President Obama's speech in Cairo

I just finished reading through the transcript of President Obama's speech this morning. After reading through it, I figured I would go see what the news agencies are saying about it. Not suprisingly MSNBC was an advocate of the speech, Fox News played up a three paragraph section of the speech in which the president mentioned his time in Muslim societies, and CNN was somewhere in the middle. The best coverage, like normal, of U.S. politics comes from the BBC.

With that being said, I think this speech had some very interesting thoughts, and I had a thing or two to add at the end. President Obama highlighted the similarities first between Islam and the West (read Hamid Dabashi's Islamic Liberation Theology:Resisting the Empire and you will be immediately drawn to this phrase.) Next, Islam does not fit stereotypes that we have tried to box it into, just as America does not fit the stereotype that the Muslim world has painted of us.

One quote in particular I found interesting was, “Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitable fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.”

First, we must eradicate violent extremism throughout the world. He stated, “Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.” Then he discusses Palestine and Israel, and continues on with other contentious points. You can read the speech yourself if you want real detail.

The main thing I wanted to say about the speech is this: Muslims are not all that different than Americans. Ok, so I could have said that based upon President Obama's words...but I offer different reasoning. Read through the transcript of the speech, and notice where the audience claps. We only want what is good for us. Humans, not just Muslims in Cairo or Americans, want what will make life the easiest for us. That more than anything else is why the Palestinian-Israel conflict is going on. It is difficult to see from anywhere beyond our own lens.

The sad part about all of this is that true religion should be something that allows us to see beyond ourselves. Being a Christian, I believe that Christianity is a religion that helps us to see beyond what is good for us individually. However, how often do I think about my wife ahead of myself? This is easier even than thinking about those I do not like above myself. How are we to find common ground if no one is living up to what they should be doing based upon their religion? Well, some would say only God can do this. My question is this, how has nationalism hurt our religion? How has religion (institutionally) hurt our faith? If we truly believe in the Holy Spirit, why do we need a Christian nation? I don't know, just some weird thoughts...

Thoughts on Islam...

So, for the summer I am reading about Islam and about Liberation Theology in Latin America. I am attempting to see if there is any possibility of comparing Islamic Liberation Theology to Christian Liberation Theology in Latin America. I see in Latin American Liberation Theology a group of people that realize how unfettered capitalism hurts the gospel of Christ...particularly when the Church (Roman Catholic in this instance) have identified primarily with those profiting off the labor of the underclass.

I will post on the previous books I have read, if I feel like I should continue posting on here. But right now I am finishing Social Justice in Islam by Sayyid Qutb. There are several things I found interesting in this book that got me thinking. First, Qutb argues that Europe was never really a Christian continent, that it had been co-opted by the ruling class to keep the masses in check. The West must be viewed as using religious language while actually being ruled by a Roman-utilitarian-Machiavellian view. While this sounds similar to Marxist interpretation, he has similar problems with communism.

Second, much of his idea of government follows like this: There is only one sovereign, and that is God. Government is only legitimate if it has the consent of those being governed. This sounds strikingly like democracy in the states, absent the idea of where absolute sovereignty lies.

Third, and finally for now, Qutb states that the actually historical experience of Islam has establised ten points:
1. Poverty is a more suitable basis for distributing public funds than priority of conversion.
2.That Islam hates to see the accumulation of wealth on one hand and destitution on the other.
3. The principle of progressive taxation.
4. The principle of not taking necessities to pay tax and not compelling payment by force.
5. The principle that need as well as effort is a reason for reward.
6. Public social insurance for all the disabled and needy.
7. The principle that the ruler has no immunity that prevents society from calling him to account for wealth he acquires.
8. The principle of zakat (the portion of charitable giving required as a pillar of Islam).
9. That the whole community is responsible if anyone dies of hunger.
10. The forbidding of usury and leniency toward a debtor.

Now, imagine those being principles of Christianity...how would that work with capitalism? Furthermore, how different are those principles from what is said in the bible about wealth, and the poor and needy?
I realize that Islam and Christianity are very different religions as Islam had very earthly things in mind, as Christ did not explicilty outline how we are to treat each other here on earth. However, one can question that if Christ commanded us to love one another as we love ourselves, would we be doing these then things? Something to think about for sure...at least for me.