May I recommend Schwartz' book 'The Two Faces of Islam?' I'm an avid reader of Berman's work, but to my knowledge, he has yet to even mention the Khawarij. This group, their methods, the proclamations and their place in Islamic history is of paramount importance to understanding violent, separatist Islamism. Berman is, in the end, more literate with regard to the movements to which he compares radical Islamism. What Schwartz demonstrates is that the most maniac are not "deeply informed." To the contrary, in order to perpetuate their movement, he contends that Islamists must ignore the personality of Muhammad as well as various significant Qu'ranic passages (have you ever heard an Islamist respond to Surah 17:104: [God] said to the Israelites, 'Dwell in this land. When the promise of the hereafter comes to be fulfilled, We shall assemble you all together). Or what about the advice Muhammad gave to his wife Safiyya, who was being teased by Aisha and Hafsa because of her Jewish origin? "If they say this again, tell them, 'My father is the Prophet Aaron, my uncle is the prophet Moses, and my husband is, as you know, the Prophet Muhammad." This doesn't permanently complicate the debate--it adds a valuable insight and clears away a massive amounts of misunderstanding. Why must we suppose Schwartz wants "deeply informed and therefore less critical" scholarship? You're talking about the guy who coined the term 'Islamofascism!'
Josh Strawn
Christopher:
May I recommend Schwartz' book 'The Two Faces of Islam?' I'm an avid reader of Berman's work, but to my knowledge, he has yet to even mention the Khawarij. This group, their methods, the proclamations and their place in Islamic history is of paramount importance to understanding violent, separatist Islamism. Berman is, in the end, more literate with regard to the movements to which he compares radical Islamism. What Schwartz demonstrates is that the most maniac are not "deeply informed." To the contrary, in order to perpetuate their movement, he contends that Islamists must ignore the personality of Muhammad as well as various significant Qu'ranic passages (have you ever heard an Islamist respond to Surah 17:104: [God] said to the Israelites, 'Dwell in this land. When the promise of the hereafter comes to be fulfilled, We shall assemble you all together). Or what about the advice Muhammad gave to his wife Safiyya, who was being teased by Aisha and Hafsa because of her Jewish origin? "If they say this again, tell them, 'My father is the Prophet Aaron, my uncle is the prophet Moses, and my husband is, as you know, the Prophet Muhammad." This doesn't permanently complicate the debate--it adds a valuable insight and clears away a massive amounts of misunderstanding. Why must we suppose Schwartz wants "deeply informed and therefore less critical" scholarship? You're talking about the guy who coined the term 'Islamofascism!'