In the Cordoba Center debate, I have been thinking about the fact that the only Muslims who consistently come across as acceptable among Republicans these days are those like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who have left the faith and are capitalizing on it.
I am an Iranian American who does not practice Islam (although many members of my extended family do) – but I am deeply respectful of people of any faith. In that vein, I am uncomfortable with the role Ms. Hirsi Ali has taken to playing in our media and political spheres. She paints Islam with a broad and deliberately ignorant brush. The Islam she describes in Somalia is NOTHING like I know and that is practiced in Iran or in many other majority Muslim countries. She deliberately (and I believe cynically) confuses Islam with conservative tribal culture. For example, there is nothing in the Koran or Islam about female circumcision, but there is a long tradition in Somali and other tribal African culture of that practice that cuts across and predates religions. Given how articulate and smart she sounds, I can’t help but think that she knows better.This kind of sloppy thinking conflates culture and conservative tradition with religion. No one in our media challenges her or other "ex-Muslims" who have signed on to the “clash of civilizations” thesis (except for Nicholas Kristof who got lambasted for his review of her latest book). It is as if Ms. Hirsi Ali is part of a cynical game by certain political factions who can take cover from charges of bigotry by pointing to the token "expert" Muslims on their side.Finally, any criticism of Ms. Ali is countered with the story of her flight from Somalia and the crazy person in the Netherlands who threatened her life. While the way her story is told is touching, her personal narrative is irrelevant.
I want to respond to this reader. It may be true that torture and subjugation existed in Somalia before religion, but it is religion (often protected by demands of "respect") that is now consistently the warrant for, and incitement to, genital mutilation. In other words, yes, female circumcision predated Islam in Somalia, but a widely-held interpretation of Islam buttresses its continued existence into the 21st century.
And I'm sorry if your reader thinks that the Islam Hirsi Ali speaks of is "NOTHING like I know and that is practiced in Iran". That doesn't change the fact that a religious-based government uses the Koran to justify everything from dress codes and censorship to hanging gays and stoning adulterous women. It's the height of solipsism to accuse someone of painting Islam with too broad a brush, then claim that the only type of Islamic religion practiced in Iran is a peaceful one.
12 comments:
Only skimmed the WSJ article and as usual muslim west africa is ignored. Senegal has had a working democracy since independence and muslim Mali seems to be moving in the right direction. Other w. african countries are more basketcases but that doesn't seem tied to their religion. My fear is the militarization of this region lead by the US.
Just to piggyback on what Pete said (and to also engage in a bit of shameless self-promotion), I refer people to my earlier blog entry Islam is Not your Enemy. As I point out in my blog, quite a number of predominately Mulsim countries have a high degree of religious freedom and pluralism.
One thing that may be hard for those of us raised in the Catholic tradition to fully grasp is that Islam, at least Sunni Islam (85% of all Muslims), is totally non-clerical. There is no ordained clergy, no hierarchy, no centralized authority to dictate doctrine or be the guardian of orthodoxy. The term "imam" refers to various forms of religious leadership, ranging from the leader of a small group prayer to a scholar of religion, none of whom are ordained. So, Islam is nothing more than what people who call themselves Muslims say it is. That's why it differs so much around the world. One makes generalizations about Islam at his own peril.
Both the "Clash of Civilizations" model and the "One World" model are compelling for what they teach us.
For Clash of Civilizations: that Western, Muslim, and Confucian civilizations have extremely different origins, underlying principles, and yearnings.
For One World: that all humans and civilizations have common origins, shared principles and common yearnings.
Unfortunately when a model, even one with truth, is embraced too tightly, it becomes a falsehood. For all the good points Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes, she also can get blinded. (Nothing is worse than a reformed smoker/Muslim.[levity]) She finds Obama's statement that "[a world based on] American and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles" as counter productive and wrong, based on the Clash of Civilizations model.
Surely, even if we recognize our distinct differences, we can work together.
I'm not a big fan of One World (especially after reading "How Soccer Explains the World"). I don't think Americans want to visit Hagia Sophia or the Great Wall for the French fries, and I don't think the Chinese visitors want to find drab cinderblock towers in Las Vegas.
I know less about Clash of Civilizations, but would not be a big fan if the emphasis is on the Clash. I'm not big on going back to Bush's view of the world. The problem, as Pete and Myk point out in they own ways, is that we must learn more about the other cultures (and them about us) and not pretend that a model can substitute for the way the world is.
Islam is nothing more than what people who call themselves Muslims say it is. That's why it differs so much around the world. One makes generalizations about Islam at his own peril.
