I listened to Akbar Ahmed on Fresh Air today. Ahmed made the following point: there is an understanding that there will not be any acceptable public mockery of black Americans, e.g., the use of the "N-word," so by analogy one should not mock Muslims as a group. How do readers feel about this? My response below the fold....
The fact that a "moderate" Muslim "intellectual" makes such a specious argument is a shocking testament to the lack of thoughtful criticism that Islam has been subject to in the Western world. By thoughtful, I mean to exclude the crude caricatures of the religion routinely trotted out by Christian evangelicals and other assorted right-wingers (I consider myself on the Right, but I don't consider Michael Savage style critiques thoughtful). No Muslim intellectual should be able to make an analogy between a religion and a race, because one may always (theoretically at least) leave Islam, but one may never leave a race. A racial identity is an indelible accident of fate, a religion is a confession of choice. This seems common sense, but there is an ambiguity in the sense that Islam, like Judaism, uses a national/ethnic lexicon on occasion. Sometimes ideologues speak of the "Muslim nation," while according to shariah one is a Muslim if one's father is a Muslim.
There is also a tacit acknowledgement of the ethnicization of Islam from Westerners, use of terms like "the Muslim atheist Ibn Warrq" or "the liberal Muslim" Salman Rushdie. I generally respond to such phraseologies by suggesting that if Ibn Warraq is a "Muslim atheist," then Richard Dawkins is a "Christian atheist." We do not treat races and ethnicities the way we do religion in the West, religion is like politics, a set of beliefs one espouses which is subject to reflective critique, or does not a colored savage partake of the same rights as any man? But, some Westerners are making a faustian bargain with Muslim "community leaders" and allowing the ethnicization of Islam. Seeing as how they are not Muslim themselves (and so will not suffer the ill effects of the emergence of a neo-medieval Muslim community on a personal level), and ethnic minorities are often tactical allies against the forces of the Right this capitulation and betrayal of the disestablishmentarian heritage of the Left is understandable (though contemptible).
The reality is that Muslims themselves understand that religion is not treated like race. Nations like Saudi Arabia render to non-Muslims the rights of second class citizens, and even exclude non-Muslims from the environs of their sacred cities. Why is this acceptable while apartheid in South Africa was not? Because one may always choose to become a Muslim. Islam has pride of place in the constitutions of nations like Malaysia, how would we react if the white race had pride of place in the constitution of a Western nation? We understand that religion is different from race and ethnicity, and though we might not favor discrimination in the name of the former, we understand that it is qualitatively different than discrimination in the case of the latter. But though we render to religion this liberty and some shielding from critique which would ensue if the principle of discrimation was based on race or ethnicity, we also expose it to criticism and evisceration because it is nothing but thought.
Muslims wish to roll back the understanding between religion and reason forged during the Enlightenment: believe as you will, but be ready for criticism. Some "progressives" wish to enable this process because of the specter of Islamophobia and short term political advantage against the Right, but in the process they will sell out a fragment of humanity which can not defend itself from the specter of clerics who wield the God delusion with frightening efficiency. I have advocated making piece with the religious impulse, but, the terms which some Muslims wish to impose are not acceptable, I will not accept with equanimity the consignment of those who may be saved to the darkness which I myself rejected.
- Log in to post comments
Another thought: what about pedophiles, sociopaths, or people contaminated with a deadly infectious disease? They haven't chosen their status as such any more than one chooses their race, yet we think it's fine to discriminate against pedophiles, sociopaths, and the contagious.
I'm obviously not comparing one's race to a sickness. I'm just using this to show that in the canard you mentioned -- You wouldn't publicly criticize or discriminate against group X, so therefore, you're not allowed to criticize or discriminate against group Y -- it wouldn't necessarily matter if the difference between X and Y were that one was chosen and the other not (although that's a huge difference too).
