My title could apply equally well to the overly sensitive people in Pakistan who are too often urged to mob violence by any perceived insult to Islam or its prophet. However, I mean it to apply to those engaged in the sort of mindless religious violence that got a man beaten and then burnt to death by an outraged mob in Sindh province in Pakistan. Jerry Coyne justly quotes Steven Weinberg’s famous remark that
[w]ith or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Clearly, free speech is a fantasy in a country where this happens so frequently, and it raises very serious questions about the ability of Islam to adapt to the modern world. I think this is something that needs to be faced very bluntly. While I am aware that there are those like Irshad Manji and Ed Hussain who think that Islam can moderate itself, and fit comfortably with democratic forms of governance, the evidence so far is not at all promising. I recall the televised conversation between Manji and Salman Rushdie in New York, where Rushdie’s dissent from Maji’s views, though politely expressed, was very clear. It was obvious that he did not think that Islam and democracy were easily compatible.
Many Muslims come to this country, sequester themselves in ethnic communities where women have almost the same status in a free democracy that their sisters have in Muslim majority areas of the world, and the Supreme Court has just muddied the waters as to whether a person’s freedom of religion permits her to wear the niqab, or the accused have a right to see their accuser. The question, to my mind, is whether people have the right to live in a democracy and yet practice age-old misogynistic customs which directly imply women’s secondary place in society and in the home, and whether other citizens are forbidden from raising the question of the conflict between these customs and democratic governance and the equality of citizens. Does sensitivity necessarily forbid criticism and distrust of those who practice customs so at odds with the presumed equality of all people which is enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
My own sense is that it does not. That does not mean that we should call down imprecations upon individuals in the street. That, of course, would be unhelpful and socially unhealthy. However, criticism itself should not be scrimped. We should not simply accept, supinely, the idea that there are classes of people in this country who do not count equally with others, that some of our citizens have a right to impose upon other citizens the types of intrusive invigilation which is characteristic of fundamentalist Islam. And, lest it be thought that I apply these strictures only to Islam, I think it is high time that we were very critical of other religious groups which disadvantage their members in oppressive ways. I am thinking here, particularly, of the Amish, who are permitted to withdraw their children from school at early ages, thus depriving them of opportunities, not only to learn, but to explore different forms of life than the ones their parents believe to be the only godly option.
I think it has to be squarely faced that Islam, as a religion, is, in its orthodox forms, simply incompatible with democratic governance, and until a radical theological movement of significant weight exists to challenge this orthodoxy, Islam will continue to be a danger to the kinds of freedoms that we value, and for which many have died. There is a tendency to consider radical Islamist theology, the Salafist thinking which has its origin in Muslim thinkers like Mawdudi and Q’tub and al-Banna, as a fringe movement, and yet it is arguably the core of Muslim thinking world-wide today. Justin Trudeau’s naïve acceptance of an invitation to speak at a “Reviving the Islamic Spirit” conference in Toronto, despite the fact that the theme of the conference could be taken to express an explicitly anti-Western point of view, is troubling. He pretends that he is standing up for the values of Canadians, but the theme of the conference, easily dismissed as religious window-dressing, is, in fact, worrying:
Divine Light for Living Right: Prophetic Guidance in the Midst of Modern Darkness
This can, I think, be thought to express an explicit rejection of modernity, and, with it, let me suggest, democracy. There is no sign that those who speak for Islam consider democracy a suitable form of governance. Indeed, the “modern darkness” of which they speak is directed explicitly against the modernity which has produced democratic forms of governance, freedom of the individual, and broad tolerance of individual experiments in living, all of which are so virulently opposed by most Muslim scholars around the world, who see modernity very much as it is seen by the Roman Catholic Church: as in competition with truth and holiness, and the apotheosis of relativism and atheism.
Quite aside from this is the claim that is repeated again and again by the religions that religion has a source of “divine light,” that it knows what is demanded of us by their gods, a claim that is quite simply falsified by the diversity of religious views which exist. We have seen, in the pope’s Christmas message this year, how the Roman Catholic Church is making renewed demands that its moral message be accepted as written into the very texture of human nature. This theocratic demand, that all the Roman Catholic strictures against abortion, contraception and assisted dying be instantiated in law, goes clean contrary to the understanding of the separation of religion from the state. Religions are nothing more than voluntary associations, and cannot be permitted to have any more standing in relation to government than yacht clubs and billiard clubs.
