The way it is, not the way I want it
to be… For years,
I’d sought answers, had asked psychologist friends to help me understand her
behavior. Most often, I received little more than sympathetic shrugs. Some
looked askance as if I were exaggerating. Not until after I chose to escape
that inexplicably dark marriage did I finally find a counselor who explained by
saying, quite simply, “Read this.”
She’d given me a copy of I Hate You, Don’t Leave Me, a
book about borderline personality disorder. [please
see: I Hate You,
Don’t Leave Me: Understanding the
Borderline ... While the public is familiar with more mainstream
psychological diagnoses…, the only knowledge most individuals have of borderline
...psychcentral.com/lib/2011/i-hate-you- dont-leave-me..]
That book liberated me, offered profoundly relevant insights; I could have
written every page. I’d lived every word.
Those who knew both of us defended her, claimed her as a
true friend. I couldn’t argue, and didn’t have to. Eventually, she manipulated
them as she had me, without regret and without an apology.
“What can I do?” I asked another counselor, when I
accepted that I’d better learn to protect myself. In essence, his words boiled
down to a simple phrase, “Stay away!” He seemed to know I was outmanned.
When I asked what she could do to help herself, he told me
that most who have that disorder seek help as they approach 40. Failing to do that,
he suggested, led to a life of struggle and denial.
I took his advice. Still do. Indeed, when I see other
instances of intentionally deceptive acts by anyone who is unable to apologize
or unwilling to accept their role in the disruption of a potentially peaceful
relationship, I’m on guard. Often I search for truth as a check on both my
perception and theirs.
Of late, I’ve found that to be necessary as a result of dialogues
with those who are at odds with my perception of Islam. Some tell me about
their Islamic friends; one mentioned good guys who are Islamic cabbies in New
York City. Still others claim that very few have anything to do with jihad.
Of course, all of them are right. That’s why I try to
differentiate; it’s not Muslims per se who concern me. It’s Islam, its worldview
and its tenets. Its truest believers hold that the Koran is a perfect text that
cannot be changed or reinterpreted. In fact, Mohammad’s acts and deeds and
comments are regarded as sacred; he is a role model and his actions cannot be
questioned. His simplistic worldview harbors violence; the world is made up of
believers and non-believers. Those who don’t believe must be provided the
opportunity to convert. Should they refuse, their lives and their belongings
are fair game.
That was Mohammad’s way; the most righteous seek to follow
his teachings to the unadulterated letter. Therein lies great danger and
extremism that defies compromise or peaceful cohabitation on our crowded
planet.
When I’m chided for this claim, it’s often because I see
the harm that caused when we voluntarily overlook the existential threat,
especially of jihadis who pride
themselves in asymmetrical warfare.
Doing battle with them is essential. When I get lambasted,
it’s because I don’t believe in fighting a gentleman’s war with them. If they
don’t fight by our more civil rules of engagement, we must learn to fight them
by using theirs. Otherwise, we’re deceiving ourselves by casting the
battlefield in a much too rosy hue.
It’s anything but. One of my Net correspondents, a woman
who’s scholarship I respect, stated the problem succinctly as it applies to
Egypt following its makeover after the deception formerly known as the Arab
Spring:
Ijtihad (Arabic اجتهاد) technical term of
Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by
independent interpretation... www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ijtihad
-], slammed
shut on the Sunni side centuries ago. There is no more ijtihad - there
is fiqh, which is the study of jurisprudence, but that is about
knowledge of the shariah and application of the shariah, not its
interpretation. Consensus of the
scholars (ijma) was achieved by the 10th century on all aspects of
shariah and all that is left to modern day jurists is its enforcement [my emphasis](and the occasional new situation raised by modern
technology, for example - but for that, there's qiyas - not really
ijtihad).
Then, you should have a look at the 1990 Cairo Declaration of
the OIC, in which every Muslim country (and there are more members today than
then) withdrew from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and instead
defined "human rights" as purely those rights granted under shariah.
Note especially Articles 24 and 25 in this regard. [again,
my emphasis]
So, when the Egyptian
constitution renews and reinforces its submission to shariah, it is on that
basis - no "international norms." Shariah.
The legal
definition of Hudud is Muslim
law: divine punishments; the category of crimes most egregious and therefore
most severely punished. www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/Hudud.aspx] punishments can be enforced to this day under shariah in
Muslim-ruled places where shariah is fully enforced - or why legal
inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims is a bedrock of this new
Egyptian constitution (note the removal of language about "citizens"
- which would imply equality). It is also why the clauses in the new Egyptian
constitution referring to women are very careful not to grant them equality
with men - because that would be a violation of shariah. [my final
emphasis]
B.Koplen
5/9/13
No comments:
Post a Comment