Time for a little Intolerance
I’ve been having what seems to me, anyway, to be a very unsatisfactory conversation with a commenter named Delilah, so this is at least in part a response to her. Let me begin by borrowing, from Maryam Namazie, the following video clip:
Maryam entitled her post ”Yes I’m intolerant — as we all should be.” I agree, there is no room for tolerating religious intrusions into public space. Religions are, and must be, in our more complex, multiethnic, multi-religious societies, in which people may have, and have a right to have, no religious belief at all, private affairs. They should not govern our relationships, and religious believers must learn how to practice their religions without attempting to impose their religious priorities on the rest of us.
Of course, the other side of this is the view that secularism is an imposition by non-believers on believers, so secularism stands, in the public square, as a world-view, and as having no more right to public recognition than religious world-views. If this is true, then we are indeed in trouble, since there is no way we can adjudicate between world-views in public space. At the same time that Roman Catholics insist that their moral views regarding abortion and assisted dying be represented in criminal law, many Muslims have claimed the right to be governed by Sharia law. The pope has insisted, on occasion, that canon law is superior to civil law. This came out recently in a Belgian dispute with the Vatican. Muslims have enforced their own law of respect for Muhammad by threatening and, in some cases, actually using violence against those they feel are in conflict with their law regarding respect for the prophet.
However, there is an essential difference here. While secular constitutions can be justified by reference to secular issues alone, that is, by considering the effects of different legal regimes for the people who are to be governed by them, religious law is based, not on universally agreed upon or confirmable doctrines, but on religious beliefs which have no known justification, no methodology of justification, and no obvious basis in fact. John Esposito, for example, in an article published on the website for ARDA as one of their “guiding papers” — ”Rethinking Islam and Secularism,” – claims, quoting himself:
Under a regime of ‘secular fundamentalism’, “the mixing of religion and politics is regarded as necessarily abnormal (departing from the norm), irrational, dangerous and extremist.” [3]
And then he goes on, after saying that secularism is a political doctrine that grew out of Christian Europe, and that, in the aftermath of the colonial period, secularism from above
was but the first stage in a far more insidious trend where secularism as a comprehensive worldview has come to dominate all areas of life. [3]
But then he immediately quotes from Abdelwahab Elmessiri to this effect:
Secularism is no longer a mere set of ideas that one can accept or reject at will, it is a world-outlook that is embedded in the simplest and most innocuous cultural commodities, and that forms the unconscious basis and implicit frame of reference for our conduct in public and in private. The state … has even penetrated to the farthest and deepest concerns of our private lives. [4]
And then referring to another Islamic scholar, Esposito writes that secularism “does not necessarily guarantee peace and tolerance.” (4)
And of course he is right. Secularism does not guarantee peace and tolerance. Perhaps there are no such guarantees. Indeed, as Maryam Namazie points out, perhaps there needs to be a bit more intolerance. Quoting with approval Talal Asad, who reminds us that
A secular state does not guarantee toleration [evidence: "communal riots" in India (which were actually fomented by a Hindu theocrat in Gujarat)]; it puts into play different structures of ambition and fear. The law never seeks to eliminate violence since its object is always to regulate violence. [4]
Really? Where has Esposito been living, that he thinks he should simply accept without comment the idea that the point is simply to regulate violence? It is probably true that violence cannot be eliminated entirely, but the evidence that Steven Pinker provides in The Better Angels of Our Nature seems to indicate that we can go a long way towards the elimination of most or at least a great deal of violence that was once taken for granted.
Why does Esposito so readily agree, one wants to ask, with what Asad says about secularism here? Elmessiri’s idea that secularism penetrates ”to the farthest and deepest concerns of our private lives” is precisely the point of secular polities, for this is what religion, not what secularism does. Religion is the worldview that invades peoples homes, enters their bedrooms, is present at their sickbeds, or governs how people will die, whether they will or will not have children, and, in many cases, what their status in society will be. Secularism cuts through all of this extra historical baggage, stored up in religious tradition, and enables people to live in relative freedom so far as their sexual or family relationships go, who they will work for, what vocation they will choose in life, where they will live, how they will dress, and what they will do when they are not working. Religions govern all of these things, right down, in many cases, from the time of prayer and prostration before unseen and unproved and unprovable entities, to what your beliefs about the unseen will be, as well as to what you may do in bed, with whom and in what way. Indeed, here is graphic testimony to the troubling intrusion of religion into the personal life of an individual and the catastrophic effect it has had (see Maryam Namazie’s ”Islam is the most horrible thing I have experienced in my life“):
Like Ayan Hirsi Ali, the young woman in this video chose freedom, freedom from the intrusion of religion into her life, into what she can or cannot wear, into how she may or may not appear in public, into her way of thinking and believing, though she is now scarred for life by the machinations of religion. We should not tolerate those who think that religions have a right to do this sort of thing.