At the end of the day, then, the bottom line is: We can discriminate against whoever poses a credible threat to our safety, day-to-day well-being, and so on. That could be due to religion -- if someone belonged to a particular sect that swore violence against us -- or even if it were due to forces beyond their control. We understand that the person with smallpox didn't choose their fate, yet we still feel justified in keeping them out, feeling for them at the same time.
You could say the same about illegal immigration: they didn't choose to belong to a group that has somewhat lower average IQ and law-abidingness compared to Whites and Asians. Nevertheless, we feel justified in keeping them out for now, as we've got enough problems already with IQ, crime, ethnic ghetto cultures, etc. Immigrants above-avg in IQ and law-abidingness obviously aren't at issue: they have a clean bill of health, so come on over.
They haven't chosen their status as such any more than one chooses their race
i think that's a false analogy. in the first two cases one may have strong compulsions, but one can also work to avoid situations where acts on those compulsions (just like people who have a tendency to overeat, which i would classify myself as). in the last case of infectious diseases the number of people who are subject extremely dangerous pathogens through no fault of their own and must be quarantined is very small.
to be clear, i don't think that unbridled utilitarianism is the totality of our "moral sense."
You make some very good points here - but who is listening? Those of us willing to engage in discussions such as this are for the most part, preaching to the choir.
It is interesting that you bring up the issue of conflation of race and religion. For a religion such as Hinduism which has been historically confined to a geographic location in or around the Indian subcontinent, the assumption about the race of a Hindu is for the most part (if you leave aside the Hare Krishnas) accurate. I find it a bit confounding when similar assumptions are made about Judaism and Islam. Yet it is done frequently, sometimes by the adherents themselves.
I recently read Rebecca Goldstein's book, Betraying Spinoza. The fate of the Marranos in Spain and Portugal or the suspected crypto-Jews among them was very telling. The Iberian Christians continued to believe that the Jewish conversos remained "Jews at heart" even when they practsed outward Christianity. Was this then a matter of belief or race? A case of "once a Jew, always a Jew," - something akin to race that you cannot "choose" to change? In the case of Judaism I have always suspected that Christians and Muslims find the Jews to be an enigma because as derivative faiths, they suffer from an inferiority complex before the adherents of the "original" wisdom. And also they cannot fathom why faced with "the ultimate, latter day" truth (and vicious persecution) the Jews elect to cling to their beliefs. The conclusion therefore is "They must know a secret that we do not know." The Indian / Pakistani poet, Iqbal had a similar question about Hindus in one of his poems about Islam.
Regarding the ethnic identity of Muslims acquiring a monochromatic hue, the Muslims are responsible for that to a large extent. While growing up in India, the Muslims I knew, dentified themselves as Indians first, Muslims next. The cultural identification with India was evident in their dress, eating habits and language. I have not lived in India for a long time. I suspect that for educated, middle class Indian Muslims things haven't changed all that much.
However, among the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis that I know in the US, I have seen a sea change of behavior in the last fifteen years or so. Many of the women who sported short hair, wore stylish western and native clothing when I first met them, have taken to wearing long sleeved coats over their outfits, covering their heads etc. Their Bengali is much more sprinkled with Arabic and Persian words than I had observed before - and their conversations include many references to "good Muslims." The social circle is divided into two - the non-Muslims and the Muslims which include a large number of Arab friends. The Arabization of these Muslim friends has occured before my eyes over the years. Mind you, I am talking only of women who were not particularly religious, at least overtly, when I first made their acquaintance. Indonesia and Malaysia too have undergone similar Arabization in recent years.
A few decades ago, it was very common for Indonesian Muslims to enact the Ramayan and Mahabharat in folk drama. Indonesian Muslims also had Sanskrit first names in conjunction with an Arabic last one. I don't know if they still do. Religion therefore used to be distinct from local culture. While "Arabia" was the holy land, one's own culture was home grown. I feel that some imaginary "Arabic culture" has now supplanted local customs and "Arabia" is now also the the fountainhead of "culture" in the minds of Muslims the world over. It is difficult then to criticize non-Muslims when they look at "all" Muslims and think Arab / middle eastern.
