Islam is Not the Problem. Try Hopelessness, Fundamentalism
Militia Training in a Palestinian Refugee Camp
Credit: Franken Owen / alum.mit.edu
I was raised to be a Presbyterian. It didn’t take. I was far more enthralled by a class called “Comparative Religion” offered at my high school. It was taught by Mr. McGinnis. I took it as a senior. It was an advanced class—a class so advanced that I only realized years later that it eclipsed most of my undergraduate classes.
His class focused on the major religions of the world, about seven of them. Islam was one. Students read a challenging 60-page tract on each religion followed by class visits by practitioners. These visitors explained their beliefs and practices in their own words, as would an average person, not a church official.
What emerged was a vision of the world’s religions as remarkably consistent at a psychological and aspirational level. They all tended to offer more or less the same benefits to those who chose to follow them—whatever the brand. The experience of his class presaged the current movement to study the benefits of religion at an evolutionary level. After all, every surviving tribal entity going back to the Megalithic era and probably further had its own religion. Where are our atheist precursors, I wonder?
One thing I learned: no religion is inherently fundamentalist. Yet nearly all religions support fundamentalist sects. Thus, to say Islam is inherently radical is nonsense.
Such a statement would be nonsense in any era, despite the tendency of religion—like politics—to swing from the liberal to conservative and back in great arcs, comprising in the first instance decades, then centuries.
So let’s just stop it; stop the rhetoric that Islam is jihad. Islam is jihad no more than Christianity is crusades. The tendency exists in the mix, but that in no way defines the religion itself.
So what drives the radical Islamic impulse? What drives terrorism? Hopelessness. And fundamentalism. The two may be related, but can also stand alone as separate, twin drivers toward violence. In the West, we equate joblessness with hopelessness. So why are we blind to the fact that in Iraq the unemployment rate is estimated to be in the 30 percent range? In southern Gaza, it is estimated at 50 percent. In Afghanistan, still a largely agrarian, tribal society, the measure hardly has meaning, but could probably be extrapolated as somewhere in the 50 percent range.
So you have no job, no money, no food, and you suffer soul-killing political oppression on top of all that. This is the hopelessness of the suicide-bombing teenager, indoctrinated by militants, and set to become somebody by virtue of martyrdom. We need food, yes, but we need identities, too. We need to stand up for our communities, our families, and confront oppression as we see it. It’s genetic. Never mind for a moment that someone’s facts may be “wrong.” If you want to get it, you have to look at the psychological drivers of religion. That is what Mr. McGinnis’ class taught me.
None of this is the tenet of any particular religion; this is the violent exigency of living in a country that has no use for you. (Our country is becoming more like that every day when it comes to jobs.) Oil oligarchies don’t need vast numbers of people. The populace is extraneous. Oil oligarchies are distortions of the market in the same way heroin use distorts the market for poppies. And in both cases, a class of thugs evolves to protect the asset. Warlords. Warlords have nothing to do with religion though they mostly all practice a religion, as did the Nazis, who practiced “ours.”
Fundamentalism arises from a different set of forces; it is a reaction to rapid, poorly understood change of a type that displaces human value or values—as in the value of being a person. A layed-off factory worker feels this displacement as acutely as a resident of a refugee camp on the West Bank. But it doesn’t have to be economic change that fuels the impetus toward fundamentalism, it can be an inherent tension within dominant values of a culture, such the issue of women’s identities as independent sexual beings versus chattel in Islam, or abortion and gay marriage to the conservative Christian. And I never said that religion has nothing to do with superstition. I never said I agreed with Islam. Or Christianity. That wasn’t the point.
These displacements nonetheless tend to bring every kook out of the woodwork, such as Glenn Beck, who would argue, as a Mormon, for a “return” to Christian Nationalism, while standing on the steps where a great man once said, “I have a dream.”
Interestingly, you don’t have to be economically displaced to become a fundamentalist. Look at the radical Orthodox Jewish settlers on the West Bank. They are well-bankrolled, and from the United States, and from the U.S. government if you stretch it, to flout the notion of peaceful coexistence in the name of fundamentalist orthodoxy.
