Myths about Islam

Myths about Islam

After seeing the sheer breadth of websites and writings supposedly debunking the myths about Islam, I decided to write my own. As of yet, I have yet to see one even reasonable myth-debunking. They have all been, in my estimation, politically and personally motivated, either for impressing the truth about Islam or defaming it. In my academic circles, I often decry the horrific ignorance of Americans (and Westerners in general) on the subject, but never have I really attempted to set the record straight. This, perhaps, is the real problem: serious academics on the subject are generally loathe to step into the public discourse. We instead shut ourselves off in our obscure journals reading articles from obscure historians and scholars, while the public only receives the arguments and analyses of misinformed shit-heads on popular news programs and the internet. Well, it's time to put my money where my mouth is and do something better.
A couple notes before I begin: I am, of course, biased, because I am on the one hand an atheist who staunchly opposes all religion, but on the other hand I am deeply interested in the subject of Islam and the culture of the middle east. I'm not sure exactly how this is going to affect the outcome of my essay. I'm going to simply try to be as up-front with my opinions as possible, and allow the reader to judged how my biases might be affecting the result. Second, I unfortunately do not have the time to write a seriously cited essay, with direct quotations and everything, nor do I happen to have all of the relevent material in front of me. So, I encourage people to check my facts. To this end, I will try to suggest some readings and sources which would be helpful. Finally, I will select my list of "myths" based on websites I have discovered as well as things I have heard. If the inspiration comes from a particular website, I will link the relevent material.

Contents:
1. Islamic oppression of women
2. Islam inspired a Golden Age of Science
3. Islam is monolithic and unchanging
4. The Muslims took slaves
5. Authority = correct

So here we go:

Myth 1: Islamic oppression of women. "Most of the ill-treatment that women receive in the Muslim world is based on local culture and traditions, without any basis in the faith of Islam. In fact, practices such as forced marriage, spousal abuse, and restricted movement directly contradict Islamic law governing family behavior and personal freedom."

From http://islam.about.com/od/commonmisconceptions/tp/myths.htm

This is not entirely true. On the issue of marriage, the most common law is that the parents have the right to arrange a marriage contract for both girls and boys. Both have the right to refuse the marriage upon reaching a majority age (traditionally this is 7 for boys and 9 for girls, I believe). Of course, silence was taking as consent. This is a HUGE deal. After all, even today not all Muslims are fully aware of all of their legal rights under the Shari'a, especially young ones. While technically it is illegal to fail to inform a child of marriage rights once attaining majority (and there are examples of women successfully anulling unfavorable marriages simply on this technicality), one can imagine that this might slip, especially in the countryside or in more traditional areas. Thus, there are plenty of examples of fathers engaging in illegal activity by forcing their children, particularly girls, of marrying who they say (either with threats, social pressure, or just a lack of information).

On the subject of spousal abuse, it is mostly true to my knowledge, but keep in mind that, as above, it could still occur. Islamic law puts a heavy emphasis on familial privacy, providing much chance for abuse behind closed doors. This is coupled with the fact that Islamic law often requires several witnesses for a crime to be proven. That can be very difficult to accomplish given the privacy of the situation. Further, women in Islamic law are only counted as "half a person" as it pertains to testemony in court. That is, it takes two female witnesses to equal the testamony of one male witness. This can be very difficult for an abused woman, since often (across cultures) people tend to look out for each other's gender. For a woman to get enough witnesses to make a case could be very difficult. And, there is insentive to not bring it to court, as a false accusation can be met with punishment. That is, if the case goes to court and the man is found innocent, the woman can be punished for leveling a false claim.

Edit: I have become aware of a passage in the Quran 4:34 which recommends beating wives as a final resort for continued bad behavior. In this passage, Muslim men are told to first admonish their wives, then refuse to share their beds, and then finally to strike them. However, there are some oddities surrounding this passage, particularly the word used (wadribuhunna واضربوهن). The problem with this word is that the definition is about a page long, and it can mean a variety of things from striking, playing a musical instrument, to travel (I suppose like "hitting the road," and even "to turn away from, leave, forsake, abandon, avoid, or shun," according to Hans Wehr (p. 629). I recall hearing somewhere that some scholars choose the latter translation for this particular passage. Personally, I would not, because that meaning usually requires the preposition idiom " 'an عن" for such an interpretation. In my opinion, the word clearly means "strike them," and Yusuf 'Ali's translation would seem to agree. However, the problem here is exactly what "strike them" means: is it a single blow, or several? Is it to be done with the open hand, a fist, a stick? Is it meant to be a light slap on the face, or a brutal assault which leaves bruises or wounds, or somewhere in between? The real failing is the complete lack of clarity here, and though a kind husband might interpret it in the most benign way (perhaps even nothing more than a light-hearted pat on the rear end), it does seem to have the potential for justifying real abuse. It seems this was a concern for jurists as well. According to Yusuf 'Ali, "Imam Shafi'i considers this [striking the wife] inadvisable, though permissable, and all authorities are unanimous in deprecating any sort of cruelty" (p.190, footnote 547). All of this, taking into account as well that modern Muslim couples tend to love one another, means that spousal abuse is not a common feature of modern Muslim marriage life. However, there is still the possibility for unscrupulous or cruel husbands to justify their abuse.