I will not go into the personal observations and anecdotes about the "revisionism" of my Pakistani and Bangladeshi friends. But let me relate something that happened openly and was reported in the Houston Chronicle five years ago. On September 10, 2001, Salman Rushdie was in Houston for a reading of his latest book. The Islamic Society of Greater Houston held a large rally of protest in front of the downtown hotel where Rushdie was reading. Among the signs they held, many read, "Death to Rushdie." Next day, after the planes flew into the World Trade Center, the very same people were all over Houston TV protesting that "Islam is a religion of peace!" Very ironic.
I have criticised Hindu, Christian and Jewish fundamentalists on my blog quite frequently - the first two, very often. However, I did not address the matter of Muslim fundamentalism and religious oppression until I chose to write about the "veil." I must confess that the restraint was partly due to a vague feeling of piling on an already beleagured community. George Bush's own religious fervor in defining foreign policy made criticising Islam a delicate subject - I felt that doing so would put me in the same camp as the "crusading" right wingers. However, I now feel that all right thinking, rational folks need to start calling a spade a "bloody shovel" when it comes to religion's infringement on basic decency and human rights. We should not be hampered by concerns of hurting the feelings of those who given half a chance, will hurt not just my feelings but my flesh and bones.
As for Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations discriminating against non-Muslims based on the generous philosophy, "one can always choose to be a Muslim," that is a modern day kinder, gentler equivalent of conversion by the sword. It is spurious logic. If I restrict your movements, choice of dress, education, employment and freedom of worship, scream from loudspeakers and national media about the despicable nature of your existence as an infidel, all the while claiming your "freedom" to become a Muslim, it is a laughable attempt at offering "choice." Somewhat on the same plane of disingenuousness as the oft ridiculed civic law which claims equal justice under the law for prosecuting the rich AND the poor for sleeping under the bridge! The hypocrisy is palpable.
P.S. Sorry Razib for the long comment but I needed to get some things off my chest.
Wow. I at first didn't understand what you meant, but you are correct that the analogy does not apply.
Here's the problem: the "white/European race" is just a new way of saying "Christians." Yes, this includes apostates. The Christian=white and Muslim="exotic sort of white but not really white" meme is there even if it isn't quite explicit.
Jews and Musselmans were always excluded from this, and still are. Well - sort of. But Jews are classified as "sort of, yes/no, in some ways" "white Europeans." If someone makes negative comments about Jewish folks, that's "anti-Semitism" (a bizarre language attribution, since few Jews outside of Israel speak an Afro-Semitic language). But if a Jewish guy dresses up like a Black person (Ali G), he's perceived as a "White person acting Black."
When American war hawks talk about Israel, they emphasize a common Judeo-Christian heritage. This is all confused because what they really have in mind is that most Israelis are coming from a European cultural background. So compared to Muslems, Jews are white. Compared to Christians, they are less white. Compared to Blacks, they are definitely white. That's the perception at least.
Muslims are in a similar limbo. It's because the concepts are adopted from earlier religious concepts. But when people talk about "European values" etc, they usually mean the values of Christian Europe. The border between popular ideas of white people and "towelheads" magically is at the religious borders between Christianity and Islam.
So is racism better than religionism? That's a difficult ethical stance to defend. Many Black Americans and some Latinos are converting to Islam because they are sick of being only "Black." They want to just be people, even if that only happens in a mosque.
There isn't much thoughtful critique of Islam in the West because so few Westerners know a thing about it and because even the best scholarship has strong political undertones. And the whole debate is tainted by color consciousness.
NuSapiens:
The Muslim inhabitants of India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and much of Pakistan constitute a sizeable portion of the world's Muslim population. (50%?) They are not European, white or even middle eastern.
This is all confused because what they really have in mind is that most Israelis are coming from a European cultural background.
but half of israeli jews are non-ashkenazi. i watched an israeli film about palestinians years ago where most of the actors were oriental jews. israelis understand this, that's why you can't 'racially profile' suicide bombers, they don't stand out enough (and of course some arabs are fair enough to pass as russian jews, it isn't like palestinians are that much swarthier than the lebanese). and of course the 'blackest' people in israel are the beta israel, who are prominent in the israeli military.