The devaluation of entire nations of people across a broad swath of the oil-producing world combined with an accelerating pace of cultural and economic change put hopelessness and fundamentalism in the driver’s seat in parts of the Muslim world. That rage is export-oriented. It seems the displacement felt by radicalized Muslims in London is no less—(and is in some respects amplified by in-your-face cultural disparities)—than that felt by a Palestinian who has now been displaced some two generations—from what he saw as his “homeland.” How do we know that? Both may be willing to die for a terrorist end.
We have been reminding ourselves of late that you are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts—that eloquent statement by Daniel Moynihan. But we seem to suspend that rule when it comes to religion. When it comes to religion, it is okay to say that the world is ten thousand years old, that dinosaurs coexisted with man, that Eve was made from a rib, and that the Burning Bush wasn’t just a metaphor. That was all part of my own struggle with Presbyterianism all those years ago.
Islam offers the same disparities. I don't wish to go into them. (Who needs a fatwa on their list of major life irritants?) But that aside does not prove the point of those who advance the notion of religious intolerance. A mosque, in and of itself, is no more subversive than a Hindu shrine or a Santeria alter.
If we want to make the world a place less prone to the 21st Century version of tribal warfare we need to confront hopelessness—all people need a purpose. And we need to confront fundamentalism—not by arresting change, that is impossible—but by confronting proprietary facts that we know to be false. One of those is the notion that Islam is radical.
Perhaps it should go something like this: Religions don’t kill people. People who distort religion to violent ends kill people.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Ken Honeywell
AndreaF.
Brian Carter
esmense
Dr. Matthew Lynch
Stephen Weil
Salon.com
Comments
Thank you, for this brilliant essay. Your above statements say it all for me. I hope this is read widely. ~R
Careful, adult, smart writing, Steve.
I would, in an extended in-person conversation, want to discuss the doctrines and tenets and dogma IN those religions that lend themselves to exploitation of the hopeless, who live in feudal and corrupt states propped up by Belief. Your final aphorism holds up in this piece, and you make an excellent case, but I observe there are two "religions": religion that is the everyday sustenance of small congregations, observing rituals and rites of passage, supporting those who grieve -- all good -- and Religion, the institution and fixed beliefs that underwrite regimes.
That big R Religion is pre-distorted. The so-called holy books are not reformed or evolved. It's a rigged game: we already know far more about morality, human rights, civil discourse, and compassion than the writers of the Torah, New Testament, or Koran. But believers are required to ossify a text forever. The fundamentalism you decry is inherent, an integral part of Faith.
And fuzzy, reformed, forbearing believers are at a disadvantage, even in the secular marketplace of ideas, with the Absolutes and Certainties and Promises of Certified Belief.
Such fundamentalists have another, distinct advantage: they're right. These sacred texts do not equivocate about harsh and absolute Rules for Believers. It is the liberalized western tradition that distorts, interprets, veers off (as it should), in order to preserve religion's place in the age of reason.
Nonetheless i agree with most of your post. The arc is right, it's an excellent read, and the impact of poverty -- in theocracies -- is indeed universal, not just Islamic. Impoverished, uneducated village Christians are murdering "witches" in central Africa. In 2010.
There doesn't have to be a progressive wing of Islam to make my point. I'm sure it's tiny, but my local House Representative, Keith Ellison, is a totally progressive Muslim. I have met him and interacted with his office. So I know there is one.
As to a moderate "Islamic" nation, most people say Malaysia, followed by Turkey and Eygpt. But then this overlooks the significant moderate minorities in Iraq and Iran, for starters.
If you want a country where moderate Islam flourishes, its right here, in the U.S. And don't forget that a significant number of those Muslims are African-Americans.
The tendency to excess, to extremism under pressure, is common to all belief systems and their adherents.
Thanks for taking the time to raise such provocative points.
Thank-you.
Rated.
I find it ironic that one of the reasons for supposedly hating Park 51 is that its iman doesn't denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization. Hamas is a political party that won a thoroughly democratic election in the world's largest prison camp called Gaza. And Hamas is the the one critical component that is totally lacking in President Obama's peace talks. This is the elephant in the room.
Recognize that once there is full equality and justice for the Palestinian people, world wide terrorism will decrease dramatically.
So very true. Thanks for that.