The restricted movement thing was taboo, but rarely ever enforced. Typically, men and women aren't supposed to associate with each other (non-relatives) in public, and male family members are supposed to escort women. This is mainly a preventative measure to ensure both the morality of the public and the safety of the women. However, as mentioned before, it was rarely ever enforced, and for most of the history of Islam, women were quite active in the marketplace and other public areas. This was typically out of necessity, as in the pre-modern world, most people were desperately poor and had to do whatever they could to scratch out a living. Even in the most strict interpretation, it is not generally accepted to engage in the kind of movement restriction of the Taliban, or their punishments for such acts (death).

In general, Islam considers women spiritually equal to men, but practically inferior. In theory, this inferiority only really takes the form of symbolic oppression, however. Specifically, it entitles women to half shares of inheretence than their male relatives receive, half credibility in a legal setting, and often times more difficult avenues to divorce (a woman cannot get a divorce by saying "I divorce you" three times). However, just as many of these rules could be circumvented for the woman's benefit (and indeed were), they could also be abused by men to turn symbolic oppression into real oppression. In my personal opinion, I think Islamic law tends to allow for the oppression of women not because of any one or two specific rules, but because of the complex nature of the law which allows for so many loopholes. I think these loopholes can be fixed, even without reversing the idea that women are practically inferior to or even simply different from men fundamentally (though that would be the ideal: an unambiguous declaration of equality). However, neither of those things are likely to happen due to Islam's nature as a religion, not simply a body of secular laws. If there is a real problem with Islam the religion, this is it.

As a general background, I highly recommend Leila Ahmad's book, "Women and Gender in Islam." She is a fantastic scholar with some brilliant ideas, and she has no qualms about taking jabs at Islam itself when the evidence suggests it. Or, John Esposito wrote a very good general book called "Women in Muslim Family Law," which is somewhat less brilliant and less controversial, but is an easy read with solid information. I would also recommend highly the various works of Beth Baron and Lisa Pollard, both of whom I consider the pre-eminent scholars in the history of women in the Middle East.

For more directed studies, see:

Agmon, Iris. Family and Court: Legal Culture and Modernity in Late Ottoman Palestine.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2006.

Meriwether, Margaret L. Family and Society: The Kin Who Count in Ottoman Aleppo, 1770-1840. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999.
Tucker, Judith E. In the House of the Law: Gender and Islamic Law in Ottoman Syria and Palestine. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
Note that there are MANY great books on women, gender, and Islam, and these are only a few out of the sources I've collected. Don't be afraid to do your own research or mine the bibliographies of these sources if you are really interested. If not, Leila Ahmad's book should suffice.

Myth 2: Islam inspired a Golden Age of science.

I've already commented extensively on the Golden Age, so I won't belabor the point too much. However, I had to address this particular website's explanation:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm#science

Now, it is true that there are Muslims who claim that the Golden Age was directly inspired by Islam. This is, of course, ludicrous, and does not even make rational sense. Typically, this very idea of a Golden Age, let alone one inspired by Islam, is touted by reformers of both a religious and secular variety in the Muslim world who wish to enact some sort of political agenda. Of course, Muslims do not have a monopoly on idealizing history or making upon arrogant and incorrect explanations for it (In America, our favorite political stick from history is the the Revolution and the Founding Fathers). None of it comprises even a passable historical explanation.

However, the debunking of this website is what I really wish condemn. It is, without much exception, a flagrantly idiotic and falsified account of history without any supporting fact either in the article itself or in any legitimate scholarly work I've studied, primary or secondary. Allow me to demolish each point:

1). This is not entirely objectionable. Indeed, most of the translators were Christians (some Jews too, I think), especially Nestorian Christians. However, this was because they had the early expertise, often being fluent in Greek, Syriac, and Arabic, a very helpful combination. However, this quote is beyond stupid: "One large reason for this, however, was that access by Christians to this part of their world [Europe] was cut off by Muslim slave ships and coastal raids that dominated the Mediterranean during this period." This is balls-out false. First, these Christians had no ties with Europe. It was not "their world;" their homes in the Middle East were their world. That's how they knew Arabic so well (duh). Furthermore, the Christendom of Europe would not even accept them; since most of them were Nestorians, they did not believe in the Trinity, which didn't sit well with either the Catholic or Greek Orthodox church. And, of course, the Jews of the Middle East would not have been particularly love-lorn for Europe either: remember that the Jews generally consider the Levant the Holy Land, while Europe was the "diaspora," i.e. a place of exile. You do the math. Second, the slave trade was only one part of the general commercial activity in the Mediterranean at the time. And, it was certainly not an exclusively Muslim enterprise: Christian Europeans, especially the Italians, were widely engaged in the slave trade for hundreds of years, even so far as to selling slaves to the Muslim East. And finally, even if there were a giant wall in place of the entire Mediterrenean sea, how in the hell does that prevent people in the East from going to Europe? It was actually easier to cross the Bosphorous at Constantinople or the Straits of Gibraltar in al-Andalus (Spain/Morrocco) than to undertake a highly risky sea voyage given medival technology. This person's explanation is just fucking stupid, straight up nuts, and one only needs some common sense to spot it. With no knowledge of the facts, this person's statement can be adduced as rediculously irrational. Yet, I felt it pertinent to comment, since I've even heard smart people make similar kinds of arguments, and often times with the subject of Islam, glaringly obvious fallacies tend to get credence for some reason.

