Saturday, September 11, 2010

Islam and fear

Robert Fulford: Lessons of 9/11

Note that the title of this post says "Islam and fear", not Islamism. Fulford, in the link above, finally makes an excellent point exposing how some so-called "moderate" Muslims make use of the murderous violence of their more extreme co-believers:
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is responsible for the building [the Ground Zero mosque], moved the issue to a more ominous level when he said on television on Wednesday night the results will be dire if the controversy causes the centre to be located elsewhere.
“The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack,” Rauf predicted.
He said it would threaten U.S. troops and otherwise undermine U.S. security.
“This crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis,” he warned.
About two-thirds of Americans, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll, oppose building a mosque near Ground Zero. Rauf believes fear of violence should change the public’s attitude.
No one argues he is an Islamist, but he’s clearly playing Islamist violence as a political card.
It feels like a test case. If that threat silences opposition this time, the number of future uses of the same strategy is infinite. Rauf says his goal is to build a bridge among faiths but in this case his strategy sounds more like coercion:
“National security now hinges on how we negotiate this,” he said.
Burning books in Gainesville is ugly and mean-spirited but no more than that; Rauf is trying something more serious, eliminating free discussion by threatening violence.
Fulford is exactly right, and if before people had viewed the issue as a test of their tolerance and open-mindedness, they should now view it as a test of their courage and resolve not to be cowed by the rage-boys and worse of Islam. It's not just national security that "now hinges on how we negotiate this" -- national character does as well.

And to his great credit and courage, Fulford goes on to raise questions about the very nature of Islam in the modern world:
In the climate that was created by 9/11 the fear of Islamophobia has created another threat, more serious in the long run: It inhibits the serious discussion of Islam.
Of all the great religions, Islam is unique in believing it should not be analyzed or criticized. The key point is the divine nature of the Koran. Because Muslims believe it is unalterably holy, any discussion of it is an affront.
In this sense Islam remains medieval. In 15th-century Europe, before Martin Luther, criticism of the Gospels and the Christian church was forbidden. In the year 2010 Islam still maintains that principle.
The Koran has never been scrutinized in the way the Bible has been studied since the 17th century. Ibn Warraq, a brilliant, Muslim-raised scholar whose books bring standard scholarly principles to the Koran, finds it necessary to travel with security guards.
Why should both practitioners and scholars not argue about Islam with the same frankness we bring to other world religions? Islamist violence subverts free speech and threatens to eliminate it altogether.
For the same reason, the possibility of separating religion from politics rarely gets even cursory discussion in the Islamic world.
Much in our life has changed since 9/11, as a visit to any airport in the world will demonstrate. But in the timorous way we think about Islam, far too much remains just as it was when we saw planes fly into the Twin Towers.
 Note that this is not denying the reality, nor the great preponderance, of genuinely moderate Muslims -- as opposed to the opportunistically so, like Rauf. It does, however, point out that such moderates live with much greater fear of extremist violence than do even so-called infidels, so much so that the very brave few who dare to raise their voice in criticism must have armed guards to protect their lives. We owe it to these people not just to protect them and help them spread their critique, but also to summon our own nerve and resist our own impulse to stifle and censor ourselves. We owe Islam tolerance and respect, certainly, as we do any widespread belief system -- but we owe it to both ourselves and the brave critics within Islam not to let  "tolerance" and "respect" be simply a mask for our fear.

13 comments:

  1. In this sense Islam remains medieval. In 15th-century Europe, before Martin Luther, criticism of the Gospels and the Christian church was forbidden. In the year 2010 Islam still maintains that principle.
    The Koran has never been scrutinized in the way the Bible has been studied since the 17th century. Ibn Warraq, a brilliant, Muslim-raised scholar whose books bring standard scholarly principles to the Koran, finds it necessary to travel with security guards.
    Why should both practitioners and scholars not argue about Islam with the same frankness we bring to other world religions? Islamist violence subverts free speech and threatens to eliminate it altogether


    I agree in part with Fulford's insta-analysis. though context remains an issue. Within Islam, the Koran may be considered inerrant. Yet the same holds for the bible within judeo-christianity, at least the mainstream sort. The Book of Mormon's inerrant to mormons, for that matter (doubt ye not the sacred salamander, pilgrim!).

    Scholars have criticized the Koran and Islam itself for centuries, however. Voltaire for one satirized "mohammedans" nearly as much as he christians (and the Marquis De Arouet didn't care for jewry either). Early on, catholic scribes (including Aquinas) were battling against muslims, and considered it "schism". Aquinas's remarks on the Prophet still seem relevant, though rather un PC--at the same time, while the traditional catholics did not accept the Prophet they did acknowledge the work of muslim clerics such as Avicenna and Averroes, and were influenced by them--in terms of both philosophy and science . My ...hunch is that the rise of muslim fundamentalism (with Al Ghazzali in particular) represents a major break with the earlier Islamic sects, which often made use of concepts from greek science, and philosophy (Aristotle in particular). Islam is not as monolithic as some westerners may think (tho...the rise of the wahhabi-ist sects is troubling).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Back when Christianity and Islam were both literally medieval, Islam looked quite civilized in comparison. Putting it that way, though, I think betrays a certain "Whiggish" notion of history -- it may be just that Christianity was concerned to define itself against its classical predecessors, while Islam was free to make use of cultural resources that were available to it but essentially foreign.