You and I have agreed on many subjects, but not on this one. There is a categorical difference between Islam and other religions the proof of which is in the scriptures themselves.
The Old Testament describes a succession of atrocities committed by the Israelites in their travels through the Middle East to the promised Land....but the Old Testament neither prescribes nor excuses genocidal acts performed on behalf of the Torah.
The New Testament has only veiled references to violence of any kind, and boils down to a single series of statements by Jesus about what he expects to happen within Israel as a consequence of his teachings.
The Hindu source documents recount numerous battle stories, but do not prescribe genocidal actions against other religious groups, and the Buddhists, of course, don't have any references to violence in their literature that I remember.
Islam is different.
I wonder if you have ever actually read an orthodox translation of the Qu'ran cover to cover because, if you had, then you would know that many of the behaviors we ascribe to Muslim fundamentalists are prescribed by the Qu'ran itself.
The Qu'ran, like the Old Testament, is replete with stories about atrocities committed by the founders of both faiths, and by their earliest practitioners, but those actions are offered as models for behavior for believing Muslims.
The concept of Jihad - holy war - is prescribed for all Muslims who are able to do so. Muslim apologists make the point that there are four different kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God.)
These four are the Jihad of the heart, which is combating one's own evil inclinations (also called combating the devil), the jihad of the tongue, which is speaking the truth, the jihad of the hand, choosing to do what is right, and Jihad by the sword, which refers to armed fighting in defense of the faith.
The Jihad by the sword is mentioned more times than the other three combined.
Holy War in defense of Islam is, then, prescribed by the Qu'ran, and is incumbent upon all believing, orthodox Muslims, in terms that clearly exonerate Muslims for any atrocities they might perform in the course of a Jihad.
For centuries, some Muslim Jurists have proclaimed that the Great Jihad, also called the Inner Jihad, which is the war against one's own bad inclinations, is superior to the other three. Since the turn of the 20th Century, a majority of Muslim clerical authorities have suggested that the other three jihads are equal to the Great Jihad, and that to die in the service of Allah in jihad is the greatest of the four.
(Sufis, on the contrary, maintain that the only Jihad to which Muslims obligated is the Greater Jihad of combating one's own negative inclinations, which is why we are persecuted in many Muslim countries.)
Most Muslims are no more observant than most Christians; it's only a small minority of each faith that pursue these aberrant beliefs and activities.... but it is naive to believe that the content of the Qu'ran has no effect on believing Muslims' behavior in the world.
If the Qu'ran proscribed jihad, instead of prescribing it, I very much doubt the world would look like it does today.
I advanced the notion that a moderate Islam practiced by millions exists, so one cannot paint the entire religion with a single, terrorist brush.
If I were to engage in a discussion, here is where I would say you are wrong--with the statement, "Holy War in defense of Islam is, then, prescribed by the Qu'ran, and is incumbent upon all believing, orthodox Muslims..."
But I'll leave that to others more prone to religious disputation.
And here is where I would agree with you completely: "Most Muslims are no more observant than most Christians; it's only a small minority of each faith that pursue these aberrant beliefs and activities...."
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
American Muslims, many of whom were born or whose parents lived in an Islamic theocracy, immigrated to America in order to live under our progressive values and our progressive democratic republic. The vast majority of American Muslims do not endorse the oppressive politics and practices of Islamic theocratic states. While they may still have a sense of loyalty to the people of that nation, many of whom are members of their families, they do not support those governments.
Progressive Muslims are the very people that right-wing Christians are trying to oppress and persecute here in America. Almost by definition, any mosque built in America is a "progressive mosque."
The American right-wing is trying to destroy the progressive wing of Islam. If they can manage to demonize Muslim Americans, who comprise less than 1% of our population, then they will likely radicalize a few young American Muslims and thus create the "fifth column" of "sleeper cells" they all fear, justifying their continuing rape of liberty and destruction of American values.
There turned out to be too many gays, and immigrants are too important to our struggling economy. So the right-wing turned to demonizing a minority people about whom the average America knows less than nothing. Considering many "liberals" oppose the building of mosques (but only in certain places!), and many openly espouse critical (and often fact-free) views of Islam, it appears the campaign to Demonize American Muslims is successfully proceeding apace.