The fact of the matter is that many of the translators were Christians who had called the East home for generations, were on great terms with their Muslim neighbors, and said Muslims often paid the translators extremely well for their services (kind of makes sense of the sheer volume of translated texts which came out of the period). In some way, it is valid to claim that Islam had a role in this: at the time, it was much more accepting of this particular Christian sect than either Catholic Europe or the Orthodox Byzantine Empire. But, in my mind a facilitator is not the same as an inspirer. That is, the real credit for the translation movement goes to the people involved, both the Muslims and the Christians (and Jews) who put their differences aside for the sake of their own love of knowledge.

2). "Many of the scientific advances credited to Islam were actually “borrowed” from other cultures conquered by the Muslims." This doesn't even make logical sense. How does one borrow something one created? Either they came up with it or they didn't. This can only be a linguistic trick to try to discredit ALL real discoveries Muslims made. The writer continues by arguing that the Muslims did not invent the concept of zero. No shit. I've never heard anyone claim otherwise that it came from an earlier Indian tradition, and it's widely cited as such by the very texts written by Medieval Muslim mathemeticians.

And then we have this masterpiece of laughable ignorance and bold-faced (literally) lying: " In fact, conquered populations contributed greatly to the history of “Muslim science” until gradually being decimated by conversion to Islam (under the pressures of dhimmitude). The Muslim concentration within a population is directly proportional to the decline of scientific achievement. [note: author's boldface type] It is no accident that the Muslim world has had little to show for itself in the last 600 years or so, since running out of new civilizations to cannibalize."
This is just fucking stupid. Of course "conquered" populations contributed to the movement, but don't extend this period of "conquering." After all, the Islamic conquests took place in a few short decades, whereas the Golden Age stretched for hundreds of years. Ask a 12th century inhabitant of Damascus if he felt like he was "conquered." At best, this particular statement is completely irrelevent to anything. At worst, it's an attempt to dissasociate the idea of Muslim and Islam from the people who contributed to knowledge at the time. This is because the author's premise is obliterated by the fact that Muslim scholars participated too, and in the majority no less. Now, being decimated by conversion to Islam is just idiotic, especially citing this bullshit about dhimmitude. First, it is true that Muslim leaders placed an extra tax on non-Muslims, or "dhimmis," in accordance with the rules of the Qur'an. This is because the Qur'an requires Muslims to protect non-Muslims, but also that only Muslims can serve in the army in non-Muslim nations, so to do their part, non-Muslims had to pay a special tax (this is the justification I recall reading in the Qur'an, unfortunately I can't remember the verses). It was on the one hand a symbolic gesture of showing they would not use the Muslim's good will to cause trouble, and on the other a financial exchange. But, on the whole, the people who participated in the translation movement and the production of original texts were sponsored by elites and payed well enough that the dhimmi tax would not have been particularly burdensome. In fact, many of the early Christian translators had plenty of money left over to finance public building projects and other acts of civic charity, and this remained true for dhimmis throughout the history of the Middle East (I seem to recall reading about one particular Christian business man in Ottoman Palestine who actually funded the building of a Muslim Mosque). Even poor Christians and Jews would often have their head tax paid for them by more wealthy members of the community. In short, this particular tax was practically a non-issue (taxes in general, on the other hand, always were a burden for the lower classes across sectarian lines).
Now, the bolded sentence. This is a flat out lie. There is no other explanation. It's a lie. First of all, how does one quantify "scientific acheivement?" Second, where are the figures? Where are the sources? Never have a seen a single scholarly essay or book make a claim event remotely like this. It is a lie, a flat out lie. To make such a monumental claim without any evidence is completely rediculous.
And, I'll leave the last sentence to you, dear reader. Hopefully you've read my previous work on the Golden Age, so you know that the idea of a 600 year stagnation is completely bogus. The whole point of this article seems to be to denigrate Islam under the veneer of factualism. It is certainly not apologism to say the author is a liar, it's just the way it is. It's complete trash both factually and logically. One need not even know a thing about Islam to spot the egregious fallacies of the author. It's pathetic. But, I hope by demonstrating it's ignorance I can give some impetus to the reader to be more aware of logical fallacies which, for some reason, seem to slip by even the honest, intelligent reader on the topic of Islam.
3). "Even the great Muslim scientists and icons were often considered heretics in their time, sometimes for good reason." This is an unfair generalization. Not all Muslims scientists were accused of heresy, and those who were were not accused of heresy by all Muslims. Typically, the heresy accusation is only flung at rivals. For instance, al-Razi, who certainly was controversial, was typically only considered a heretic by his intellectual opponents who took issue with many of his scholarly views. Keep in mind that a scholar's source of income was a wealthy patron, and thus scholars had to compete furiously with one another in order to get grants. Sometimes this would get very heated: for instance, there is the tale of the great grammarian and poet al-Mutanabbi who once showed up a fellow grammarian in a point of language, and was subsequently beaten severely by the offended gentleman. Throwing out the accusation of heresy was just a part of this. Hence, why even a controversial figure like al-Razi still commanded a lot of respect in his own lifetime from the general public (and from patrons). Perhaps the best analogy of how the term heretic was used at the time is the way in which the word racist (or maybe socialist, for you Democrats) is thrown about today in order to slander political opponents.
4). "even the contributions that are attributed to Islam (often inaccurately) are not terribly dramatic. There is the invention of certain words, such as alchemy and elixir, but not much else that survives in modern technology that is of any practical significance." This is massively false. Muslim science contributed much more than just words. These words would have had no significance were it not for the fact that the ideas they describe having some sort of real value. While it is true that a lot of the ideas proposed during this period are no longer of use, this doesn't make them any less significant. It'd be like saying British law was insignificant to America because we have our own Constitution now. It's ludicrous. Or, it would be like claiming the astrolabe was insignificant because we have GPS now. Furthermore, some processes and ideas, in their bare-bones, still basically exist today: the method of distilation and extraction; the invention of alkalais; many astrological observations; and even the modern fields of sociology and economics we owe to Muslim thinkers. These are just a few examples. The quoted statement above is simply nonsensical and false to the extreme.
But it gets worse: "Neither is there any reason to believe that such discoveries would not have easily been made by the West following the cultural awakening triggered by the Reformation." This is the classic "put a hundred monkeys in front of a hundred typwriters and eventually they will produce Shakespear" argument. It's illogical, ahistorical bullshit. This is the very last cry of someone who is so desparate to prove Islam is anti-science, but cannot come to grips with the widely-acknowledged fact of the influence of Muslim scientists and philosophers on the West, and therefore must stoop to this childish reasoning. It can just as easily be turned around and said, "There is no reason to believe that Muslims would not have invented modern biology had Darwin not proposed evolution first." There is no reason because their is no evidence, because it DIDN'T HAPPEN. One cannot simply make up an alternative, fictional history in order to disprove the real history. And that's not even mentioning he fucked up his European history by crediting the Reformation with Europe's scientific awakening (typically, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment are the usual culprits, or at least the industrial revolution and the birth of the modern era about 200 years ago).
And lastly, the author brings up the complete non-sequeter of coffee, which has nothing to do with the intellectual acheivements of anyone (unless you think caffeine might have kept them up all night thinking), finally ending on a statement claiming that Muslims today only use modern advancements for terrorism: "Today’s Islamic innovators are primarily known for turning Western technology, such as cell phones and airplanes, into instruments of mass murder." This would be news to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Muslim (culturally or religiously) doctors, scientists, engineers, authors, poets, historians, social scientists, and so forth using these "Western" ideas to better their world and ours by enriching us with both culture and new advances in technology and technique. If the author were right, there would be no Albert Hourani or Edward Said, both of whom revolutionized the history of the Middle East with their wonderful (or in the case of Said, wonderfully controversial) ideas and scholarship. We wouldn't have the mathematical theories of Lutfi Zadeh, the economic work of Mahbub al-Huq, or even the brilliant writing of such figures as Nagib Mahfuz. Muslims (and Arabs) have contributed monumentally to the cultures of the world, including our own American culture, and their creative innovations have enhanced more lives than can be counted. To characterize all modern Muslims as terrorists is flat out imbicilic, and if I may dare, possibly even racist (gulp) on the part of the author.
The real truth of the matter is that there have been many Muslim scientists and scholars, both past and present, who have contributed significantly to the world's body of knowledge. This probably wasn't due to Islam, though at certain times Islam may have played a circumstantial factor. Rather, it was because these people were just brilliant, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for their inspiration and their acheivements. Defaming them by either denegrating their acheivements or pinning them on faith is simply childish and despicable.