Being a student of the Buddha, I am very aware of, bedevilled (8-) by, my profound Christian attitudes.
"Christian atheist" (or "Christian Atheist") is an accurate and important perspective on Dawkins. His Christian background, personal and cultural, informs his Atheist arguments, not only what he finds important to oppose, but also how he argues.
It is of course likely, not having seen the original context, that "Muslim atheist" was a double innuendo or commendation upon Ibn Warrq. However, I would certainly expect his Atheism to be solidly grounded in his Muslim background.
Islam would be manifest in his Atheism, somewhat differently than Christianity is in Dawkins'. Understanding these influences would provide important perspectives on both their thoughts.
(Although, it appears from published accounts of his activities, that "Muslim" is far more appropriate a description of Ibn Warrq than "Atheist". He may well be Atheist, but his reputation is based on his apostasy, and his denouncing Islam, rather than extolling Atheism.)
Aren't Muslims more like Browns? Raz I appreciate your argument and agree that you are on the right track to note the "ethnicization of Islam". I'm reading your comments as being US centered ,but you are you guilty or the same cheap/lazy generalizations when you say "like Blacks". Race has/is often a proxy for class in the US. As the right knows full well. 70 yrs ago to say someone was black was shorthand for describing everything thing about them: place of birth; profession/education/religion/political affiliation etc. As you "consider yourself on the right" then you are a proponent of personal responsibility- free agency etc. Why should 'black' be a distinction that matters in any discussion. Would you consider that a minority person who brings race into the discussion as playing the race card? You can't have it both ways.
My family has roots in the US for at least the past 300 years- and I don't consider 'my culture' to be significantly different from a white American (born and raised). If Muslims can and should be free to have multiple identities can you allow 'black people' too as well? PS NuSapiens -I think you are spot on with your observation about some Afro Americans etc 'choosing' Islam in an attempt to escape the (negative) label of being just 'black'
i don't think that unbridled utilitarianism is the totality of our "moral sense."
Maybe not, but it's definitely a core concept, if not "the totality." You're violating the individual's right to free movement if such free movement would harm everyone else. Very true in the case of refusing people on a boat contaminated with smallpox -- you wouldn't even let those w/ a clean bill of health of, for fear that it might be on their clothes or in their suitcases.
True to a lesser degree when you restrict immigration -- in effect, this is a form of bondage where the would-be immigrants are tied down to their country of birth, with no possible escape. If they were fleeing certain death or disaster, we might open the door, but short of that, we say, "Sorry, we didn't create the problem, so we're not obligated to alleviate your suffering."
About compulsions -- true, but even knowing that group X has a higher average level of compusion to do Undesirable Thing Y could be sufficient to discriminate against them. If I knew an applicant to be a kleptomaniac, I would be in the right to discriminate against them by not hiring them. They could try to control their urges, but I'd rather have someone for whom not stealing was their urge. Ditto for hiring pedophiles to supervise kids, or sociopaths for jobs where they could exploit others. I'm pretty introverted, and I wouldn't feel slighted if an employer discriminated against me if I applied for a job in sales, where being extraverted is key. I could try to force myself to be more sociable (like having a drink in the morning), but the boss is right to prefer someone who doesn't need assistance of any sort to be outgoing.
if Muslims can and should be free to have multiple identities can you allow 'black people' too as well?
i didn't say that. sure muslims should be free to have multiple identities, but that has nothing to do with what i said. my point wasn't that muslims should have the right to have multiple identities, i really don't give a shit about muslims as long as they don't act medieval and keep their primitive beliefs to themselves, it was that being muslim is a choice if being a christian is a choice. not being a muslim is not a choice for a muslim to have multiple identities since they aren't a muslim once they reject islam. q.e.d. & all. for the vast majority of black americans being a black american is not a choice, it is one of daily perception. dave chapelle was clearly a black man, only if you dug deeply into his biography would you have known he was a convert to islam. that was his choice (to head off another line of argument that people perceive me as muslim so i am muslim, i am usually perceived to be hindu far more often than that i am muslim, and i reject that i am hindu as well).