There's a difference between tolerance and cultural suicide. As a woman I see the cruelty that Muslim women on the whole must endure on the globe. That's all.
I get the feeling from your post that we share a profoundly American principle: we should not care about this mosque in lower Manhattan.
Our system preserves the right for all believers and non-believers to meet and conduct meetings, rituals, and services, as they see fit. Full stop. To complain about and interfere with someone's right to do so is un-American at the deepest level. That billionaire-funded tea partiers are doing this means they have jumped the shark and are operating on a set of unconstitutional predicates. Not to mention downright un-neighborly. They attempt to cover their rejection of foundation American rights and values by claiming security concerns, bad associations, inherently anti-democratic characteristics to Islam.
This is exactly what our constitution was written to protect: the freedom to think and and believe say anything, however repugnant to current political sensitivities.
I am troubled by what I find in most religious texts. But so long as my fellow citizens obey the law, behave in a civil manner, and do not take material steps (more than just speech, that is) toward dismantling our constitution and deliberative democratic system, then where and how and with whom they meet is Not. My. Business.
Believing that infidels deserve death (as some marching through London's streets obviously do) is a view that is not only the result of hopelessness or fringe fundamentalism back home. In fact it could indeed be "mainstream." Honor killings where police stand by and do nothing may be mainstream in Iraq. Public hanging of homosexuals and stoning of adulterers may be mainstream in Iran. Severing the limb of a thief may be mainstream in Somalia. In London, however, these and other examples are not only NOT considered mainstream, they're considered downright barbaric.
So you have another situation, separate from violent language and/or behavior driven by hopelessness and fringe fundamentalism, at work. You start to realize that it isn't just a few rebel rousers and suddenly-emerging "kooks" who hold these views but hundreds of millions of people around the world, people for whom "radical" to the Londoner is anything but radical. They have their own facts.
but moynihan was wrong, "are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts."
we all choose the facts that suit us, for we don't search for truth, just power.
if you want to see american fundamentalism in action, visit a marine training camp. the banner there is 'the corps,' just as the jihadis rally around islam. islam is the better banner.
I would, sadly, like to add that fundamentalism and hopelessness even touches the Buddhists. Though the religious omnibus that is South Asian spirituality doesn't quite achieve the monotheistic edge of the Middle East, there is no shortage of violence perpetrated by Buddhists in Sri Lanka, and India, and even, occasionally, Tibet. Not a lot of suicide bombers, I don't think, as Ardee pointed out. But beatings, and murders and rapes, and Sarin gassed Tokyo subways have all been committed in the shadow of India's warrior-prince.
Great comments, too. I've just stumbled upon Open Salon, and couldn't be happier.
rated.
"You should not let a sorceress live. " --Exodus 22:17
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. "--Leviticus 20:13
"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death." --Leviticus 20:27
I could go on, of course - there are plenty of websites that list the various commands by God to his followers, demanding they murder, pillage, and commit all sorts of atrocities.
At their core, the Abrahamic religions have more in common than not. It's a shame that there are dishonest people who would try to erase this fact. I really wonder about their intelligence and sanity, because they're claims are just a mouse click away from being shown for the lies they are.
... anywhere that Islam is the predominant religion you have: jihad, fatwahs, women in burka's...
This is also simply untrue, though I'll chalk it up to typical American ignorance and cultural bigotry rather than outright dishonesty. While any theocratic state is likely to have characteristics that offender freedom-loving Americans, not all majority-Muslim nations are theocracies. Some of them are of course political dictatorships which also have some unseemly practices which may or may not be excused by reference to Islamic religious authority (textual or otherwise).
Our beloved ally Pakistan, for example, is a majority-Muslim nation which has had women in positions of power since its formation. They have religious authorities who wish for a theocracy, of course (just like we do in America), but the majority of the population is "moderate," in that they embrace mostly secular values and tend not to be fundamentalists. There is of course a strong fundamentalist minority, but the American media and government have greatly exaggerated its significance and influence.
