Several Interesting Posts Around the Blogosphere
So, rather than posting anything myself today, I've spent some time reading some very interesting posts by others, and have commented on several of them. As usual, I've added links to my most recent comments to the right; below are the links to the posts themselves:
The Terror of Bad Values, Bad Judgments (At Gay Species)
Abortion: The Hysteria Which Divides Us (At The Enlightenment Project)
Peace: A Billion Arabs Versus 30 Million Jews (At Moral Health)
Liberalism, Objectivity, and J.S. Mill: The Case of Jerry Falwell (At Moral Health)
The Terror of Bad Values, Bad Judgments (At Gay Species)
Abortion: The Hysteria Which Divides Us (At The Enlightenment Project)
Peace: A Billion Arabs Versus 30 Million Jews (At Moral Health)
Liberalism, Objectivity, and J.S. Mill: The Case of Jerry Falwell (At Moral Health)
posted by Brian Berkey at 11:08 PM
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18266847&postID=2632869422075927601&isPopup=true Comments:
The third article is not that interesting. It's actually the standard "where are the Mullahs for Peace" written by somebody who wouldn't even know about "Mullahs for Peace" if they existed.
Yaman,
I think you're being a bit unfair to Laurence. He strikes me as a smart and engaged thinker, though as I point out in my comment to his post, I think he makes several impoerant mistakes in his analysis, most importantly conflating race with religion. There is a real problem within Islam regarding unjustified support for violence; as I point out, however, this problem is hardly limited to Islam, and it is important not to single out Muslims for condemnation on this issue.
I don't know him, or who he is, though apparently he's a professor (though I won't afford him special respect for that reason, and I left him a comment anyway). He clearly is ignorant about the subject he is writing about if 1) he thinks Arabs and Muslims are the same thing 2) he thinks there are 1 billion Arabs in the world 3) he thinks there is no such thing as a pacifist Arab or Muslim (as if this is something worthy of proving)and 4) he thinks there is no such thing as an Arab or Muslim who hates all Arab or Muslim governments.
Finally, there are serious problems with his engaged-thinking-skills if he thinks "Muslims" and "Jews" are meaningful units of analysis, or that all Arabs and Muslims should have as their primary concerns, the same things that are his primary concerns.
When it comes to violence and Islam: I am not sure I know what you are talking about. Perhaps you can elaborate. As I know it, there are strict rules for the legitimacy of violence in almost all interpretations of Islam that I have been acquainted with. At worst, you get the false principle that they are not following the rules, so we don't have to (ex Hamas: "Israel is killing our civilians, so we will kill theirs" which sounds very close to some pro-torture arguments) The next step below that is the takfiri/al-Qaeda view that all non-Muslims (and this includes Muslims who are not Muslim enough, or who collaborate with non-Muslim enemies) are legitimate targets of violence in times of war (and "time of war" is taken to a stretch). The funny thing is, the second group has more support, politically and economically, from the West and friends of the West, than the first group, which despite its moral shortcomings, is actually reasonable. Even better, the second group is probably the smallest one out there, and yet it is the one that people like to extrapolate their theories on Muslims from.
Yaman,
I agree with your 1) above; Laurance conflates Arabs and Muslims, and this is a very basic error. 2) is a relatively simple question of fact (though, not really, since race is a biological fiction and therefore there are no facts about race), which can be resolved. I don't see Laurence making either claim 3) or claim 4); rather, he is saying that there are not enough Muslims out there who actively oppose certain kinds of violence and certain oppressive Islamic regimes. This is perfectly consistent with acknowleging the obvious fact that there are SOME, and perhaps even a great many, Muslims who do oppose these regimes and forms of violence. It is similar to the claim that there are far too few Americans who actively oppose the Iraq war and other American military aggression (which is true despite the fact that there are thousands, or more, who do). One need not make the obviously false claim that such opposition does not exist at all in order to make the claim, which seems to me true, that the level of such opposition is distressingly low. As I've said before, this is not a problem unique to Muslims, but it is a problem within Islam.
On your point that we shouldn't take "Muslims" and "Jews" to be meaningful units of analysis, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. If you're saying that both groups are so heterogeneous that any claims about "all Muslims" or "all Jews" are bound to be false, then I wholeheartedly agree. But this does not mean that we can't meaningfully study belief and behavioral trends among people with certain beliefs or a certain cultural background. It is not meaningless to say, for example, that a certain percentage of American Christians always vote Republican; we can learn from such information, and use it to predict future behavior. It's only when people try to ascribe certain characteristics, beliefs, or behaviors to ALL members of a particular group that serious problems arise (because such claims are always false). But I don't think Laurence was doing this at all.
On violence and Islam: I don't care what (many or most) theologians or religious leaders say is the "correct" interpretation of Islam or any other religion. What I care about is the actual behavior of people who hold the beliefs. Of course the majority of Muslims are not terrorists and oppose the tactics of Al Qaeda and other such groups. But it's also not all that difficult to interpret the Qu'ran as endorsing certain kinds of violence, the oppression of women, etc. (of course it's just as easy to interpret other religious texts as endorsing similar policies). And often enough religious texts are used to defend violence, oppression, etc.; this was the case with slavery and segregation in America, just as it's the case with regard to oppressive policies in some Muslim countries today.
My interest is not in condemning Islam in particular, but in making it clear how important it is that there be an atmosphere within public discourse in which it's acceptable to criticize religious views, including to criticize them on the ground that religious belief often leads to violence and other distressing effects. Given the reaction of some Muslims to even minor criticisms of or commentaries on Islam (e.g. the Danish cartoons or the artist that was killed), it is not just appropriate to refer to Islam (among other religions) in such criticism, it is absolutely necessary. This does not involve any kind of anti-Muslim prejudice any more than my criticizing Jerry Falwell for the despicable things he has said involves an anti-Christian prejudice. People choose their religious beliefs (whether they're aware of it or not), although in some countries and within some communities and families more pressure is applied to adopt certain views than in others, and those beliefs ought to be subject to the same kinds of criticism as any other beliefs that one might hold (e.g. that they're false, not supported by evidence, etc.); in addition, religious beliefs have significant social and political consequences, and we cannot allow ourselves to be subject to norms of discourse that prevent us from honestly assessing, in an open and public manner, what the effects of various religious beliefs are on our communities, both local and global.
For the record, I grasp all too well that not all Arabs are Muslim. In fact, aside from the title, which I have since corrected, I very judiciously refer to Muslims and not Arabs. The title was a mistake; and I freely admit that.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home