A discussion on the Western view of Islam’s otherness, a review of Dave Silverman’s recent television appearance, and an excellent interview with internationally acclaimed writer Reza Aslan.
Episode 33: Islam, Dave Silverman, and an Interview with Reza Aslan [1:01:08] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (1067)This is Part IV of a three part series. Previously, Part I, Part II, Part III.
Atheists and Islam: Part IV, Enlightenment Values.
So, what does all of this have to do with atheists? The risk is that an aversion to Islam could push some in the atheist community towards condoning violations of freedom of religion and expression. These are two of the central values of Enlightenment thought, and the best angels of the Enlightenment spirit are the cornerstones on which all free, rational discourse relies. Call me an Enlightenment fundamentalist if you will, but these are two principles which should never be compromised.
My concern is that it is too easy for us to point our finger at Islamist terror and conclude in a self-satisfied way that this proves our point about religion better than anything. And perhaps it does – after all I am not denying that the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam plays an important role in encouraging the violence in the Middle East. But to leave it there is to tempt us into being intellectually lazy, and once you get lazy, you also get defensive and reactive. During my discussion with Aslan, he expressed surprise at my assertion that all the atheists I know are opposed to the minaret ban and the ban on the veil – and as you can see, this has been the case at this blog. Aslan however went as far as to say that the willingness of atheists to circumvent religious freedom in the name of opposing Islam in fact characterizes the majority of our community.
The idea that this might be true distressed me. Therefore, I decided to do a little research on the question, and spent several hours trying to find commentary on atheist blogs concerning the question. What I found was mostly reassuring – at The Friendly Atheist, for example, Hemant Mehta came down clearly on the side of opposing the minaret ban in Switzerland as a violation of religious freedom, and of the extensive thread that followed, I counted only five discrete commentators who supported the ban. The Freethinker fared less well, containing about 20 supporters of the ban in the thread about Switzerland but at least an equal number of people opposed to it. (I also counted as ‘supportive of the ban’ people who complained that the call to prayer was the cause of their support, although they are misinformed as the call to prayer was already not allowed in Switzerland.) The Freethinker, it occurred to me, is a British blog, and it was suggested to me by other atheists that the divide between European style atheism and American style atheism could be an important part of what was going on here – and indeed, Aslan had just returned from a trip to Europe where he had been dealing with that particular brand of opposition to religion for several weeks. Perhaps this helps explain his surprise at the dedication many atheists have to the principle of freedom of worship – perhaps also, as I suggested to him, this has something to do with the split between what one hears at a grassroots level, and what one hears from the loudest, most visible members of a community. Indeed, even in Switzerland agnostics and atheists actually voted against the minaret ban in higher numbers than religious believers.
This is Part III in a four part series. Previously, Part I and Part II.
Atheism and Islam: Part III, Sam Harris.
However, if Aslan insists on the importance of context while downplaying the importance of truth claims, Sam Harris reverses his mistake and treats ideas as isolated things, neglecting or dismissing the importance of context in determining how ideas actually operate. Throughout his chapter on Islam “The Problem With Islam,” in his book The End of Faith, Harris acknowledges that society and politics – in particular the baneful legacy of colonialism and the United States’ less than stellar record when it comes to foreign policy in the Middle East – play a role in fostering Islamism. But for the most part his next step is to insist that we should still primarily point our finger at Islam. Harris argues that commentators who insist that the problem is primarily political are “unable to place [themselves] in the position of one who actually believes the propositions set forth in the Koran – that paradise awaits, that our senses deliver nothing but evidence of a fallen world in desperate need of conquest for the glory of God.” Harris thus insists that “‘the rise of Islamic fundamentalism’ is only a problem because the fundamentals of Islam are a problem.”