I'd go on, but you know, I'm getting sick to my stomach. The level of deliberate ignorance displayed by even well-meaning Americans toward Islam is frightening and sickening. Whether it's self-righteous feminists or self-righteous Christians, there appears to be no limit - and no decrease - in the number of Americans who are quick to loudly express their opinion about Islam, while preferring not to admit any facts which challenge their ignorance and bigotry.
Really. I've about had it with America.
Fred, excuse me??? Saved???
First, you come almost to the point of saying it but should have said directly that the so-called mosque (really a recreation center with prayer facilities as part of it) represents hope, at least for the people in the US, that they can peacefully worship. What surer way of turning people fundamentalist than cutting off their options of being otherwise?
But second, and more subtle, it suggests that the root cause of Tea Partyism, which is a form of political fundamentalism, is hopelessness, and that the correct answer there is not to engage them directly in dialog (since the dialog is probably contrived to suit the power-grabbing ends of an opportunist trying to sell vulnerable people out) but rather a strong push to rectify the wrongs against the people who are inclined to join. That is, paradoxically, what makes people prone to join tea parties might be a failure of the entire national safety net—the thing the Republicans want to cut down. Ironic that in undercutting these things, the Republicans can gather the allegiance of at least some affected, but that's probably because those people are not paying attention to the causes. And so the solution is to enhance the safety net, so those people aren't sitting around feeling uncared about, and looking for someone, anyone, to blame.
I think certain evolutions and revolutions in human history have turned religion into more of a stumbling block than an asset.
Cal Godot has opened a can of worms and now I am going to make him eat them.
One of the strategies employed by fuzzy thinkers is to put words into other people's mouths and then disprove the statements they never made.
I said:
"The Old Testament describes a succession of atrocities committed by the Israelites in their travels through the Middle East to the promised Land....but the Old Testament neither prescribes nor excuses genocidal acts performed on behalf of the Torah."
Cal Godot rebuts my statement by saying I am wrong, and then goes on to cite a number of references that are irrelevant to my original statement, including:
"The OT prescribes the killing of witches, homosexuals, unfaithful wives, and non-believers who refuse to convert." Or "You should not let a sorceress live. " --Exodus 22:17. Or: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. "--Leviticus 20:13. Or:"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death." --Leviticus 20:27.
These quotes, while accurate, are irrelevant to the question of whether there are admonitions in the Qu'ran that impel Muslims to acts of genocide and atrocity that do not exist in other scriptures.
Cal statements indicate that he is not only ignorant of the Qu'ran but that his knowledge of Judaism is also sketchy. While the Torah has admonitions prescribing death for witches, homosexuals, and unfaithful wives, there's no admonition in the Torah that requires Jews murder those who refuse to convert.
Judaism is not a proselytic religion and neither seeks nor readily accepts converts. Admonitions that Jews should kill people who practice other faiths is different from killing people who refuse to convert to Judaism. It might be too fine a point for the murdered to appreciate....but there is a difference.
The Torah advocates retail annihilation based upon the actions of specific individuals. The Qu'ran issues a blanket edict that requires the faithful to war upon the unfaithful.
Both sets of statements are primitive and heinous. The difference is that rank and file Jews simply do not go about following these primitive edicts nor do they advocate them, while millions of Muslims believe and support the Qu'ranic edicts, whether or not they actually commit these crimes.
It is the widespread belief in the Qu'ranic edicts that creates the present political environment.
(In many cases, the word Jihad is understood, according to traditional Islamic practice.
Reference http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html#vertical
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – A well-known Australian Muslim cleric has called for the beheading of Dutch anti-Islamic politician Geert Wilders, a newspaper said on Friday.
Wilders' Freedom Party scored the biggest gains in June 9 polls and is currently negotiating to form a new minority government with the Liberals and Christian Democrats. Polls show Wilders would win a new election if one were called now."
That well-known Muslim cleric is neither unemployed, nor hopeless. Just calling for the death of an infidel.
Deborah, Wilders is a Christian extremist who would ban the Qu'ran and deny religious freedom to Muslims.
Do you realize we fight and die in wars to preserve same?
That doesn't excuse the behavior of a radical imam to put a fatwa on his head.
To both of you: the acts of extremists in the name of religion do not obviate the legitimacy of the religion as protected by the right of the free exercise of such under the Bill of Rights.