Esposito, however, wouldn’t like this. He would remind us, as one Muslim scholar puts it, that “the debate about Islam and its alleged compatibility with democracy/non-violence/pluralism/tolerance is misstated. The real question is not what Islam is, but what do Muslims believe and want?” (6) This, however, so far as democracy goes, is neither here nor there. What Muslims believe and want must be limited by diversity of views, even amongst Muslims. Christians, for example, are very diverse, and what Christians want cannot be defined with any accuracy, and, in any case, why should any group of Christians, even in a Christian society (supposing there were such a thing), get to define the kinds of beliefs and practices which everyone in that society should hold or practice? The curious thing is that, after quoting Abdelwahab Elmessiri regarding the intrusiveness of secularism, he goes on to say this:
A hallmark of Islamic politics has been the belief that Islamic principles and values govern all aspects of life and that Sharia acts as a framework for all human activity, whether in public or private realms. This belief counters the idea that a modern state’s legislation should not be dependent on any religious tradition. [6]
And then he goes on to say that al-Qaradawi holds that secularism and Islam are incompatible in any country with a majority Muslim population. That means, of course, that as soon as a population is a majority Muslim one, Sharia law trumps all other law and should govern all private and public behaviour. And while I can understand Esposito’s repeated point about the colonial experience, and how modernity and secularism or pseudo-secularism have been experienced in many Muslim majority countries in the Middle East and North Africa, this still does not answer some of the pressing problems that arise for any country in which there is a substantial Muslim minority, especially if they are of the belief, as Tariq Ramadan clearly is, that Muslim law is always superior to the laws in force for the time being in those lands.
Esposito points out that the Muslim scholar Ghannouchi is of the opinion that in the Muslim world secularism and despotism seem to go hand in hand; but of course, I would want immediately to add, and Esposito does not, that this is not what secularism is. Secularism is not simply aping the clothing, music, and other lifestyles of the West, but a form of government in which church and state are kept strictly separate because individuals and their freedoms count. Dictatorship and Western cultural styles may go hand in hand, but this is not secularism, and Esposito should know the difference.
Authoritarian governments [he writes, apparently continuing with Ghannouchi's point] take the worst of secularist doctrine and use it as a weapon against Islamists by equating Islam with fundamentalism and extremism and setting secularism as a prerequisite to democracy. [8]
But, again, this is not secularist doctrine. Indeed, we can see how far astray Esposito goes when he discusses Qaradawi’s concern that “secularists call for democracy and free elections when the result suits them, but as soon as an Islamist group does well they reject the result on any pretext.” (8) As anyone would do as well, if a Christian party were to achieve power, and then to begin legislating Christian moral doctrine, for secularism is the view that government, religion and law should be separate. Democracy is not simply rule by a majority, as Qaradawi and Esposito seem to hold, and it does not give the majority the right to impose religious priorities on all members of society. Muslims or Christians may establish rules for their own adherents; secularism is the belief that such rules should only govern those who voluntarily sign on to them. There can no doubt be disagreement as to what laws can be made that will govern all members of a society, but those deriving from a particular religious tradition are certainly amongst those that are ruled out by secular principles.
The problem becomes even clearer in relation to Ghonnouchi’s position.