Again, I totally agree with this statement, but the fact that a religion leaves so much room to accommodate opposite interpretations is not a strong argument for its usefulness as a moral guide or as a framework for governance. Experience suggests that a more accurate title of your post would read "Islam is not your enemy, except when its text is interpreted literally, as it often is."
I have no quarrel with the introspective, thoughtful form of Islam or Christianity or Judaism or any other belief system. None of us do. As Jefferson said, "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".
However, a significant number of people do not practice religion privately. And for good reason- the texts themselves aren't clear on the level of proselytizing its followers should have. (If anything, the Bible seems to insist on a more evangelical spreading of the gospels).
Every single day across the world, religion injects itself into government policy and legislation. Privately-held beliefs become public justifications for cutting off women's clitorises, or hanging gays, or stoning women, or more benignly, for shoehorning creationism into school curricula or impeding stem-cell research. Many millions of people aren't content with keeping their religious ideas to themselves, and as a result, they begin to pick pockets and break bones.
And it's illogical to dismiss those with fundamentalist beliefs as "not true Muslims", because without God himself vocally making his actual intentions known, two different people can have strongly conflicting but ultimately equally valid ideas on what amounts to an unprovable truth claim. In other words, we will forever be reading stories about a suicide bomber justifying his attack using Islamic rhetoric, then, in the same story, we'll read a quote from another moderate Muslim spokesperson decrying the deed, saying "these actions aren't the true nature of Islam." Now what? Both Muslims felt very strongly about their respective stances. Which interpretation is more correct? Without the author of the text to answer our questions about his intent, how can we intelligibly adjudicate who has the truer claim?
This is why I agree that to generalize about the followers of a religious faith such as Islam is fallacious. But it is equally fallacious to exclude as "not actually Muslim" those who act immorally in its name.
To respond to Myk's comment via James' it is certainly true that generalizing to any extent about religion is dangerous. Of course we can use numerous examples from history, but since I can never seem to stray too far from my love for classical and medieval history, I want to point out an extreme example of two "true Christians," Constantine and St. Anthony. While I am certain there are other and perhaps better examples, I cannot think of any two people professing to embrace the same religious beliefs, yet choosing to act on those beliefs in entirely different ways (neither one really improving the world in any way, but that's another story). The case is no different today, whatever religion your profess.
I'd also like to briefly comment on James' published response by posing a question. He says,
"It may be true that torture and subjugation existed in Somalia before religion, but it is religion (often protected by demands of "respect") that is now consistently the warrant for, and incitement to, genital mutilation. In other words, yes, female circumcision predated Islam in Somalia, but a widely-held interpretation of Islam buttresses its continued existence into the 21st century." My question is, were you to remove religion (in this case Islam) from the equation in Somalia, an equation that already included torture and subjugation, would that have any effect on such horrid practices? In other words, is a world without religion, any better than one with religion if the practices were already in place? If Somalia had never embraced Islam (or another religion), is it perhaps just as likely that those same cultural practices would continue to persist, even into the 21st century?
I like Ted's speculative question. We often discuss whether Christianity has had a positive or negative influence in the world. I like this modification of whether religion in total has made any difference. In the meantime, I have a easier question for James. Who is the "us" in "None of us do."?
Jim, sorry- the "us" means the people writing/reading this blog. I'm (hopefully) assuming that everyone on here is progressive enough to agree with the principle of religious liberty and pluralism. (I do know there are people in this country who don't, but I have a feeling they don't read this blog)
And this response is for you and Ted--
Yes, to a certain extent, I think these cultural practices would persist without the veneer of fundamentalist Islam. But it doesn't mean that the addition of extreme Islam hasn't increased female genital mutilation or entrenched it even further into the existing cultural fabric.
Without the Koran in Somalia, there would be one less powerful institution that could be used as a reason to do bad things. If, for instance, Al-Shabaab was composed of extremist Jains instead of extremist Muslims, soccer fans and Christians would not be executed. This is true because Jain religous tradition specifically prohibits killing, for any reason. So long as the three major monotheism's holy books go without some pruning and updating, they will forever be used as motivation or justification or both for those who wish to act immorally.
At the very core of it, beliefs are important. If you strongly believe something, you're likely to act on it. If the government of Saudi Arabia publicly declared that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a hoax, instead of teaching it as historical fact to its high school students, there'd be a little less anti-semitism in the world. If the Old Testament never mentioned that Jerusalem belongs only to the Jews, extremist Jews on the west bank would not have a burning desire to forcibly remove Palestinians from their homes, fueling more conflict.
And Jim- I think another question raised by "Has Christianity had a positive or negative influence on the world" is the following: does there exist a belief system that is more efficient than Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam in promoting well-being in the world?
Ah…all 6 of us…I had visions of you, Alie, and a puppy or two gathered around the computer. I'm glad I was included.