The only thing that can be done is to challenge any fundamentalist who goes beyond other such believers and tries to convince them that fundamentalism is right. Maybe if they get challenged enough they will actually start to think.
That's tough to do -- particularly within a family. I've heard of family get-togethers being made misreable by one member trying to convince everyone else. Everyone else just smiles and says "Uh-huh." If there is the mildest challenge, then there's a major blow-up that may end all family get-togethers.
I suspect that fundamentalists lead pretty misreable lives and work hard to make sure that nobody else has any better life.
Your comments about fundamentalism is harder to address; this is mainly because you seem to accept the mainstream way of defining “fundamentalism.” This is false; the mainstream obtained their definition from those that claim to be fundamentalists and repeated it over and over again. They didn’t stop in the beginning and say fundamentalism is about the basics and it would be right to get the basics right then move on. In order to understand fundamentalism you have to understand cult activity and indoctrination. This doesn’t involve sorting through details; instead it involves leaders that use coercion and manipulation tactics to control the public and dictate the truth to them. This starts in early childhood with strict disciplinarian education that teaches children to believe what they’re told no matter what and they shouldn’t sort out the details. This is enforced by the threat of punishment starting with spanking which is painful for a small child and they become afraid to disobey. They become desensitized to violence and they learn to go along with the crowd.
What many people call “fundamentalism” isn’t a belief system based on the fundamentals or basics at all it is a form of indoctrination to control cult followers.
I think you can do better than that.
You claim, "more emphasis on Education and economic progress in general, fundamentalism wouldn't have taken root," but in the U.S. we have both, and we have significant fundamentalism, far more than in Europe.
Eucalyptus trees have a lot of flammable resin, and its leaves hang down just itching to ignite.
If Iran manages to start a nuclear WWIII, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that Islam, that is sustainable in some very unforgiving environments, wins the evolutionary war. Survival of the fittest. Western culture is powerful, but very delicate.
So don't underestimate Islam. Sure the world may go back to medieval times and Sharia law ... but Islam doesn't care as long as eliminates the competition. Survival of the fittest.
GOD was a man made belief,and people have killed fellow Human Beings on this Belief and the perceived Welfare and Self Interest of their societies and the victims were mostly helpless,innocent and incapable societies. Every Belief is Inhuman if it wounds and kills innocent fellow Human Beings.
My problem with Steve Klingaman's essay is not that he recognises the existence of moderate Islam. There are indeed millions of decent, generous, intelligent people who practice Islam and who are no more favourable or inclined to stoning, genital mutilation, honour killing or suicide bombing than I am. And as a non-American, I don't understand all the fuss about the Mosque. Moderate Islam is certainly one of the voices in play.
My problem with Steve's argument is that he discounts or ignores the importance and influence of other voices and other Islams. It won't do to dismiss what the Koran actually says either (as Steve does) by saying he isn't interested in texts or (as others do) by pointing out that the Bible says equally horrible things. Muslims will tell you that the Koran is the constitutive heart of their religion, and there are real inconsistencies between Sharia and secular democracy. Apostasy is a less commonly cited example than Jihad. Even in Malaysia, cited as a progressive Muslim country by various contributors to this debate, you can get into deep trouble with the State, and not just with fanatics, if you choose to announce that you are no longer a Muslim.
The other Islam (ie, the belief and practice of some Muslims) that concerns me is the warlike Islam. Overt violence against the West is one thing, but civil war is the day to day reality in Iraq and parts of Pakistan, where Moslems kill far more other Moslems than they do Westerners. Far better to be a Sufi in New York than in most Muslim countries.
Sagemerlin's account of Jihad is also persuasive here. It isn't just the overtly violent who want to extend the domain of Islam. There are progressive clerics in my country (Australia) who advocate the application of Sharia law to Moslems who have come to live here. I don't agree with them, and in making that argument, I would have to say that Islam (in one of its avatars) is the problem.
As to texts, my point is that religious behavior matters far more than ancient texts. Almost any text can be given divine sanction. Bloody texts from tribal societies fill the bill nicely. But religions have the capacity to outgrow fundamentalist readings of ancient religiosity.