Ghannouchi links secularism with liberalism and sees the failings of Western secularism, i.e.,, violence, crime, isolation, and lack of trust and cooperation between neighbors, as undermining civil society. [9]
He goes on to quote Ghannouchi to the effect that liberalism is synonymous with “selfishness, greed, and individualism,” and will ultimately destroy society itself — a very jaded vision of a free society, and a typically religious misunderstanding. The ideal society, of course, from Ghannouchi’s point of view, would be an Islamic state based on religious principles. This ideal, however, ”is very difficult if not impossible to achieve under current circumstances.” (9) How about under any circumstances? (And why, one might ask, should anyone but a Muslim think that an Islamic society governed by Sharia would be an ideal society?) Nevertheless, Ghannouchi thinks that, in the meantime, until such an ideal Islamic society can be established,
… the next best option is a “secular democratic regime which fulfils the category of the rule of reason, according to Ibn Khaldun” because such a regime is “less evil than a despotic system of government that claims to be Islamic.” [9]
This reminds me of Ibn Warraq, who says, of Ibn Khaldun, that, according to this worthy, “the caliph must belong to the tribe of Kuraish and be of the male sex: again, not democratic principles.” (Why I am Not a Muslim, 187) Not the rule of reason either, I suggest. But, enough of this. I could go on and on discussing Esposito’s “guiding paper”, and we could explore the many attempts made by Muslim scholars to deal with the idea of secularism and democracy. Some of them claim that there is no basis for the idea of an Islamic state in Islam, and others that democracy has precursors in the Qu’ran. Well, maybe, but this has to come to an end somewhere. The idea that the prescriptions of any religion are likely to produce an ideal state or perfect society is, I think, simply ludicrous; and while I understand why people in Muslim majority areas of the world should like to preserve their religious values at the same time as they allow for some of the freedoms that people in the West enjoy, it is not at all clear to me what sense this makes. Perhaps we will see as Egypt experiments with majority Islamist parties. I am not particularly hopeful. Religions like power as much as individuals like it, and they will hold onto it just as tenaciously. But this is not the way we should govern ourselves, because there will always be those who do not share the particular beliefs of those in power. So, religion should not be privileged in governance. People who want to go on believing and practicing their religion should have the right to do so, so long as that right does not impinge on the rights of others to ignore and even to criticise or lampoon the religion or the religionlessness of others. In one sense, of course, it is important, as Esposito points out, to know what Muslims want, but, whatever they want, there are bound to be some people living in their midst who don’t want to be Muslim at all, and don’t want to be treated as second or third class citizens, or as mere breeding animals who exist for the sake of men’s honour. What I find trying about Esposito’s exposition is simply that he takes the religion so seriously, as though the religious tradition of Muslims or Christians or Hindus or anyone else is particularly important for the understanding of how we should make our political arrangements. And when I suggest, as I do, that Esposito is an apologist for Islam, it is precisely this aspect of his work that I am referring to.
Posted on 14 December 2011, in "Islamophobia", Islam. Bookmark the permalink. 20 Comments.
Strikes me that Esposito is an extremely dangerous man.
I am just a little curious how Delilah would like to live in a society with a religion-dominated government – especially one that was not the one to which she adhered. How about as a protestant in much of 16th century Europe? a Baptist in the Massachusetts Bay Colony? Those are just sects of Christianity. How about a Jew in Europe? a Christian in much of the Middle East? a Muslim in 15th century Spain?
To be a woman in any of these places throughout much of history must have just been barrels of fun. Hey, they are still killing witches in Saudi Arabia and Uganda! Constant fear is not a condition in which people should live.
One can find the Islamic version of “human rights” in this document (diversity and tolerance not a strong point):
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html
Notice how women are “separate, but equal” (in human dignity?) – where have we heard that before? Just what are rights enjoyed by women and how families “maintained” by men?
Eric,
People who want to go on believing and practicing their religion should have the right to do so, so long as that right does not impinge on the rights of others to ignore and even to criticize or lampoon the religion or the religionlessness of others.
Absolutely. Everyone is entitled to have respect of their persons in the sense of civil rights at least. But that certainly does not mean that everyone else is obliged to be respecting their ideas or their beliefs. To accede to such demands is, in the case of Islam in particular, to condone all sorts of other civil rights abuses and to nourish the roots of an Islamic theocracy: no sale.
I’m seriously beginning to think that the condition for immigration to this country – any Western country for that matter – should be more than just a pledge of allegiance – sans face coverings – but an explicit repudiation of those types of expectations and values.
Sometimes, Steersman, I feel the same way, but I think asking people to renounce things would not work. What might work, though, is to point out that in liberal democracies certain things will not be respected, nor should they expect respect for them. That includes keeping women in bags, preventing them from going out, making a great show of their faith in public places, insisting on exceptions being made for stupid rules regarding the killing of animals, etc. There is no reason in the world, that I can think of, why total body covering should not be outlawed, why the rule about women being out in public without male accompaniment is contrary to the principles of a free society. They should be unable to practice the most primitive and tribal aspects of their religion. They would then find themselves more respected, and their religion tolerated. It should also be made clear that violence in defence of their religion (or their supposed prophets or sons of god) would earn them a ticket out of the country after spending an appropriate amount of time in jail.
There is a saying amongst Muslims: ‘You might have the watches but we have the time’.
Between 1978 and the present day, both as a police officer and as a businesssman on retirement (1993) I have come into contact with many Muslims, mostly I have to say in a good natured way. (although many graced our detention area!).
One thing that I have noticed, especially since 9/11 is that local Muslim communities are becomming more strident and, they are the ones drawing the demarcation lines, the majority or the remainder of UK society are the ones behind the curve.
