Well said. This country under both Bush and Obama have spent entirely too much time echoing the fiction that our threat is only from the radical fringe of the Muslim world.

The verbiage mentioned is also recited in the halls of academia.

Grady

The same question that Friedman puts in the mouth of Obama is one that I have often asked myself:  why the asymmetrical outrage in the Muslim world?  Why do suicide bombers blowing up mosques (see:  Fallujah in Iraq, for example) not bring out the crowds in London, Kano and Karachi, while allegations of the Koran being disgraced do bring masses into the streets?  I began asking it as a hypothetical question but then it dawned on me that there should be an answer.  Friedman points us part of the way - but there is more to be said, surely?  I have always felt that one of the differences between Islam and Western Christianity is that the latter has been through the Enlightenment and Islam has not.  We are used to bad-mouthing the Enlightenment with its emphasis on individualism, rationalism, secularity and a hubristic trust in the power of the human mind.  Yet it has taught the churches to live with scrutiny, with tough questions about their origins and their motivations, and to come to terms repeatedly with their history, its good and its bad.  Islam has nothing like this.  Compare and contrast biblical studies with Koranic studies.  There is nothing in Koranic studies like form criticism, redaction criticism or the utilization of sociology and anthropology in the study of sacred text.  Christians can say that God speaks to us through scripture using human agents to transmit the message.  This requires us to come to terms with the fact that scripture will reflect some of its cultural background.  (Liberals, of course, lean heavily on this while discounting scripture as the word of God.)  Islam can never admit the cultural dimension of its sacred text:  the Koran is the embodied word of God.  But of course as good Freudians we might question the rage, and ask whether underneath it there is a hidden fear that this textual foundation to their faith is not all that it is supposed to be.

I have read somewhere (sorry I can’t remember where, maybe an article in “First Things”?) that the Koran to a Muslim is not like a bible to a Christian - the Koran to a Muslim is like Jesus Christ to a Christian. The Koran is God’s Word, that is why it is recited in Arabic and translations are not considered truly the Koran. So we aren’t talking about dissecting a text (the Koran) to understand its literary, cultural, and religious perspectives - we’re talking about dissecting the very essence of God. (of course, I could be wrong about this, since I can’t remember exactly what I read - please correct me if this is not right - thanks)

Branford and Terry Tee are both right.  To the Muslims, the Koran is above criticism and examination.  To suggest doing this is blasphemy, as is any discussion about where some of the things in the Koran may have originated.  My experience was that most Muslims know very little about the history of their religion, their nations, or even about the detailed content of their religion.  If questions arise, they consult an imam, since even educated Arabic speakers may not be able to fully understand the Koran without an annotated edition in Modern Standard Arabic.

As is often the case, Friedman hits the nail on the head.  But the article, while clearly identifying a problem, doesn’t explain how a native American educated in the sciences could be so easily swayed by this kind of counter-factual garbage.  It also leaves one wondering why the United States is so incapable of disseminating effectively the compelling counter-story.

Finally, without in any way detracting from the value of the Friedman piece, my favorite bit was the acknowledgement from the editors at the end of the piece that “Frank Rich is off.”  I have often thought so myself.

Never underestimate the power of resentment.  All the “help” only fuels the fire.

Doesn’t happen often, but Friedman is on target this time.