In this context, I defend not religion. Even so, religious beliefs ascribed to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the three Abrahamic religions, all lend themselves quite easily to fundamentalist readings. I would grant you that there is something in the central narrative of each--a narrative that I suppose must in some way spring from the text--that supports religious militancy in a way that is largely absent from Buddhism. But many Abrahamic cultures worldwide are capable of rising above the more primitive origins of their systems, thus blanket condemnation of any one of them, including Islam, is unwarranted. It's fundamentalism that sucks, all around.
One only has to look to the fact that, statistically, those who commit acts of terrorism are generally better off than most members of their society. Example: the 9/11 hijackers were college educated and engineers, and Palestinian suicide bombers are usually financially better off than most Palestinians. Perhaps the best example is Saudi Arabia, a country of rich people which is also the heart of Islamic extremism. Religion itself is a big part of the problem.
"I also think sort of the chasm between, or, the bigotry expressed against Muslims in this country has been one of the most disturbing stories to surface this year. Of course, a lot of noise was made about the Islamic Center, mosque, down near the World Trade Center, but I think there wasn't enough sort of careful analysis and evaluation of where this bigotry toward 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, and how this seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected, and so wrong--and so disappointing."
s scorched earth agenda breeds some whopper hopeless fundamentalists... Hopefully they will take on the GOP and not the democrats but with Fox News playing cheerleaders and also programming the Manchurian citizens, it doesn't look very hopeful...
The real problem is Sharia Law - de facto statute in Muslim enclaves in the West via community Sharia tribunals - banned in Ontario, Canada: http://www.nfb.ca/film/sharia_in_canada_part_1/ & http://www.nfb.ca/film/sharia_in_canada_part_2/
In the UK, One Law for All is active at exposing the endemic abuse of Muslim women at Sharia tribunals: www.onelawforall.org.uk/
From a Westener's perspective, Islam abuses women's human rights and is a pretty awful religion!
Look, no non-Muslim wants to live under Sharia, and few Muslims in the west want to either. That doesn't exclude Islam from being one of the big 5 world religions.
As to barbaric references in religious texts, Christians, Jews and Muslims all share that trait. What we need, and what I write about above to some extent is a reformed, humanistic interpretation of religious texts on the part of religious leaders so they can believe what they want without killing anybody. Is that too much to ask?
Islam and women's rights? You are correct. Most Islamic countries have a rotten record on women's rights. And yet you have a record of U.S. support for dictators in those countries that repress the rights of all equally for starters, while women still suffer a deeper subjugation under religious custom. (Hello Saudi Arabia. Hello Egypt until last week.) How can we ever coax them toward a Western understanding of the rights of men and women under law when we are always on the side of tyrants?
Your assertions are very general and would suggest you view the Canadian documentaries as similar is endemic in US Muslim enclaves. Will stick with Zaki Ameen as he uses direct quotes! Islam is clearly a 7th century abomination.
This cannot be sugar coated as Islam is a direct affront to The Declaration of Universal Human Rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml All Arab/Islamist states were eventually signatories. Note Article 12. is being abused directly by Boehner, et al as they are dedicated to usurping a woman's right to choose and her privacy currently - House Republicans are the de facto American Taliban!
It will not end well.
If I admit that socio-politico-economic issues have an impact, then will you admit that the Qu'ran and the example of Muhammad have an impact too? That, maybe, just maybe, they work synergistically?
I believe that Islam can be benign or aggressive, depending on these other factors like economic hopelessness. Certainly with what is going on in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen we see that economic hopelessness front and center. And note that the dominant impetus at the moment (and this may change) is not radical, Islamist impulses, but inherently democratic impulses.
You admitted in response to a previous comment that we don't really see Buddhist suicide bombers, and other oppressed populations don't resort to such measures, so maybe Islam has something to do with that being seen as a viable option among Muslims. Maybe the verse of the Qu'ran of that promises Paradise to those who slay and are slain for Allah (9:111) influences folks who believe the Quran is from God.
So, maybe your article should be called "Islam is part of the problem"? :-)
We compose these things for emphasis, too. And I think the same paradigm drives Christians as well; that leavens my emphasis on Islam per se. I'm thinking of the troubles in Northern Ireland, for example. So, while not letting Islam off the hook in general, I think I hold fundamentalist Islam to account for the ills it promotes. And on that score, I would refer you back to my final two sentences. Thanks for your comments.