I have been told on more than one occasion that there are now over 1 million Muslims in the UK and it is too late for ‘us’ to do anything about it. On one occasion a Muslim businessman expressed his opinion, and I quote: ‘ You have two and two (children). We have three and three. We are here to take over.’ Most people just laugh these statements off but those who utter them believe them to be true.
To the Muslims time is not an issue, it is the endgame that counts.
Our politicians like to believe, and others would have you believe that Islam poses no threat. But the UK Govt toadies up to anyone who says what they want to hear. I can only hope that sooner rather than later they wake up.
Well, Delilah, I knew you would be appalled, but I remain convinced that a peaceful future does not lie with religion, and that it doesn’t really matter what religious people want in the shape of governance. Governance should not have anything to do with religion at all. Peaceful political order is not achieved by pretending that inflexible demands are and will continue to be made by religions. Esposito may be trying to bring peace amongst the religions. Given that religions are not rational things, but depend entirely on the way that sacred texts are read from time to time by the faithful, there is no way to guard against readings that will continue to cause grief and violence. This seems to be true throughout the history of religions and their relationship. But of course you will be appalled by this. However, this doesn’t tell me anything. I have tried to point out what I think is wrong with Esposito’s ARDA “guiding paper”. I find the kind of appeasement written into his idea of how best to make our political arrangements questionable and dangerous. If you disagree, say why, and explain yourself. Don’t give me more song and dance about Esposito’s reputation. I am not particularly interested in Academies of Religion. Religions are all, I am convinced, forms of self-deception. You obviously disagree. Well, on that at least we can agree! But what I am saying is not hatred. It is concern, concern for the future of this over-crowded world, made even more over-crowded by many religious beliefs about women’s place. I provided two video clips about women’s experience of religion, and all you can do is to attack what you call my outpourings of hatred. I hate no one that I know of, but I do have a particular dislike for religion and the way that it acts to separate people, to subordinate women, and to mislead us about our nature and expectations. But you really must try to make an argument of some sort, and stop being appalled. Argument will get you somewhere, if it is sound, and so far I see very little of it from you.
Eric (#4),
but I think asking people to renounce things would not work.
Probably, although it was, of course, somewhat of a rhetorical argument to highlight the problem and suggest a search for a solution – your suggestion of “pointing out that in liberal democracies some things will not be respected” might be a reasonable starting point.
Reminds me of having seen a list of the various issues and initiatives my MP voted on or started and one of them was that new immigrants were to be advised that female genital mutilation – I can hardly think of anything more barbaric – was entirely unacceptable and illegal and would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Seems to me, particularly in light of the recent “honour” killing here in Canada, that such a program could be enlarged to list a great many similarly unacceptable behaviours and values. If the powers that be can implement “Johns schools” then they should be able to manage to do likewise with “Democracy for immigrants” schools – and with substantially more justification.
P.S. If the change in your photos is any reflection of the properties of the water in your neck of the woods I would ask for several demijohns from the same “fountain of youth” …
I should add just a word about your closing remarks (this to Delilah (#6) — Steersman sneaked in between). You say that we are not likely to “have secular states everywhere next week or next year, whatever we do.” That may be true. But we are much less likely to have them if we take Esposito’s line about the place and role of religion. So, I choose to argue for secular polities, where religion has no power to determine what other people will believe and do. That seems to me a far better way than trying to accommodate religions which are as changeable and as unpredictable as disaster. Beside, Esposito’s arguments may also affect how we do things in places like Europe and North America, Japan and Australia. They may well have the effect of making our polities less secular, and our freedoms even less secure. I do not think this is the way to go, not because I hate anyone, but because I would like to see people everywhere to be free, free to believe as they like, but not free to impose those beliefs on others. So far, religions have played to large a role intruding into other people’s business. I think it’s time it took a back seat, recognised that it is just a lot of speculative nonsense, no matter how reassuring some find it, and reserved itself for people’s private lives, where alone it belongs.
Steersman. Yes, I agree that there are some things that should be prohibited, FGM amongst them. I would include the sequestration of women, and certain forms of religious indoctrination. Some kinds of religious teaching is seditious and should be banned. So I take your point. What I mean is that getting people to renounce things is not so effective as making it clear that, in law, certain things will simply not be tolerated, and that, if you wish to live in Canada, they will not be permitted here.
Well, we agree on one thing anyway, that this conversation is pointless, but it is interesting how you conspire everytime to suggest that it is because of some failure of my own. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge failure where it is pointed out clearly, and is not part of a general dismissal, but so far all I have heard from you, Delilah, is pretty thin gruel. Thank you, nevertheless, for your contribution.