Myth 3: Islam is monolithic and unchanging.
We'll end with this myth before the essay gets overly long (too late), but it encompasses a host of assumptions that seem to go into just about every conversation I hear about Islam among non-experts (and even some Muslims). Hopefully, this section will help you, the reader, identify specious claims as they happen, even without knowing the details, as there is a fundamentally logical flaw behind them all.
Let us begin with the most common problem of treating Islam as monolithic or unchanging: catagorical statements. It's very common to hear critics and apologists alike throwing around catagorical statements about Islam such as "Islam is a religion of peace" or "Islam is a religion of war." It's neither. People are warlike, people are peaceful, and they can find whatever justification they want for their actions in Islam, or pretty much any ideology for that matter. The fact is, different people have different interpretations of their religion across both space and time. Truly, it is very interesting to study the history of religion, Islam included, precisely because of how much the concept itself changes over time. Islamic law especially is fascinating due to the arguments and judgments presented, which can vary drastically from one another, even though the jurists are basically working from the same sources. There is a wealth of juridical literature on the subject, as well as numerous tafsirs, or explanations of the Qur'an, that differ from individual jurist to individual jurist. In fact, I recently discovered it is not even entirely correct to say catagorically that Islam is against usury, as I just read a fatwa from Rashid Rida (early 20th Syrian century jurist) condoning it! Of course, I've also read a fatwa from some of his contemporaries in India claiming that in it against Islamic law to use industrial paints that contain trace amounts of alcohol in them, and Rida responded by resoundingly denouncing their ruling. The possibilities for interpretation and argumentation in Islamic law are so vast, and that's even just using the Hadith and the Qur'an, let alone past juridical reasoning (of which four major schools of thought are based in Sunni Islam). This means that the conception of law, and of Islam, has massive room to change, and like all ideas, it does so quite often. Making catagorical claims is simply ludicrous. If one wants to make a claim that Islam says this or that, it's fine to do so with some proper citation of Qur'anic passages and/or Hadith, complete with convincing explanation (i.e. not taking a quote out of context and resolving it with potentially contradictory quotes, with which religious texts are replete). But catagorical statements given without question or argument are purely idiotic, and worse, illogical. Islam is no different from anything else in this regard. Yet, it bears mentioning because of how people seem to overlook basic common sense when it comes to discussing Islam.
Finally, it should go without saying that there is a wide gulf between theory and practice. That is, reading the Qur'an will not give you a one-to-one correspondence or explanation to the thoughts and actions of Muslims. This is true for any religion and its holy book/s. Even sincere believers will stress different parts of their religion while ignoring others, and will sometimes knowingly break their own rules. Islam, and religion in general, is not the sole nor even the major factor behind people's actions, good or bad. To be honest, we're not completely sure how to explain human behavior exactly. Is it environment? Socialization? Genetics? All of these are a part of the whole complex situation. But that's the thing to remember: human behavior and motivation is complex. If one wants to understand it, one should take into account all of the forces acting on human beings and not settle for juvinile explanations like "religion made him do it!" This is no more valid than "video games made him do it" or "heavy metal made him do it." It's so much more complex than that, and it really does a disservice to posit such non-answers, because it prevents us from getting to the core of the problem (and thus potentially figuring out a way of solving it). Far too many people get away with these sorts of explanations these days, not only about Islam, but everything. Please, dear reader, be more critical than that. Religion does not always cause people to do good. We have plenty of evidence of that. Neither, however, does it always cause people to do evil. There is plenty of evidence of that as well (millions of Muslims who are NOT terrorists is pretty substantial). The relationship between belief and action is much more intricate, and it demands serious study, not dismissive or degrading non-explanations, no matter how good they might feel.