I'm a bit surprised by your response. I would come down a bit harder on religion. Perhaps we passed each other going opposite directions after some of our previous discussions?
Seriously, I would second a couple of things James said. The "pruning and updating" is one. I've been proposing that all organizations be abandoned after 40 years. If there is still a need for what the organization stood for, start a new one. That may be a little drastic, but it would be useful if every Church's doctrine was re-established every 40 years—sort of like this countries' political party platforms.
As far as belief systems, I think a major problem with organized religion, especially Christianity, is the notion of faith. Certainly faith and hope can be useful, but the emphasis that an organization relies on unquestionable tenets strikes me as fairly desperate.
As to a more efficient belief system…absolutely!!! I'll get right on it! Off the top of my head I like Bokononism from Cat's Cradle. It doesn't over promise.
This is a huge topic and I have lots of ideas on the matter. Let me simply say (I don't want to hit the freedom of speech limit with comments.) that crucial to the belief system would be the notion of "the endless search for meaning" which is, after all, the definition of religion, and the notion of progression, both of the individual (in age, in knowledge, etc.) and the belief system (as "God" is revealed through history, science, meditation, etc.).
countries' = country's
I'm not sure if your question was a nudge to comment on atheism or not, but I'll do so anyway. In short, I am far too ignorant to assert that I know enough about the universe to deny the existence of something I can't even define. I admire the chutzpah of a self proclaimed atheist, but I hope it is not the same motivation that is often from the man of 'faith'—the need for comfort from the wearying search.
It's hard to stop.
There are parts of Christianity that are can't be beat. It's biggest problem is that it is just impossible for mere mortals to practice. I think that is why people think it's founder was a god. Seriously, you have to give all your possessions away, you have to leave your family, you have to love that fat kid who just sat on you. What other religion tells you that a prostitute is better that the clergy? How can you have a religion like that! That is why we will never know if Christianity is a good system of beliefs. As Chesterton said "It's not that Christianity has failed, it has never been tried." Christ was such a revolutionary that a religion based on his life doesn't lend itself very well to a stable organization.
And, of course, it is said that Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton practiced all the major religions and found Islam the best. However, his wife insisted he died a Catholic.
I wanted to respond top James’ excellent comment in response to mine, with which I also have little disagreement. Although, there is an argument, one that I’m really not prepared to make, that says that, at least the Salafism of the Taliban and al Qaeda, does not represent traditional Islam.
I’m willing to go along with what you say so long as you can recognize that the “introspective” Muslim is not some kind of freakish departure from “real” barbaric Islam.
It might be good to remember that the Islam we see portrayed today in cartoons and elsewhere was not always so. For centuries Islam was more tolerant, and valued learning and science far more, than European Christendom. The Jewish philosopher Maimonides could not have published and thrived in Christian Europe. Not only did Muslims gather and preserve the intellectual content of ancient Greek and Roman civilization, they also interpreted and expanded upon it, and made their own contributions - in science, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, optics, agriculture, architecture, theology, music. It’s no surprise that many of our mathematical terms come from Arabic: algebra (al-jebr), algorithm (from Muslim mathmetician “al-Khowarazmi”) and zero (from the Arabic word “sifre” where we also get cipher.) So, what is more essentially Muslim, honor killings or algebra?
Certainly, I agree that religion injects itself into government policy and legislation. But you speak as though that is necessarily a bad thing. Opposition to slavery was mostly spearheaded by religious types. The two people who did more to move this country toward racial justice, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, were both motivated by religion. I just heard a piece on NPR that said that most of the opposition to Arizona’s immigration enforcement law comes from churches (although in the interest of full disclosure, the article acknowledged a certain amount of self-serving going on here – Hispanics are notoriously religious and tend to boost weekly attendance).
But here’s my real point: from a strategic standpoint, if you want to change people’s behavior, it’s not really going to help to tell 1.1 billion people that their beliefs and the beliefs of everyone they know and respect are repugnant and stupid. Karen Armstrong, who is fast becoming one of my chief gurus (she gets the seat next to Huston Smith), cites St. Augustine on how one should interpret scripture: “Whoever thinks he understands divine scripture or any part of it, but whose interpretation does not build up the twofold love of God and neighbor, has not really understood it.” Armstrong argues that this principle of exegesis should be applied to all the foundational religious writing. Perhaps the 12th century Hindu philosopher, Basava, had it right: “Compassion is the root of all religious faiths.” I’ve seen and read enough to know that there is something of value in Islam worth tapping into. In any event, as long as people see Islam as just one more relic left over from humanity’s infancy period which needs to be swept aside, we’re not going anywhere.
Post a Comment