Some Islamic Insanity
Many American liberals--myself included--tend to be harder on Christianity than we are on Islam, whereas it is Islam that actually seems to deserve criticism more. Case in point: death sentences for apostasy.
As I've said before, I used to parrot the "Islam is a religion of peace" mantra...but, well, let's just say that I don't do that anymore. In the past we've discussed the difficulties involved in making judgments like this. It's unclear whether we're to judge solely on the basis of the content of the doctrine (about which I know very little), on the basis of the actions of the adherents (which, let's face it, in the case of Islam is currently non-stellar), or on the basis of both.
But there's one thing everyone but the loopiest cultural moral relativist must admit: slaughtering apostates counts against any doctrine in a profound way.
Many American liberals--myself included--tend to be harder on Christianity than we are on Islam, whereas it is Islam that actually seems to deserve criticism more. Case in point: death sentences for apostasy.
As I've said before, I used to parrot the "Islam is a religion of peace" mantra...but, well, let's just say that I don't do that anymore. In the past we've discussed the difficulties involved in making judgments like this. It's unclear whether we're to judge solely on the basis of the content of the doctrine (about which I know very little), on the basis of the actions of the adherents (which, let's face it, in the case of Islam is currently non-stellar), or on the basis of both.
But there's one thing everyone but the loopiest cultural moral relativist must admit: slaughtering apostates counts against any doctrine in a profound way.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:28 AM
17 Comments:
At the moment, Christianity is having a better showing than Islam in part because there are few fundamentalist Christian theocracies active in the world. Give people like The Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments a country to run, and you'll see the same sort of stuff done in Christ's name.
I have little use for organized religion, but the nut-case theocrats behind this sort of thing have about as much in common with the Muslims I work with in my office as Fred Phelps has with the Christians in my office. The tragedy is that they have taken far more power than Phelps has.
Well, we might agree on this. One obvious possible explanation for the fact that Christains are currently more well-behaved than Muslims (politically and on average) is that the liberal secular West tamed its Christians and put religion in its place, whereas there is no institutional check on Islam in the ME.
Christianity might be as bad as Islam if the tables were turned...but *as things are now*, Christianity comes off looking a lot better.
Isn't it enough to admonish fundamentalist Islamic theocracies on the basis of their records on human rights? Whether or not their religion is a significant factor in their decisions they have committed atrocities and should be confronted on those grounds. And even if Islam is in fact a violent religion, and even if it is the only significant cause of their actions, it would still be inappropriate to condemn them in that respect.
Suppose all of the following are true:
(i) Homosexual men are extremely promiscuous with respect to the cultural norm.
(ii) Homosexual men are notoriously irresponsible in their sexual conduct (e.g. condom use, full disclosure, asking for ID).
(iii) The sexual conduct typical of homosexual men is one of the easiest ways to transmit HIV.
Do these considerations entail that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle for men? My point is that the relevant factor in evaluating the actions of people is their individual agency. Just as it is possible for a gay man to lead a healthy lifestyle, it is possible for Muslims to engender a moral politic. And even if it were not, even if Islam was a fundamentally violent religion, we would only be entitled to blame Muslims on the basis of their individual actions.
This first-person account is fascinating.
*as things are now*, Christianity comes off looking a lot better
But that's why dicsussions of whether Islam is a religion of peace or not are so pointless. "Religion of peace" is pretty laughable as a description of any of the major faiths, but I don't see the use in trying to figure out whether there's something in particular about Islam that makes current atrocities inevitable.
As Matt Weiner pointed out on a previous thread, treatment of infidels in most Christian societies in history has been even worse than the current Muslim treatment. For whatever reason, Christianity got quite a bit better. Why not focus on how to encourage Islam to follow a similar path?
"Look how bad Islam is" won't convert anybody, doesn't illuminate anything, and can alienate people we need to work with. Frame it as "modern decent people don't behave this way", and modern decent Muslims might listen.
But you must understand it before you can engage it.
But you must understand it before you can engage it.
This comment would make sense if we were talking about some effort to understand some point of Muslim doctrine which inevitably leads to these things, but we're not.
"Look , they're killing apostates!"
"Look, they're cutting of people's heads!"
"Look, they're rioting over cartoons!"
This isn't an attempt to understand Islam, it's just pointing at and condemning bad actions.
Given that adherents of almost all of the major religions have done similar things in history, it seems silly to assume that the problem is something unique to Islam. If you've got some reason to believe differently, I'd love to hear it, but "look, they're being bad" doesn't cut it.
I don't think I can agree with this, Ben.
