R. Bennett Furlow

On Friday I was watching the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. It is the only television news program worth watching in my opinion. Typically on Friday’s they do a segment that features David Brooks and Mark Shields discussing the major political issues of the week. Both are smart men, although not surprisingly I find myself agreeing more with Shields than with Brooks, but they are both well spoken and intelligent people who engage in healthly dialogue rather than the screaming idiotacy that occurs on FOX.

Anyway, they were discussing the fallout of the Walter Reed Army Hospital fiasco and Mark Shields said something interesting. You can read the whole thing here, but this is the part that struck me.

“MARK SHIELDS: It is a leadership problem, Jim, but I’d also add that this is a war unlike any war we’ve ever been through. One-third of 1 percent of Americans, those in uniform and their families, are the only ones making any sacrifice, the only ones suffering.

The rest of us have been patriotically asked to take tax cuts, a series of tax cuts, to put a magnet, a “Support our Troops” magnet on the back of an SUV, and kind of saying, “Well, we’re supporting our troops.”

And the reality is, all of the sacrifice, all of the suffering is being borne by them”

And later:

“…if you accept the premise, David, that war demands equality of sacrifice, if you accept that, which is an American value up until this war, OK, and you go to any college campus — and I challenge you, next time you ask, “Who here’s for all-volunteer service?” All the hands go up. “Who’s going to volunteer?” No hands go up”.

I suppose I could make some larger point about the war, or Walter Reed but I’m not. I guess I just want people to think about the solider, regardless of your view of the war, think about the soldier, their families and what this is doing to them. It’s not much to ask.

One of the easiest and most common criticisms of Islam has to do with the issue of multiple wives. Critics see the issue as one example of the inferiority of women in Islam. It brings to mind images of harems and women being used only for sex and procreation. This is, of course, an image that exists primarily in the minds of monogamous men. The issue here is really one of context. When examining any religious text, it is important, even necessary, to look at the context in which that text was written.

Sura 4:3 states And if you be fearful that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you fear that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession.

This seems to state that men can marry up to four wives as long as they treat each wife in a just manner. But what about context? In pre-Islamic Arabia (prior to the 7th century) men could marry as many women as they liked. There were no rules with respect to the treatment of one’s wife, and women had no right to divorce, however men could divorce at their pleasure. When Muhammad received this particular revelation it was very forward thinking. It limits the number of wives a man can have, and stipulates they must be treated equally. From our 21st century, western perspective we might see the idea of four wives as degrading the role of women, but from a 7th century Arabian perspective this was quite a progressive act. Later suras give women the right to divorce, own property etc. I’ll discuss those in later posts.

The above sura also mentions orphans. Why? Seventh century Arabia was a pretty violent place. Banditry was commonplace and there were battles between Muslims and non-Muslims (there were political and economic reasons for these conflicts that I will discuss in the future). The point is that the men who died in battle often left behind widows and children with no means of support. It was common and even expected that the survivors would take responsibility for the families of their fallen comrades. This means marry their wives and daughters. Many of Muhammad’s wives were the widows of those slain in battle.

One last thing. Sura 4:129 states You are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire. Sura 4:3 states that one can have mulitple wives only if they are treated equally, and sura 4:129 states that no one can treat women equally. Many Islamic scholars interpret this as an argument for monogamy. This is a verse often left out when people criticize Islam. Religious texts are often written to deal with an issue that is occurring in the present. Sura 4:3 was was intended to deal with the issue of widows and orphans as well as improve the status of women in Arabia. Sura 4:129 further improves the status of women and implies that monogamy is the preferred marriage arrangement.

Last night President Bush gave a speech outlining a new strategy for Iraq. Bush intends to add 21,000 troops to the approximately 135,000 that are already there. There are tons of pundits all over television and the net commenting on whether it is a good idea or not so I figured I’d throw in my two cents.

Regardless of whether you were for or against the war, we are in it, and since we are in it we have to do what is right for the U.S., Iraq and the region. I don’t believe that 21,000 troops will make a significant difference. If the U.S. is to do a troop increase it should be massive, 90,000-100,000 troops. The problem is we don’t have them. We don’t have the troops or the equipment necessary to send such a large force.

If we can’t send 100,000 and 21,000 is too small, what do we do? Senator Joe Biden and Leslie Gelb have a plan for three semi-autonomous regions divided by Sunni, Shia and Kurdish lines with a central government in Baghdad responsible for oil revenue and border security. This is an imperfect idea but when you are forced to choose between bad and worse, you choose bad. The war in Iraq has cost over 320 billion dollars, over 3000 American lives and who knows how many Iraqi lives. The Bush administration wants victory in Iraq but seems to have no idea what victory looks like.

Islam is all over the news today. Since September 11th, 2001, and later the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, there has been a growing interest in Islam and the Middle East. In May I will recieve my Master’s degree in Religious Studies with an emphasis on Islam. I have given a few talks in the past year to church groups, trying to explain the basic beliefs of the worlds 1.2 billion Muslims. I would like to continue that here. While I reserve the right to post my thoughts on meaningless topics (see below) I will try to use this forum to discuss the issues and topics that surround Muslims today and what that means for the non-Muslims in the U.S.

Rather than write one giant post trying to encapsulate all of Islam, I will tackle one topic at a time. In other words I will discuss the issue of the veil in one post and the hajj in another and so on. If there is a particular issue that you wish to see discussed, please let me know in the comments section and I will do my best to address it.

In modern Islamic scholarship there tends to be two dominant points of view: (1) Islam is inherently violent and aggressive toward other religions or (2) Islam is not inherently violent and those that use Islam as a cover for violence are misinterpreting the religion. I personally feel that each of these perspectives are a bit too simplistic. Religion is complicated. Islam is a very large tent and there are numerous perspectives that exist under it. Islam, like any religion, has its warts and scars, but it also has beauty, poetry, love and peace. I seek to understand all of the above.