Myth 4: The Muslims took slaves.
This isn't a myth per se, as it is quite true that Islam allows for slavery (allows does not mean requires) and indeed there were plenty of slaves in the Islamic world for most of its history. The myth is in the representation, usually juxtaposed to the "free" West of today, and often with the connotation for non-experts in the New World that the slavery of the East was equivilent to the chattal slavery of our own side of the Atlantic. Neither of these views is true. So, I would like to set the record straight about the nature of slavery in Islam.
The first point is on the juxtaposition of an East which allowed slavery vs. a West which did not. Truly, this is comparing apples to oranges, or more accurately, a pre-modern society to a modern one (in the case of the United States, one which has only been without slavery for less than 150 years). In the days of the Ottoman empire, people often site the barbary pirates who often took their victims as slaves. This is true. It was also standard practice at the time. Recall that Europe was heavily invested in the slave trade almost since the discovery of the New World, important shiploads of African slaves (many of whom were Muslim) to work themselves to death in the mines and plantations of the Americas. Additionally, European navies and pirates battling the barbary corsairs were not loathe to take captives of their own to either ransom or sell into slavery. On the whole, the amount of slave taking and slave trading engaged in by the Europeans far outnumbered anything that the barbary corsairs were even capable of doing, let alone would actually have a market for (in the Middle East during the days of the Ottomans, slave ownership was very expensive, and very few individuals besides the most wealthy could afford to own any slaves at all. Statistics show that slaves were a small part of the population, in contrast to certain areas of the European controlled Americas which had enormous slave populations).
The second point is to demonstrate that slavery, although terrible, was not the same as it was in the Americas. In the southern continent, slaves were often worked to death. In the slaves states of the US, this was not entirely true, but slaves did work under appaling conditions. In both cases, slaves had practically no rights, were at the complete whims of their masters, were slaves for life, and any children they had were automatically slaves themselves. It was literally treating people as property. Slavery in the Islamic world was not like this at all. To be sure, it was not pleasant, but slaves under Islam did possess certain rights and had to be treated in a certain way. Although they were mostly at the whims of their masters, they were not entirely. Slavery in the East was a social class, not a statement of non-humanhood as it was in the Americas. And, it certainly was not based on race or color.
A few examples to illustrate this are as follows. I already mentioned that only the wealthy could afford to own slaves in the Ottoman Empire. This means that the vast majority of slaves were in charge of domestic tasks, not assigned to backbreaking labor on plantations or mines. They were basically servants, and although lesser than their owners, were often seen as a part of the family household. This is demonstrated by numerous examples of slave owners occasionally freeing their servants after a period of service, often times setting them up with a parcel of land or money, granting them inheretence proportional to all other family members, and so forth. Some fathers even married their (former) slaves to their children. Slavery was not seen as something inherent or inborn, as Europeans tended to view Africans, nor was it an unconditional situation from which a person could never be free. This in no means justifies it, or any legal hierarchy for that matter. But the point is that a slave was merely a notch in the social hierarchy, and what makes it despicable to us is the inequality inherent in any hierarchy, not the dehumanizing brutality which characterized European-style slavery in the New World.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that a slave in the Ottoman Empire could attain a large degree of power and social status, since status often was gleaned from one's patron (or in this case, owner). Slaves of the Sultan could weild immense power. For instance, the Cheif Eunuch, having such close access to the Sultan's private chambers, could and did influence the royal family in many ways which even high-ranking viziers and officials could not. Further, the entire Janisary core of soldiers and officials were technically slaves (and also technically illegally so, as Islam forbids a Muslim from enslaving another Muslim). This core formed a powerful group in its own right, and there are plenty of examples in history of the Janisaries affecting politics by bribing, threatening, or in one case even murdering the Sultan. No slave in the Americas ever had as much power over his masters, let alone his nation, as the Janisary core did. Now, of course, not all slaves were lucky enough to be a part of the Janisaries. But, the point is to illustrate an entirely different concept of slavery, one in which social station is more important than race, humanness, and all of the other issues which came to define the chattal slavery of the New World. It was entirely different, perhaps no less detestable, but none-the-less different. This is an important point which many non-experts, often with ulterior motives, fail to mention when trying to persuade their audiences. The point is not to compare apples to oranges, and not to allow such liberal use of poorly defined yet loaded words to slip by unnoticed or unexamined. And to remember this point, it is enough to recall that the most famous Arab hero of all time in popular literature and tales was Antara, a former slave. And this was true even during the time of legal slavery. It illustrates that slaves were never considered sub-human animals or of a lesser breed as they were in the Americas. Slaves were simply human beings who fell into a specific social catagory, one which may change at any time. This fundamental conceptual difference is critical.