You will have no argument from me that the fundamentals of all religions are deeply flawed and often destructive to human happiness. However, Harris treats the passages of the Qur’an which can clearly inspire violence as a sufficient cause for Islamist terrorism, rather than a necessary cause or even, as a case could be made, merely a very aggravating cause. Harris makes a clearly ahistorical argument when he argues that without Islam, “most Muslim grievances against the West would be impossible even to formulate, much less avenge.” First, this statement seems to dismiss the entire legacy of European and American imperialism – whether it was conducted by armed soldiers or undercover CIA operatives. Second, this ignores the historical reality of terrorist groups not inspired by religion, and moreover acting on grievances not overwhelmingly more compelling than those the Muslim world harbors. The terrorism of anarchist groups of the nineteenth century comes immediately to mind – and of course, there is a long list of terrorism inspired at least partially by other major religions. Therefore, to single out Islam as the factor which “explains the actions of Muslim extremists” better than anything else is inadequate – it is part of the picture, for sure, but that it can be isolated as the most important factor is extremely doubtful. Harris insists that oppressed, poor people are everywhere and yet, very few resort to this particular type of violence – true enough, but the reasons for violence or the lack thereof in any given social situation are so complex that to suggest that peaceful situations are maintained simply because Islam is not a factor is an unsophisticated argument indeed.
This is the second installment of a four-part series. Part I can be found here.
Atheists & Islam: Part II, Reza Aslan.
First, I would like to critique Reza Aslan’s description of religion as it is portrayed in No god but God and this debate with Sam Harris. Aslan writes,
“Religion, it must be understood, is not faith. Religion is the story of faith. It is an institutionalized system of symbols and metaphors (read rituals and myths) that provides a common language with which a community of faith can share with each other their numinous encounter with the Divine Presence.”
This is a very postmodern understanding of religion – and it is right, at least in part. But the problem with this definition is that it is a definition that few religious people actually accept – at least the devoutly religious. That will be the day when an evangelical Christian says to me, “it’s not really important that one literately believes that Christ rose again, that is just the story we use to symbolize our faith.” And it is the same with Islam – while Islam undoubtedly represents a diverse tradition which encompasses the spiritual experiences of millions of people over hundreds of years, the traditional (or most common) telling of the tale nevertheless does include believing very concretely in several things. Therefore, the goalpost is moved when Aslan goes on to write,
“Religion is concerned not with genuine history, but with sacred history, which does not course through time like a river. … To ask whether Moses actually parted the Red Sea, or whether Jesus truly raised Lazarus from the dead, or whether the word of God indeed poured through the lips of Muhammad, is to ask totally irrelevant questions.”
I have no doubt that these questions are irrelevant to the particular task Aslan set for himself in No god but God, which aims to be a historical account of the development of Islam and a description of its core ideas. However, when it comes to the issues believers and non-believers alike wrangle with today, these are extremely relevant questions. I have no objection to people engaging with the part of ourselves that is capable of transcendent or sublime experience – in fact I encourage it, as it seems quite fundamental to the human condition. However, should a person choose to do this through any organized religion, the question of why this religion becomes quite operative – and for most people, the answer to that question involves certain truth claims.* These claims involve not just the effectiveness of any one “discourse” of religion to connect them to an experience of transcendence, but truth claims that depend for their effectiveness on the belief that certain things actually happened. Therefore, the questions of what the Qur’an says, and whether or not part or all of its Revelation is believed to be historically true, are incredibly important if we are going to deal realistically with the dynamics of Islam in the world today.
This is Part I in what will be a four part series. I will add a new segment every 5 days or so, and once they are all posted we will also put up the audio recording of my interview with Reza Aslan.
Atheists & Islam: Part I, Introduction.
In the winter of 2010, I participated in a discussion held by a local atheist group. The topic of the night was, “Is Europe failing its Muslims?” After watching the video of an Intelligence Squared debate on the question, a vote was held which resulted with only three people voting yes, in a crowd of about 15-20 people.
I was one of those three people. Coming as the vote did after the minaret ban in Switzerland, I was surprised to find myself so much in the minority. Granted, those who argued for the “yes” side of the question in the Intelligence Squared debate did a notably bad job at making their case, mixing weak postmodern reasoning with obscure references to the grassroots campaign for tolerance. However, I thought the speakers arguing for “no” did quite a poor job as well, particularly when Douglas Murray employed xenophobic doublespeak, at once insisting that the conflict between Islam and Western values was solvable but also claiming that Muslims could not consider themselves brothers to believers and citizens of Britain at the same time.
Since then, the so-called “Burqa Ban” in France (inaccurately named because barely anyone in France wears the burqa, and the law was mostly aimed at the veil) and the hysteria over the (also misnamed) “Ground Zero Mosque” have convinced me further than not only Europe, but also America, are flirting with betraying, in the name of opposing Islam, the core Enlightenment concepts of freedom of worship, freedom of expression, and the rights of the minority. Furthermore, the atheist community has a peculiar relationship with Islam – while there is evidence to support the argument that we are more, not less, likely to respect freedom of worship than believers, our ranks also include some of the most strident critics of Islam who insist that, in addition to our general opposition to religion, Islam in particular deserves our ire and our suspicion.