The fact is, most Americans don't REALLY believe in Christianity, while most Muslims really DO believe in Islam.
In the words of Sam Harris:
Q:
Why is it that you think religious moderates bear some responsibility for the religious conflict in our world? It would seem that religious moderates are precisely the people who abhor violence in the name of faith.
A:
Yes, but their indulgence of religious faith perpetuates an attachment to religious texts and to religious identities that, in turn, perpetuate human conflict.
Religious moderates may ignore or overlook the more barbaric passages in their religious books, but by venerating the books in general, they leave us powerless to really oppose the belief systems of fundamentalists.
And because moderates tend to ignore the most lunatic parts of scripture, they lose touch with how dangerous these books are when taken literally. In fact, they have trouble believing that
anyone does still take these books literally, and so they tend not to recognize the role that faith plays in inspiring human violence.
Religious moderates are blinded by their own moderation.
When college-educated jihadists stare into a video camera and declare that “we love death more than the infidels love life,” and then blow themselves up along with dozens of innocent bystanders, religious moderates rack their brains wondering what motivated these killers to do what they did.
The respect that moderates accord to religious faith has blinded them to the fact that the atrocities of September 11th were a religious exercise. Religious moderates seem incapable of realizing that our problem is not terrorism, but Islam.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. The atrocities of September 11 were primarily an exercise in politically-inspired terrorism aided and abetted in a minor way by a belief system that promised glory in the afterlife. We should all remember these men, or most of them, were not devout--far from it. If you want to understand the dynamic of this, get your head out of the Qu'ran and look at the Troubles in Northern Ireland for insight.
If you want to understand a religion you need to know what its major tents are, and how they have played out throughout history. By these lights, Islam has been intolerant, murderous and expansionist. It's not fundamentalism that's the problem. After all, as someone earlier mentioned in a comment, you don't see Buddhist suicide bombers. And the only reason why that is so is because of what Buddhism is and what it preaches.
I don't see the point of recalling violent acts perpetrated by Jews in the Bible.
A. It was 2500 years ago.
B. Judaism is not a proselytizing religion, like Islam or Xtianity for that matter. Hence there is no desire on the part of Jews for the world to become Jewish. Spreading the faith is a key component of Islam and Xtianity.
Touting Malaysia or any Muslim majority state as moderate represents a pretty low bar. Basically every Muslim state is an Apartheid. An Apartheid against Jews, Xtians, women, gays etc.
Really? Hamas drags gays through the streets cuz they are frustrated with a sense of hopelessness? Saudia Arabia bans the Bible out of frustration and hopelessness ?
With respect to Wilders, I don't agree with banning the Koran, but to claim he's a Xtian extremist is off the mark. He's on the record as an Agnostic. He was born Catholic but left the Church as a teenager. You haveswung and missed badly. Wilders was just exonerated of hate speech charges, brought against him due to his film Fitna. Fitna showed acts of Islamic Terror juxtaposed with Koran versus used by Imams and Ayatollahs to justify these acts.
This was an easy enough fact to determine. You've undermined your credibility by calling Wilders a Xtian extremist.
I'm so glad that you have such a clear understanding of Islam, that apparently many Muslims lack.
So, let us get the cart from in front of the horse. Fundamentalism is not, theologically or ideologically, any more than a rediscovery of basic principles, a reassertion of meaning in lives...essentially reactionary when invoked in a modern context. This is not to in any way validate those myths but rather to call attention to their social utility. And it is also the reason that "modern", "urbane" or "mainstream" members of a faith find it so very difficult to challenge their fundamentalists: in their gut, they know who has the high ground theologically; no matter how inconvenient it is to embrace those founding myths and consequent behavioral expectations.
I argue that fundamentalism represents an impulse to return to what you refer to as a primeval form of the belief in response to what the believers believe to be adverse socio-economic conditions.
As to the comment by bigdakine2, I would argue that religious based hate crimes are borne out of the intolerance of fundamentalism exacerbated by hopelessness, and, I would add, living in states in which the rule of law is weak or perverted by fundamentalism.