Religious claims to special sources of knowledge are one and all bogus, and must be seen to be so by governments, even by governments members of which are religious. Islam is particularly dangerous in the claims that it makes for recognition by government. So long as Muslims are in the minority, they do not make unacceptable demands on our forms of governance. However, as they increase in numbers, their demands will get harder to resist, since they will then have electoral power. It is all the more important, therefore, that the principle of the separation of religion and the state be reinforced by institutions which will preserve this separation, and make it difficult for candidates for election to make religious appeals to voters. Having private associations campaigning for the separation of religion and the state is no longer enough. This separation should be more stringently written into our constitutions and laws. It should not be possible for legislators to use religion as the basis for law, although it is now well-known that this kind of parti pris is unfortunately common. For a candidate for election to make promises to religious constituents that, if elected, he or she will make sure that … (where the ellipsis is filled with some act that would in some way privilege a particular religious view of, say, the value of human life), should not be acceptable in a democracy where religion and the state are supposed to be held at arm’s length from each other.
It should need no reminding, but in increasingly multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies it is probably worth reiterating, that the reason for the separation of “church” (religion) and state is based on the troubled history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe, and the mutually destructive wars which convulsed the continent and its nations during that period when Christianity was in the process of breaking apart into separate confessional groups. To forget that history in the name of toleration, as Justin Trudeau has done, is to forget too much. It is all very well to tolerant, as, indeed, we should all be, but it is another thing when politicians address religious gatherings in the name of such tolerance. Trudeau seems to have forgotten that toleration should not extend to participation, as a politician in religious undertakings, and that is what he has done. According to Global News, Trudeau has just told the convention that
Justin Trudeau told an Islamic conference Saturday that groups who attacked his decision to attend the gathering only work to divide Canadians.
This is not necessarily true, and Trudeau seems to have forgotten in the process how divisive zealous religious belief can be. My disappointment that Trudeau should have attended the conference, and should have given this interpretation of opposition to his appearance at it, reflects very closely the disappointment I felt when the presidential candidates in 2008 appeared at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, as if to receive Warren’s blessing or nihil obstat. This kind of apparent endorsement of a religious demographic is inappropriate of persons one of whom was shortly to take the oath of office as President of the United States, in whose constitution they will swear to uphold, separation of church and state is an integral provision.
I agree on the whole but I’m not sure if Islam is any worse than any other religion. Like adherents to other faiths there is a continuum of belief from wild-eyed fanaticism to disinterested participation among Mulisms. Obviously, the former poses the larger threat to humanity’s pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. The availability heuristic might lead some commenters to scoff at my uncertainty but the fact remains that there are sects of Christianity and Judaism, even in the Americas, that are just as oppressive and murderous as those of Islam (check out “Under the Banner of Heaven” by Jon Krakauer for a peak in to the LDS). I’d be interested to know what the data say, if any are available, regarding body counts and oppression of the adherents to the three Abrahamic religions.
I agree with Strider. I’m not sure if it’s about the religion itself or if it’s about the perceived powerlessness of the believer.
In places where people have no real power over their lives the fanatical versions of religion flourish. The Palestinians for instance weren’t particularly religious until the Israelis robbed them of their homes and they were powerless to get them back.
In places like Kazakhstan were gangsters seized the country after the fall of the Soviet Union the younger generation are far more likely to embrace Wahabi style religion than their parents are.
Strider, I cannot understand why you took that particular message from anything that I said. I constantly advert to the Roman Catholic Church and its insistent theocratic leanings. Yet when I say something about Islam which is about as mild as I could possibly make it, it is supposed that I am saying something politically incorrect. I am quite aware of extremist Christians, but, by and large, except in the US, they are minor exceptions to the rule, at least in the developed world — aside, that is, from the Roman Catholic Church, which clearly yearns to be in charge of things, and this is a danger that I regularly invoke. But I think it is important to take note of what happens where Muslims have a majority or significantly large minorities. There is no obvious way to separate Islam from politics and cultural control. It is written right into their founding documents, and until a form of Islam develops of which this is not true, Islam itself is standing threat to democracy, and I do not see this form of Islam developing with any strength. The one Muslim majority country that might have demonstrated the compatibility of Islam and democracy, Turkey, is quickly Islamising itself. There simply is no other model of democratic-Muslim détente, and until there is, Islam will remain a danger, just as the Roman Catholic Church strives so hard to be. And Islam and the Roman Catholic Church are in this respect similar, as upholding a model of what a (more of less)perfect society would look like, what it’s laws should permit and prohibit, and who should be in charge of such regulation. However, the Roman Catholic Church still recognises the legitimacy of two powers, church and state, but in Islam there is no such recognition, at least by the majority of Muslim thinkers, unless you know of a significant tradition of liberal Islam of which I am simply ignorant.