As you "consider yourself on the right" then you are a proponent of personal responsibility- free agency etc. Why should 'black' be a distinction that matters in any discussion. Would you consider that a minority person who brings race into the discussion as playing the race card?
don't put words in my mouth and characterize how i think. there isn't an O.E.D. definition for what "the Right" is, i simply nodded to the reality that i tend to agree with people on the Right more than the Left on the issues i care about, but, that does not imply that any one policy plan is a necessary precondition for being on the Right. and muslims are not like brownz in my mind, but perhaps you mean something different by 'muslim' and 'brownz' than i do (your other comment implied you missed the point that a muslim who rejects islam isn't a muslim in my mind, so i'm not holding my breath that we can agree on these things). i am fine race being brought into the discussion in certain contexts but not in others. i tend to favor color-blindness for the government, but i'm not an absolutist, and i don't particularly mind if people bring race into their personal choices so long as they aren't aggressive or hegemonic about it (they can be aggressive or hegemonic all they want of course, i just will make sure not to be around such people).
assman, you're playing slippery slope games and going off in another direction with this topic. the post was pretty narrow focus and specific. there's a probabilistic continuum of being born X. using of terms like 'necessary' or 'sufficient' are good for rhetoric because they elide the moments of the distribution, but i'd rather not get into that right now.
as a white anglo-saxon american muslim who came into islam from a malcolm x political perspective, i agree that teh dominant /media classes have castigated & stereotyped muslims to all our detriment, but no worse than we have done it to ourselves. that is, i have always been a political muslim, supporting all struggles for social justice, anti-colonial/ neo-colonial/ imperialist ... etc. as a malcolm x muslim, thus i strongly oppose two trends among muslims, both emanating from a radical conservative revisionism, or puritanism coupled with extreme dogmatism and fearful adherence to obsolete and questionable practices & beliefs accrued through a patriarchal reconquest of the progressive terrain laid out in qur'an & the example of a messenger, muhammed. this criticism applies first to immigrant muslims who are not "my people" but just another layer of opportunists migrating to the land of opportunists, to quote malcolm on vietnam, in a way that will become more apparent later, "why should a black man fight a yellow man for a white man who stole the land from a red man ..." with caveats, apply it to iraq, afghanistan, salvador, nicaragua, panama, haiti, or any of the usa invasions, conquests, occupations & exploitation of less powerful states or nations ...
thus immigrant muslims are coming here for benefits unavailable to the majority of afro-americans, and as such are just another bunch of selfish immigrants without a history of involvement in our struggles from 1776 through civil war & civil rights ... they want to be white & take the advantages of being so classified ...
as to my fellow american muslims of african heritage, they have lost their way .. the afrocentric character of the 1960-70's & adhere to a false facade of islam, black women in black burkas insult the rich & colourful clothing traditions of muslim africa ... they are faux arabs, or more relevantly voluntarily joining the afghanistani victims of taliban type of backward pushtun ignorance .. a pakistan lost to its worst ethnochauvinistic patriarchal mores so abhorrent to their nation's founder m. ali jinnah, who liked his modern ways as a secular muslim nationalist.
so where does all this lead ... not very well for either muslims or non muslims, difference becomes signs of identity confusion & insecurity, fundamentalist puritanism among christians, jews & muslims ... wearing religion as a badge on one's chest, almost an insult to self & identity in a postmodern world rapidly declining amidst ecological catastrophe, & certainly an absurd mirror of voluntary segregation as proscribed for jews ... a yellow star to mark them as "other" ... irony of ironies ...
what prevails around the world is fear, most of all fear of self and freedoms open to all in a global society where enormous individual potential seems available, however much one must take risks to access it & follow through ...