Myth 5: Authority = correct
This one should come as a no-brainer as well, but it is worth mentioning that certain figures who claim to be authorities on Islam or Islamic history are not necessarily accurate all of the time. For this, I wish to analyze this website, http://hnn.us/articles/16536.html, which contains myths of Islam "debunked" by the author and professor Timothy Furnish. First of all, I've never heard of the guy before, which is a bad sign. For the most part, I've at least heard of the top Western scholars in the feild of Islamic or Middle Eastern history. This guy is not one of them. Further, the website touts his book published by Preager. Personally, I've had very bad experiences with books they publish. But in any case, that's not something that a non-expert in the feild would really know about. These are but warning signs to me, and as usual, the proof of the ineptitude is in the writing itself.
For the most part, the material isn't really that objectionable. With past deconstructions, it was almost as if I could throw a dart and hit something false or misleading. This time, I actually had to look, although not very hard. Here is the first stupidity:
"Actually, the Crusades, 1095-1291, were simply the first time that European Christians managed to take the fight to their enemy’s territory."
Wow, here's a great example of trying to hide a logical absurdity within a non-relevant fact (in this case, the dates of the Crusades). His statement implies that the war between Muslims and Christendom had some long and unending history of which the Crusades were only a retaliation. This is bogus. Muslim gains in Europe had long been over by this time, and although there was the Reconquista occuring in Spain (against a dynasty was no longer expansionistic), this was not the focus of Pope Urban II's call to arms. The real history of the Crusades, as experts point out, has its roots in the Cluny monastary, where Pope Urban studied. There, a new idea of monstatic-style piety came to fore: the idea of reforming the rest of society to be more like monks, especially those in the "secular" church (at this time, referring to the non-monastic clergy). Pope Urban's speech is rife with the rhetoric of this movement, known as the Cluny Reforms, calling upon warrior monks to spread piety and serve the faith and so forth. This, of course, had a great social motivation as well. At the time, warlords in Europe were constantly fighting one another, leaching wealth from their populaces, and using said wealth to spread even more chaos and destruction for their own petty gains. The Crusades, in many ways, was a means of directing this hostility outwards against perceived "infidels," as opposed to fellow Christians. Urban II had to shame his listeners into viewing themselves as sinful for their deeds, and then convince them to sell most (if not all) of their wealth to make an armed "pilgrimage" to the Holy Land with the promise of a plenary indulgence if they did so. The point of the Crusades, on just reading Urban's speech, seems to have been to get a bunch of bloodthirsty warlords out of Europe, make them suffer for their sins (on a hard and perilous journey), and maybe even retake the Holy Land. It was not in the main a call to fight back against a four hundred year old conquest of one part of Europe.
Then, of course, there was the political maneuvering behind the seens. Part of the impetus behind the Crusades was an appeal from the Byzantine Emperor to fight the Turks. This particular Emperor hoped simply to gain back some land after the disasterous Battle of Manzikert by using the Crusaders basically as unpaid mercenaries, and maybe even use them to defeat some of his own rivals within the Empire itself (this would become a major factor in the Fourth Crusade, which never made it past Constantinople because it was caught up in Byzantine political struggles from the very beginning). Of course, the plan backfired as European lords gobbled up lands in the Levant for themselves, taking as much loot as they could along the way.
In any case, the author's words imply some sort of reified or real border between Christendom and Islam, as if these were united territories, and some clear motivation of an ongoing defensive war. None of these things was true. Both the Middle East and Europe were conglomerations of petty states and large states, different peoples of different faiths, and all with shifting borders and mentalities. Nothing was perfectly defined in this period of history in terms of geo-politics, and in fact this was a time of great instability (part of the lack of a coherent "Muslim" response to the first Crusade was the struggle between the Fatimid Caliph of Egypt and the Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad, not to mention the various semi-autonomous Turkish rulers in Anatolia). The real motivations behind the Crusades were complex, and different each time, and had much more to do with contemporary social, economic, and political factors than some abstract notion of an eternal struggle between Christianity and Islam. This latter idea is merely a fabrication of orientalist scholars with clear political agendas. It's nonsense, and it does not match up to historical fact or proper historical methodology. It's another one of those non-answers so popular in the discourse these days.
Here's another tidbit of stupidity: "Another fairy tale about Islam is that poverty produces terrorists... Most of the 9/11 and London bombers were university-educated and at least middle-class. The same is true for Palestinian suicide bombers and most likely those in Iraq... Poverty may be necessary, but it is hardly sufficient, to explain Islamic terrorism."
He does not seem to even know what he is arguing here. First, "poverty" is a very relative term, not just objectively but subjectively. Class consciousness is partially a function of the relative distribution of wealth, and a function of how people perceive themselves (which is not always factually accurate). He claims these people were middle class. According to whom and what? Did they see themselves as such? Furthermore, class is not a static station, expecially true in regions under global and domestic pressures (such as dictatorships), where oppression can cause a number of disasters in people's lives. I must admit that the 1 to 1 correlation of poverty and crime is a non-answer, but it is no reason to entirely dismiss any and all social or economic investigation. When simplistic answers are proven false, it demands sophisticated analysis, not just a different simplistic answer. And finally, his last statement is completely reversed. If poverty were necessary for terrorism, it would be expressed as this conditional: "If one is a terrorist, then one is poor." This is exactly the argument the author seeks to disprove by demonstrating you can have a non-poor terrorist (modus tolens). I wonder if he stopped to think about this when he wrote it, or if the website even bothered to edit it before they put it online. It may be just a simple error, and I have no evidence otherwise, but it still demonstrates yet again the inexplicable phenomenon of basic logic flying out the window when discussing Islam and its history.