It was in this context that I seized the opportunity to meet and discuss Islamophobia with Reza Aslan when he came to UC Davis this October. By way of preparing myself for the interview I read Aslan’s No god but God, an introductory text to Islam which is written in light of Islamist terror – and by way of familiarizing myself with the opposing end of the argument about Islam, I read “The problem with Islam,” the chapter in Sam Harris’s The End of Faith which deals exclusively with Islam. What follows are my reflections and opinions on this question after seriously pondering them for several weeks.
As I am likely to raise some heckles during the course of this discussion, let me start out by stating clearly that I am, of course, still an atheist. As an atheist I do believe that the less human beings resort to religious belief to cope with the human condition, the better the global human community can move forward to progressive and peaceful solutions for the problems of society. Therefore the following is in no way intended as a defense of Islam insofar as it is a religion – however, it is meant as a defense of all Muslims who are confronting everything from pedestrian prejudice to state sanctioned discrimination.
Next time, I will start my discussion by critiquing Reza Aslan’s conception of religion.
46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers. Only 37% know a Muslim American. Overall, 61% oppose the Park51 project, while just 26% are in favor of it. Just 23% say it would be a symbol of religious tolerance, while 44% say it would be an insult to those who died on 9/11.
According to Time Magazine
Park51 is the proposed mosque that is too close for some to Ground Zero. I think to evaluate what makes someone disagree with Islam, the particular things they disagree with the religion about, and what society at large thinks. We’ve made our positions pretty clear in the past about how we feel regarding the Ground Zero Mosque, and you can listen to our latest opinions on it on our previous show. President Obama is even undergoing vast amounts of criticism from the public at large with a resurgence of accusations that he is a Muslim (Obama a Muslim? Rumors gain steam, defying facts, More Americans say Obama is Muslim, White House says Obama is Christian, prays daily). So, perhaps the question to ask, instead of the Time Magazine’s article title Does America have a Muslim Problem?, Does America have a problem with Muslims? The answer seems to be yes. Criticism of Islam is not good, it’s great, but I would feel better knowing that the criticism is good criticism, and not stemming from 37% of Americans knowing a Muslim, the fact that Muslims are, or are assumed to be, ‘foreign’ and ‘different.’ It is so strange to live in a country where religion is so highly respected, so long as you have the chants and the rituals right and if not, it’s a terrible, vile, wicked thing.
There has long been criticism that Muslims in the West have not done enough to mitigate or uproot the threat of Muslim extremism. Some Muslims, however, have started working towards peaceful methods of reducing violent religious extremism. In the U.K., Muslim youth (who are particularly vulnerable to recruitment by extremists) attend Summer camps to combat extremism in their countries. Justin Gest, an academic at the London School of Economics and Political Science, says via a USAToday interview:
…the conference would at least expose young people to alternatives of what “good Islam” can be… [i]f it changes one young Muslim’s views about what is real Islam, that’s a good thing… How many of their minds will change I don’t know.”
There are other responses from the Muslim community; a video recently released on YouTube features prominent Muslim leaders advocating peace and denouncing violent extremism, teaching that Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’ Attorney General Eric Holder sympathizes, in an article by Main Justice, with the notion of many Muslims being peaceful and non-violent:
There needs to be more recognition of these efforts and of the losses suffered in the Muslim community here and around the world… Many of the victims of terror attacks by al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups are innocent Muslims.”
We should keep in mind that many Muslims are victims of terrorism, and that many Muslims act to combat terrorism. Muslim Americans are also the best resource in combating extremism within our borders. While I disagree that the Qur’an teaches peace as a general message, and I find virtually all specifically Islamic claims to be either unproven or disproved, I can appreciate the valuable effort many in the Muslim community make every day to work towards peace. Hopefully for all of our sakes, Islam, at least in the West, will have a connotation of violence on par or to a lesser degree than Christianity.
Copyright © 2009–2011. Some rights reserved.
RSS Feed. This blog is proudly powered by Wordpress and uses a variation of Modern Clix, a theme by Rodrigo Galindez.