We point out bad things done by, say, Republicans without attempting to spin them into something good, or without pointing out that Republicans now are more liberal than almost any Democrats 30 years ago or anything of that sort.
I'm not attributing this to the doctrine per se necessarily...but to pretend that there's no problem here is very strange.
Why the special treatment?
As some have pointed out, to treat people like this is to infatilize them instead of treating them like rational adults who are responsible for their actions.
If the Christian right in the U.S. started acting like this would you excuse them?
And I would want to know if such activity is sanctioned by Christianity's churches and holy books. At some point it's a pattern, not an anomoly.
I see I've posted yet another link that has gone unread. Most of us prefer comforting talk about Islam over actually listening to it.
Maybe you can find somebody out there advocating for special treatment or arguing that there's no problem, but is anyone here excusing Islam?
I'm just arguing that we have no evidence that Islam is uniquely dangerous, and plenty of historical evidence that points to the contrary position that almost all religions grow similarly dangerous fundamentalist factions.
The crusades, the inquisition, witch trials, clinic bombings—these weren't anomalies either, and all were blessed by priests and justified by scripture. Christianity's history is even worse than Islam's, but Christianity was largely tamed by the Enlightenment. I think it's reasonable to believe that the same sort of thing can work with Islam.
I realize this isn't your intent, Winston, but most of the right-wing sarcasm about "religion of peace" is designed to paint Islam as some evil violent cult so they can say, "We can't reason with them. It's a fight to the death. We can only kill 'em or convert 'em." It also helps that it lumps all Muslims together so we don't have to feel as bad about bombing the ones who haven't done anything wrong. If we say, "it's just a violent religion" then we can ignore other real grievances and root causes and just write 'em all off as evil.
To counterbalance that, I think it's important when talking about the real evils of modern Islam to also mention that Islam is not unique in these tendencies, that other religions have grown out of them, and that the vast majority of Muslims live peaceful lives. It's not just liberal piety;it's a matter of not blindly handing over more ammunition to closedminded bigots.
Wow. Bigots, the Spanish Inquisition and al-Qaeda as the Kiwanis Club all in one open-minded post. Who says the Enlightenment is dead?
Tvd, is there anything I said you want to dispute, or is pomposity the only response you're capable of?
Please, O open-minded one, Enlighten me!
OK, that was intemperate, but I'm honestly puzzled. Tvd, I've seen you argue reasonably on other threads. What about my comments warrants that kind of condescension?
In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't calling you a bigot.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I apologize as well. Thank you for the olive branch, Ben, which I gladly accept.
The question to me is really: if Christendom could commit such heinous acts as the Inquisition when its sacred texts explicitly forbid them, what of a religion that seems to require them?
Surely the reasonable person must ask without being called a bigot.
Further, in order to encourage "moderate" islam (and we must), we must understand what moderation is even possible. We must also learn who is sincere and who might just be telling us what we want to hear.
The Islam with which the West can share the world will look very strange to our eyes, and it'll take great discernment to know it (if and) when we see it.
I wish we could lump all religions together, that they all eventually grow out of their murderous stupidities, and that al-Qaeda is just a passing stage, a small bunch of crazies who largely operate in a vacuum. But I fear it's not that easy.
[Previous post removed for very bum link.]
Thanks for the response, TVD.
The question to me is really: if Christendom could commit such heinous acts as the Inquisition when its sacred texts explicitly forbid them, what of a religion that seems to require them?
The reason I find this question unenlightening is that the Inquisition found justification for their acts in those same texts. That's the problem with sacred texts: they're often self-contadictory and open to multiple interpretations. The Quran includes "thou shalt not kill" after all, and many Muslims believe in jihad as nonviolent struggle within oneself. We may think this is theologically silly considering the actual text, but modern Christianity ignores or weirdly reinterprets much of the Bible as well.
The more important question is how to get Muslims to stop being violent, and on that question I think blaming the current violence on the religion itself is largely a copout, a way to throw up our hands and say, "there's nothing we can do." There are obvious geopolitical reasons for what's going on, and these we can do something about.
The bigots I was referring to are those engaged in a campaign to label Islam as an irrational death cult that can't be reasoned with, to label all of its adherents as enemies, to say that death or conversion are our only options against such evil. A quick glance into the comments at LGF or RedState should be sufficient to show that there are plenty of such bigots around. I don't count you among them, but focusing on the negative aspects of the religion of Islam gives those bigots more traction, whereas focusing on solving the political problems of the region could help bring about a more secular society in which religion is less of a problem.
I believe your attempt at a rationalist solution, examining everything about the religion except what it actually believes, is doomed to fail.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home