And finally I'd like to discuss some points on his last "myth." First, we have the typical equation of Wahhabism with puritanism, two religious expressions which are entirely different from one another, least of all because one came from Islam and the other from Christianity. There is too much to go into here, so a reader interested in Wahhabism should check out David Commins' book, "The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia." Also, there is this statement: "Also, Islamic history is replete with Muslim scholars whom the modern Islamic fundamentalists draw upon." In all my studies of modernist Islam, I've only heard two jurists particularly mentioned: al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah, the former of which is typically only used as an inspiration for general reform, and was a favorite of the much more liberal-minded reformer Rashid Rida. Ibn Taymiyyah, on the other hand, is used extensively, specifically his fatwa against the Mongols of the Ilkhanate in the 14th century. Aside from this, modernist trends actually tend to dismiss the bulk of juridical literature since the time of the Prophet. Indeed, this is what Islamic fundamentalism is all about: abandoning later interpretations and seeking the Qur'an and the Hadith alone for legal reasoning. I.e., getting back to the "fundamentals" of the faith. On Ibn Taymiyyah, the author writes, "The most famous is Ibn Taymiyah who, 700 years before George Bush said “you’re either for us or against us,” divided the world into the domain of Islam and that of war." This is absurd, and possibly an outright lie. First of all, I've never seen any such absolutist distinction in Ibn Taymiyyah. To be fair though, I'm only really familiar with his anti-Mongol fatwa, but as mentioned before, this was the critical one for modern fundamentalists (especially those justifying the killing of civilians). In this case, the absolutism described is in the fatwa, but as an accusation against the Mongols, not a statement made by Ibn Taymiyyah about Islam! Here I'll explain with an exceprt from a seminar paper I wrote (and note I'm working from a secondary source; I once tried to get a copy of the fatwa in the original Arabic, but the only library on ILL that had one was in Germany, and they weren't parting with it):
" His [Ibn T's] first goal in the fatwa was to dispel the common notion of the historical analogy between the current conflict [between the Mamluks and the Ilkhanate] and the conflict between the Companions of the Prophet during the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin, and replace it with analogy of the war between the Companions and kharijites (deviants), thus leaving no “moral high ground” of non-participation.[1] Therefore, he also had to prove the deviance of the Khan Ghazan as well as his followers [mostly fellow Muslims, including Ghazan]. To do so, he argues that the shari‘a is not consistently applied in the Ilkhanate, but rather mixed with the pagan yasa of Genghis Khan. Furthermore, he argued that the religious tolerance shown in the Mongol Empire was contrary to Islam, which was supposed to be held in higher esteem than all others, and thus was a leftover pagan innovation.[2] Finally, and perhaps most famously, he writes, “They [the Mongols] have divided people (of the world) into four categories… their friend, their foe, the scholar and the commoner.”[3] The significance of these words lies in that, by their own admission (supposedly), all those who bend to their will are their friends, and all who do not their enemies. Thus, the only people serving the Mongols are those who recognize the supremacy of their rule and laws over and above the demands of the Islamic faith. Therefore, it is permissible to fight and kill even Muslims, for by serving a false ruler who draws such distinctions, one is contributing to his irreligious ways."
All quotes and notes from:
Thomas Raff, Remarks on an Anti-Mongol Fatwa by Ibn Taymiya (Leiden: 1973), pp. 40-53
Ibn Taymiyyah was forced to confront the fact that it is not lawful to declare war on Muslims with the fact that the Ilkhanate was a mainly Muslim army. How do you justify killing Muslims? He argued that the Ilkhanate basically says either you are with us or against us, and kills anyone who does not support them (actually true in practice). So, the only people left are those who directly support the Ilkhanate, and not, say, people who quietly disagree but can't speak out, people who resist, etc. Thus, by demonstrating the Ilkhanate was not really Muslim (another difficult task given that Ghazan was a Muslim, so he had to make up the thing about the imposition of Shari'a, which was just as true of a criticism against the Mamluk government he supported in the conflict). Thus, together, you have a justification for killing fellow Muslims. Or civilians, or people who support governments that do not enforce the Shari'a to your liking, etc. As one can see, this is obviously a very popular justification among the more extreme elements. The fatwa itself was particular to its historical context, but certainly opened the door for much more than that. Ibn Taymiyyah could only have had in mind the motivation of getting people to take up arms against an invading Mongol Muslim army. He most likely did not have in mind people flying passanger jets into buildings. Notice also how huge of a faux pas it was for Georgie to say something as ignorant as "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." It walked right into the justification Osama bin Laden and his ilk claimed for their holy war against the American people.
And finally, we have this little number from the author: " Islam is where Christianity was before the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and then the Enlightenment led the West to divorce religion and state, thereby removing (mostly) the threat of religious-based warfare." I shouldn't even have to comment on this one, and a credentialed scholar like Mr. Furnish should really know better. I'll try brefly to demolish it: 1. Putting Islam on a European history timeline is not only factually inaccurate but also rests on the myth of the Grand Narrative which has been debunked as false and racist for decades 2. Many European nations continued to have after the TYW until today an official state religion, and even in America there is a constant attempt (sometime mildly successful) of breaking down the separation of church and state 3. Religious based conflict in general still occurs in the West, and even secular wars were given religious overtones. After all, Hitler claimed he was on a mission from God to destroy the Jews. Of course, historians instantly recognize this (rightly) as political pandering, and search rather in the economic, social, and cultural history of Germany for the rise of Naziism and the Holocaust. Yet, a Muslim leader can say essentially the same thing, that his religion commands him to kill such-and-such, and people automatically assume its a statement of sincere zealotry divorced from historical circumstances. Why is that? Why is it different for a Christian than a Muslim in our society, even among people (supposed scholars) who really should know better? Why is it when the discussion of Islam comes up, time and again logic and fact get thrown out the window, and the West is presented as "better" than it really is/was and the Middle East as worse? Or, even more devastating, vice versa, with a demonized West and an overglorified East? Why is it that even credentialed scholars have trouble just sticking to the facts, or even exercising basic logic, the minute the subject of Islam comes up?