Just in case you check back (since you seem a little obseessed, Delilah). You say: “Did I say a peaceful future lies with religion? NO.” Well, that’s true, for, you see, you haven’t said much of anything, really, except to rake me over the coals for criticising Esposito’s paper.
… simplistic view of language that is no longer worth my time responding to.
Says he/she imperiously ….
Eric, Somehow I get the feeling that Delilah doesn’t like you.
Michael,
He/she/they seem rather “obstreperous” with everyone – here and over on WEIT ….
Bee in his/her/their bonnet for some reason; somewhat sympathetic to religion in general – apparently – yet prepared to consider its faults ….
The Euro is on the point of collapse and Italy is on the verge of bankruptcy. The RC church is now found to be bleeding the Italian people and those who will contribute to any financial assistance to the tune of 6,000,000,000 euros a year.
I agree Eric, religion does seperate people and, the Vatican also seperates people from their hard earned money thanks to Italian Government:
https://www.spamarrest.com/members/webmail/message.do?uid=60&folder=INBOX.NSS#italy
The Euro is on the point of collapse and Italy is on the verge of bankruptcy. The RC church is now found to be bleeding the Italian people and those who will contribute to any financial assistance to the tune of 6,000,000,000 euros a year.
I agree Eric, religion does seperate people and, the Vatican also seperates people from their hard earned money thanks to Italian Government:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/catholic-church-drains-6-billion.html
Oh dear delilah, you seem to have lost the argument with that response.
Thank you Egbert, I wasn’t going to say it, but it’s nice that you noticed!
Michael (#13), whatever could have given you that impression?! I keep having the feeling she’s on the point of saying something important, and then nothing but abuse. It’s a strange thing. If she could present something that showed that I was wrong to take the point of view that I do, or that my judgement of Esposito is off, despite his widespread influence in the world of religious studies — but not, notice, the scientific study of religion, but the quasi-scientific study of religious people, which is a very different thing — then there might be something to grasp hold of, and respond to, but as it is, it’s just so much abuse, which is a bit hard to handle without assuming that the abuse is justified, which, this point, I’m not prepared to do. The strange thing is that it comes from the same point of view that new atheists generally dismiss, that religion, qua religion, just is to be respected, and so far I have seen absolutely no reason why this should be so. Indeed, most religion should be despised for its inability to act with humanity. Consider the latest out of the commission in Holldand on the sexual abuse of children. Absolutely staggering numbers, perhaps even more staggering than the stats from Ireland, and Holland is not even a Roman Catholic country — a large number of the Dutch are Protestant. Imagine the energy necessary to keep the lid on that pressure cooker! It doesn’t even bear thinking about.
I guess what alarms me about people like Delilah and Esposito is that they seem to be able to ignore these horrible things and think that there is a possible solution to the world’s problems from the direction of the religions. Don’t they ever read the knews? I wonder. After all, when you’ve seen stoning to death and 100 lashes in the Sudan, decapitation in Saudi Arabia, and hanging from cranes in Iran, plus the almost countless number of offences against women in such places is there anything less likely than that political solutions are going to arise from such people? It boggles my mind that people still take Luther seriously, now that we know of his gross anti-semitism. Why should anyone take the Islamic scholars seriously after the outrageously inhuman fatwas of the last ten or fifteen years or more. They’re not worth listening to. People in those places need to be liberated from religion, not made to stew in the stuff. And, I think, giving power to women would enable it to happen. Just cancel through by all the misgyny and start over, and Islam would quickly become a thing of the past. So would Christianity. But no one dares, because that has to do with supposedly holy texts. What idiocy. Time to supper the role of holy texts, since there are none, except in men’s imaginations — and I think it’s mostly men who dream up this tosh.
I kept expected that some view other than “you’re wrong” would eventually appear. Because religion is so pervasive, I think many think it must be the cause for the advances in society. How many keep trying to promote it as the cause for democracy and science? And they accuse atheists of being ignorant of history.
I am sorry to tell you that, what she is talking about is not islam it is Shia (shiasm) it is Iranism not islam at all in Iran if I say I wont be wrong that there is no Islam but a little somewhere…..the remaining is cruelty, oppression….and so on……I can surly tell you that no Islam in Iran……..it is better she left her so called religion (shiaism) cause Christianity is better than what she was….now I advice her to understand the real Islam……
Ran, just as there are different varieties of Christianity, so there are different varieties of Islam, and it does not seem to me that the differences between Shia and Sunni are so great as to be able to say that one of them is and that the other is not Islam. They are simply two different expressions of Islam, and, in the respects in which they are alike, they are objectionable in the way that Maryam Namazie and other formerly Muslim critics of Islam claim.