept the Koran as the literal word of God?

Loewenstein responded:

As possible as being a Christian and not taking the Bible as gospel. People of many faiths are much more complex than simply living by, or ignoring, their chosen books....

So, according to Loewenstein, Muslims can take the Koran with a grain of salt.

Muslim Irshad Manji, author of "The Trouble with Islam Today", thinks I've got it right, which means – shock, horror – Loewenstein has it wrong. Manji in the Los Angeles Times:

I believe thursday's bombings in London, combined with the first wave of explosions two weeks ago, are changing something for the better. Never before have I heard Muslims so sincerely denounce terrorism committed in our name as I did on my visit to Britain a few days ago. We're finally waking up.

Except on one front: the possible role of religion itself in these crimes.

Even now, the Muslim Council of Britain adamantly insists that Islam has nothing to do with the London attacks. It cites other motives — "segregation" and "alienation," for instance. Although I don't deny that living on the margins can make a vulnerable lad gravitate to radical messages of instant belonging, it takes more than that to make him detonate himself and innocent others. To blow yourself up, you need conviction. Secular society doesn't compete well on this score. Who gets deathly passionate over tuition subsidies and a summer job?

Which is why I don't understand how moderate Muslim leaders can reject, flat-out, the notion that religion may also play a part in these bombings. What makes them so sure that Islam is an innocent bystander?

What makes them sound so sure is literalism. That's the trouble with Islam today. We Muslims, including moderates living here in the West, are routinely raised to believe that the Koran is the final and therefore perfect manifesto of God's will, untouched and immutable.

This is a supremacy complex. It's dangerous because it inhibits moderates from asking hard questions about what happens when faith becomes dogma. To avoid the discomfort, we sanitize.

So, Loewenstein is sanitzing Islam to remove aspects he doesn't want to see. Since he can't get this fundamental aspect of Islam right it's impossible to take anything he writes about Islam seriously.