    In any case, that was then, this is now. Now the chief antagonist for Islam isn't Christianity but the modern world, and it's an open question, to my mind, whether the two can really co-exist. This is true of all traditional religions, actually, but, because of its ideological brittleness, requiring either a complete acceptance or a complete rejection, I think it's a good deal more acute for Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As Locke once said, Faith should be subject to the court of Reason. The Founding fathers understood that. By definition that would include any and all Abrahamic faiths (judaism, Islam,Christianity). The Founders acknowledged Islam at times, and I believe Jefferson said that "mahometans" had the same rights as christians, jews, deists, and/or pagans (imagine someone like Newt Gingrich saying that now). Locke and in his letter on tolerance claimed he supported the right of muslims to live in England.

    So, it's not entirely clear what you're saying--does America have the right to impose secularism across the world? I don't think so--. Within America, muslims have the same rights any religious group has. That may not be correct. But if you're suggesting...Islam should be controlled, or prevented, or banned in the US, then we should control and/or ban christian churches and jewish churches, whatever that would mean. Taxing the churches and properties of all Abrahamic sects across the board might be a proper secular start (Madison, sort of the chief secularist of the Founders, opposed the tax-exempt status granted to US churches).

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, "America" (whatever that means) does not have the right to impose secularism anywhere, including within America. Within America, Muslims do indeed have the rights any religious group has -- what they don't have is more rights, more respect, or immunization from the sort of critique, satire, or mockery that any other religious group is subject to.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We might question those First Amendment "rights" to freedom of religion, however. Take mormonism as an example. Any objective analysis of mormonism shows it has no basis in history, archaeology not to say science...or logic. Joseph Smith concocted an odd mishmash of pseudo-Old Testament visions with large helpings of freemasonry and a slight bit of quasi-methodist preaching. Yet the mormon cult took off (and continues to).

    Do humans actually have a right to rally around a cult which has can be shown to be demonstrably false??? Im not sure they do. And...not to wax Humean, but Abrahamic religions, including Islam, contain many supernatural elements as well. Insofar that any religion relies upon miracles, the supernatural, angels and demons--and dare we say an afterlife-- it is not in accord with Reason. Thus in a reasonable society, religion, at least of the traditional monotheistic sort, might very well...wither away. At least have the pious play Bach or something.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do humans actually have a right to rally around a cult which has can be shown to be demonstrably false???

    Are you sure you want to outlaw latter-day liberalism, J?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not really a relevant comparison. You may not care for an ideology you term "liberalism"--or at least it's not in your best interest--but that's hardly the same as saying...an Angel by the name of Moroni (or Gabriel for that matter) appeared on a hill somewhere in Illinois or something, with a golden plate (carried by the ...holy newts of flame), inscribed with ancient languages, which only Joe Smith witnessed. Besides, religious tolerance and secularism are "liberal" concepts in a sense.

    Your willingness to side with Becks, Palins, even Hagees seems fairly typical of many secular rightists. Atheist rightists are not too troubled when Rev Hagee starts ranting and raving Book of Revelation-style--since his goals (like ....white power, capitalism, control of feminists, liberals, etc) coincides with those of the secular right (e.g., Heather McDonald and her pals, or Randians, etc). Whooop.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey, you may not care for an ideology you term Mormonism, but that doesn't mean you get to suppress it, any more than I get to suppress liberalism.

    You're right that I'm mostly with Heather Mac Donald, and probably with "her pals" though I'm not sure who they may be. But the idea that has anything to do with "white power" is about as nutty as any fantasy about the Angel Moroni or any Hagee-style rant. Ironic, isn't it, how opposite extremes come to resemble one another?

    ReplyDelete
  10. --Again, it's not a relevant analogy. Supporting the separation of church and state, or a tax increase on the wealthy, or collective bargaining, or even opposing Prop 8's does not at all equal agreeing to supernatural claims (whether about Jesus, Mohammed, or the Angel Moroni). One notes that sort of faulty inference among many rightists--i.e any political claims we don't agree with are a type of "faith"--but that's...mistaken. (I wager even Davey Brooks would oppose it). At some time, "faith" probably will be...more controlled (at least if the Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris gang have their way)


    -- the GOP's probably 90% caucasian (white, WASP, etc) so....connect the dots. Im not saying all GOPers support...a David Duke sort of nut. But the reification of...WASP-ness works in subtle ways. And that's not a nutty claim whatsoever. I'm well acquainted with the American republican mindset. It's not as WASPy as it was in many areas (or, at least wealthy minorities are allowed in..>Sowells, etc) but in some areas...it's WASP all the way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Actually M-morf, I confess to reading a few of H-mac's essays, or parts of 'em, when in a cynical mood. Miss H-mac writes well, at least (unlike most GOPer gals), tho' I generally disagree with her neo-Aynnie Randian perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  12. At some time, "faith" probably will be...more controlled (at least if the Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris gang have their way)

    I don't see Dawkins et al wanting to "control" other people's faith, other than through persuasion. I don't even see the Hagee gang wanting to do this. I think you're putting yourself in with a pretty small, and pretty nasty bunch, J.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So...what did Doc Dawkins intend when he said arrest the Pope (as did other of his cronies)? Looks a bit like control (and actually I m not completely in agreement). There's a fatwa against Dawkins as well, I believe (and quite a few others...maybe even Metamorf). I suspect he wants to control that, as in...get rid of it.

    Anyway, I wasn't suggesting we outlaw religion--merely claiming that at some point religions, at least the fundamentalist sorts, may have to be politically monitored (like...by removing the tax-exempt status on churches, and church property).

    ReplyDelete

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>