I have to confess that much of the rhetoric from the right on Muslims in America has crossed a line that I find uncomfortable. Much of this is centered around the controversies of the mosque proposed a few blocks away from ground zero.
One problem is that Muslims are rarely portrayed in the media except in instances of terrorism or other forms of confrontation. The danger is to assume that Muslims have no moderate base at all. I would guess that Muslims would find it indignant to have to defend their faith from the acts of extremists, just as Catholics would reject being labeled by the antics of Mel Gibson or the Jews by the words of Meir Kahane ( of the Jewish Defense League).
Rabbi Meir Kahane
On the Zakaria GPS show on CNN today (8/15/2010), Fareed Zakaria interviewed Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Fareed is a Muslim who questioned Ali as to what extent the radicals were a fringe element. Fareed believes that the vast majority of Muslims are solid American citizens with American values.
Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali
But the interesting exchange was between Manji and Ali. Ali has rejected Islam totally and accepted Christianity. Manji, who is a very progressive feminist remains devout to her Muslim faith yet does not hesitate to chastise Muslim moderates for not being more aggressive in holding the more radical elements more accountable.
The interview has not yet been posted on the Zakaria GPS site, but hopefully it soon will be.
What we should be careful to avoid is painting all Muslims as a monolithic group with a single voice. Just as with Christians and Jews there is diversity within the Muslim ranks. Many Muslims came to this country to escape the more intolerant strains of their religion from abroad.
Fareed is correct that we would be wiser to encourage the more moderate elements than to remain adversarial with the entire religion. He explains his position in this video where he voices his support for the Mosque.
Jews not only monopolized money-lending prior to the fourteenth century, when Christian prohibitions against usury broke down. The dispersion of Jews throughout the know world, east and west, also gave them international advantages in global trade and finance because family and tribal linkages were maintained on an international scale. The earliest terrible pogroms against the Jews occurred in northern Europe after the year 1000, the year of the “millennium,” when Christians (but not the Jews) believed the world would come to an end with the second coming of Christ. As the year approached, more and more Christians tended to become debtors and Jews creditors, Christians naturally believing they would not have to pay off loans after 1000. Additionally, Christians tended to give their wealth to the church, hoping to secure favorable positions in the afterlife, while Jews continued to pass their wealth on to their children. When the world did not end in 1000 A.D., economic tensions were inevitable, and for the following three centuries Jews were slaughtered throughout Europe in Crusades and pogroms.
The fact that the Jews throughout the ages have been a mighty force behind the expansiveness of the global economy has in no small way contributed to their survival. In no less a way has this Jewish instinct for survival through promotion of general economic growth contributed to the survival of Christianity, as in the Middle Ages. For while Christianity is not intrinsically biased on the economic issue, neither does it provide a counterforce. In other words, during contraction the Christian impulse is wholly redistributive, which does nothing to arrest the contraction and turn the economy once again toward expansion.
May is a high risk month to have a baby in Michigan and Uganda. Why?
Ramadan.
Some parts of Michigan and parts of Uganda have a large Muslim population that fasts during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan which runs from about August to September (It is based on a lunar calendar). Muslim women who fast during that period put their fetuses at risk during the critical first trimester.
From “Superfreakonomics” by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner
The great Jewish Philosopher Maimonides lived in Spain, Morocco and Egypt between 1135 and 1205. One of his most popular teachings is the eight levels of charity.
The lowest is one who gives unwillingly. Above that is one who gives inadequately but gladly. A better level is one who gives to the poor only after being asked.
The fifth level gives directly to the hands of the poor, but before being asked. The fourth level is when the giver does not know the recipient, but the recipient knows who the benefactor is. The third level is when the giver knows the recipient but the recipient does NOT know who the benefactor us.
The second highest level of direct charity is when neither the recipient nor the giver knows each other. This good deed is devoid of recognition and pride and is thus deemed to be solely for the sake of heaven.
The highest level is to support one with a gift or a loan, or entering into a partnership with him or finding employment for him in order to strengthen him so he is not dependent on anyone. One senses that the Jews see a substantial moral emperative in business.
Because of this hierarchy of charity that I learned in Sunday school years ago, I have been weary of those who publicize their charitable giving. There is a case to be made that such publicity encourages others to also be charitable, but I have a greater admiration for the many generous people who stay quiet about it.
I am bold enough to recommend one level of charity below the lowest; to give in such a way to promote one’s own power while making the recipient dependent on you for life.