Kevin. I do not see the point you are trying to make. If you want to blame Israel for the increasingly fundamentalist orientation of Palestinians, you are going to have to explain why Palestinian fundamentalism is simply keeping pace with increasing Muslim fundamentalism throughout the Middle (Near?) East. And recall, please, that, since its foundation, Hamas’ charter has had the complete and final destruction of Israel as one of the planks in its platform. While I think the Balfour declaration was wrong, Israel, as the home for the Jews there adumbrated, is now a reality. What are you suggesting that Israel should do? And where should Israelis go? If you think that it is possible for the Jews and the Arabs to live in the same country peacefully, you have not been paying attention to the demonization of the Jews that is universal in Islam. Read the Qu’ran, where anti-Jewish sentiment is expressed in the most vile ways. Consider the fate of the Jews and Christians remaining in what are Muslim majority areas. It seems that there is no solution to the Israel-Palestine situation. But why? India underwent partition in 1947, and while it is true that India-Pakistan relations have remained strained, there are no refugee camps for those who lost their homes and lands in 1947. Why are there still refugee camps for the Palestinians, instead of the Arab world absorbing them? Because, clearly, from the point of view of most people in the region, Israel is just a temporary blip on the screen, soon to be driven into the sea. All their attempts to do so, so far, have failed. Indeed, every attempt made to push Israel into the sea has been met with ferocious opposition. Not only that, but Israel in the end realised that possession of the remaining land on the West bank was a necessity to its survival. That is clearly why they have not opposed the settlement of this land by irredentist fundamentalist Jews. This may have made a settlement more difficult, but it is not clear that such a settlement was ever a real political possibility.
Eric. I’m sorry for the way my comment sounded. I didn’t mean it that way. The point I was trying to make was that people turn to religion when they perceive themselves to be powerless whether or not that is actually true so that the example that I gave of the Palestinians wasn’t a good one. They truly are powerless and their grievances are certainly not imaginary.
A better example would have been the Christian Dominionists in the US. Their democratic power is as good as anyone else’s yet they perceive themselves to be under assault.
Your characterization of Islam’s founding document as turgid wad of savage tribalism will get no argument from me. Where we differ is that I tend to see it as more of a symptom than as a cause.
“Why are there still refugee camps for the Palestinians, instead of the Arab world absorbing them? ”
How about letting them return to their homes from which they were driven by the Israelis? Israel is undermining any chance for peace by continuing to appropriate territory given to the Palestinians in the same agreement that created Israel. Jewish claims to a god-given right to Palestine is as irrational as any other supernatural religious claim. Granted, Jewish religious zealots haven’t achieved the level of misogyny that the radical Islamists have, but their harassment and discrimination against women who step out of line, in both Israel and the U.S. are hardly models of a democratic mindset.
Paxton. You have at least to suggest a possible scenario. Given the determination that no Jew shall remain in Israel, and that the land itself is considered to be a waqf which must remain in perpetuity in Muslim hands, the suggestion that Muslims should return to their lands is simply unrealistic. Beside, you must remember that Israel has absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews that used to live amongst Muslims in other parts of the Arab world. There is simply no reason for there to have been continuing refugee camps, unless, as turns out to be the case, the determination was to erase Israel from the map. In any event, since several generations have now passed, who would have the right to return to their own lands, since relatively few of the original inhabitants who left (or were expelled) in 1948, are now living.
The inhabitants of 1948 no doubt have heirs who would still have a legal claim. But I agree that restoration of these properties is unrealistic. It’s the continued appropriation of Palestinian lands in the occupied west bank that is unacceptable and a major barrier to peace. Both sides claim god given rights to the land, which I’m sure we both agree, is not a valid basis for a resolution. The 1948 partition is the only reasonable starting point. But a divided Palestine is no more viable than was a divided Pakistan. So I would suggest a three state solution: Israel, Gaza, and West Bank, respecting 1948 borders, including the division of Jerusalem.
Paxton: I think the phrase “when pigs fly” my be apropos here.
I expect you are right Kevin. But we can’t stop trying, and in particular, the U.S has to stop abetting Israeli extremism. From Tom Friedman in the NYT this morning:
Israel’s friends need to understand that the center-left in Israel is dying. The Israeli election in January will bring to power Israeli rightists who never spoke at your local Israel Bonds dinner. These are people who want to annex the West Bank. Bibi Netanyahu is a dove in this crowd. The only thing standing between Israel and national suicide any more is America and its willingness to tell Israel the truth.
Every time the Hamas rockets start to fly many in Israel start to remember god’s commands concerning Caananites. They just don’t call it a final solution.
It’s not just the crazies in Iran with the nukes.