So, there's a few myths busted. On the whole, I don't find Islam particularly appealing. Like all religions, its conception as a "divine" document has the tendency to allow people to do all kinds of disgusting things and find justification for them, while at the same time blurring rational thought under the guise of sacredness. This can happen any time one makes an idol of an ideology. In my opinion, the Qur'an is a well-intentioned and well-composed piece of literature written by a man named Muhammad, who apparently had a knack for language and inspiring people with it (which if one knows the history of Arabic poetry, one knows this is not an uncommon combination of traits). Some ideas presented in it were revolutionary, some still even valid today, while others are either ludicrous or simply dated to a particular time and place. It's no different than any other tract of human-wrought knowledge in that regard. If this were all, then I think it would be fine, as people could simply discuss, think, disagree with, or even amend the ideas presented. But that's not the situation. Despite some wonderful wiggle room for jurists using ijtihad, Islam cannot shake the fact that it is presented as a divine document, unchangeable, and perfect.
And yet, Islam will continue to change with times and people. But, this is the real danger of modern times: with fundamentalists and reformers of all stripes claiming their interpretation as the "true" Islam, they have an undeserved and unquestioned claim to a divine authority that no secular scholar could ever command of his subject matter. No idea is more dangerous than the one which changes unconsciously and unquestioningly, with a higher authority supposedly behind it. It's like a mental Russian roulette. This does nothing good for the progress of society or people, and ends up in the same place as all other fallacies, falsehoods, and childishly simple answers: as an excuse to not think. Muslims today would do well to remember that even the Imams of the four major rites saw Islam as very open to interpretation, and that interpretation was always a difficult and uncertain task, sometimes even perilous. It is with this concept in mind that Rashid Rida (and his mentor Muhammad Abduh, and many like them) formulated a very liberal, very modern, and very peaceful conception of Islam. Of course, even he had his biases as well. But what does it matter if a great thinker isn't perfect all the time? Marx fudged his history, Nietzsche fudged his philology, and even Edward Said took people's quotes completely out of context from time to time. That's why we don't make idols out of them or treat them as if they were sacred: by getting rid of the false authority, we can sift through the wrong to get at the right. We can keep the discussion open, as al-Razi did with Galen, and potentially find some real progress. Muslims would do well to remember that even Muhammad was just a man, and never claimed otherwise.
So, if Islam can remain an open religion, one which embraces change, re-interpretation, and even argument, then it may be possible to avoid some of the absurdities which have cropped up in the religion in the past several decades. At the very least, it might clear the air a little, and open up some more stimulating and constructive dialog. If Islam does not remain open, but rather becomes more close-minded, then it will continue to stir the economic, social, and political shit-pot in the contemporary Middle East, making a tense situation even worse without providing any substantive answers.