Islamophobia
OP - August 06, 2010, 01:17 AM
[Note: due to the maximum character requirement, this is a highly abridged version of my original essay, which is roughly 9 pages long on MS Word document.]
Islam-o-phobia: A Humanist Perspective
This essay is written from a secular humanist perspective, that is, it is based on rationalism as the highest principle. Without denying the obvious reality that many values, behavioral norms, and ideas are relative, depending on what culture one lives in, my perspective is that there are certain moral principles that are, or should be, universally applicable, namely fairness (reciprocal rights and responsibilities) and equality as a birthright of all people, irrespective of social categorization. These principles are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. Of course, no set of values, even these, is immune from questioning or analysis. The key point is that debates or decisions regarding social matters be based on logical and pragmatic grounds that can be broadly accepted by different parties, even if they differ over values or metaphysics, and democratically applied, rather than being dictated by the viewpoint of particularistic religious conceptions (i.e. Rawls' "overlapping consensus").
I concede that anti-Islamic viewpoints and ideologies exist in certain parts of the world, but as I'll show, this is quite different from what "Islam-o-phobia" is supposed to mean. Even if it is true that Islam is widely misunderstood by non-Muslims, as is often claimed by Muslims and Islamic scholars, Islam is certainly not above content analysis. Indeed, the underlying attitude, sometimes explicit, of the assertions that Islam is often distorted and that critiques of Islam don't refer to the "real" Islam is that Islam itself is perfect and if non-Muslims understood the "true" Islam, then, if they were honest, their default position would have to be full acceptance of it. In fact, that's what conversion to Islam is called accepting Islam (as though there is no other choice).
In short, it is not realistic or fair for Muslims to expect everyone else in the world to unquestioningly accept the Islamic worldview, with its particular norms, mores, taboos, and theological assumptions. Further, Islam-o-phobia can be an empty and hypocritical accusation when it is used to silence any and all criticism of Islam, acting as a guise of power to cover a real type of bigotry, a "kaffir-phobia" if you will.
The notion of "Islam-o-phobia" is predicated on the assumption that condemnation of Islam is hurtful to Muslims. Certainly, demeaning comments are sometimes bandied about in popular Western discourse in which provocateurs may go out of their way to offend Muslims, but Islam is not the only religion or civilization in the world that's ridiculed (the limits of free speech and "hate speech" are important issues, but are excluded from this essay). As the proposition underlying the Islam-o-phobia critique assumes that Muslims see no distinction between criticism of Islam and criticism of their person, there is a demand that Islam itself must be kept off limits when discussing strictly political issues in the Muslim world. A typical claim from moderate Muslims is that Islam is perfect, but is misused for reasons that have nothing at all to do with Islam. But how do we know if this is even true if there is no objective analysis of Islam, and why should non-Muslims just take this claim at face value?
It will be edifying to examine the term Islam-o-phobia itself. It seems to be a derivative of "homophobia" a term coined by Western liberals to describe fear or hatred of homosexuals, in order to point out the prejudicial and negative stigmatizing it engenders. Homophobia can refer to condemnation of homosexual acts or a rejection of homosexuals themselves as people.
If sexual preference is biologically determined, as some contend, than that means homophobia is tantamount to racism, a rejection of people based on their natural genetic makeup. If homosexuality is merely a lifestyle choice, as others contend, then liberals argue that it is best left to consenting adults to decide in private, rather than the moral dictates of those not involved in those persons' willing sex acts. In the latter sense, the debate shifts from whether individuals should be rejected on biological grounds, to that of sexuality autonomy. Do homosexual acts have a destabilizing effect on parenting, families, and society as a whole? Is it really a growing phenomenon? If so, does it represent merely a change or is it social breakdown? The sociological evidence is hardly clear-cut. Thus, each side can try to make a valid case on whether or not homosexuality is inherently harmful to others.
This is further complicated by the issue of how "homosexuals" are defined. Are they defined by their inward desire to have sex with someone of the same gender, regardless of whether they act on it? Or is someone a homosexual only if they have engaged in a homosexual act? And where does sexual orientation come from? Is it biological, learned from experience, or both?
In a similar vein, it is assumed that Muslims are defined by, or actively define themselves through, Islam. Interestingly, Islam teaches that all human beings are born Muslim, but can be led away by the belief system of their parents. Islam teaches that a certain gnosis - knowledge of Allah and His oneness - is imprinted on our very souls (that monotheism, rather than polytheism or other theistic beliefs, is an idea, and that it is a culturally relative concept is of course a nonstarter in Islam). Islam may be a lifestyle choice, but it is more fundamental to human beings than any other lifestyle choice. As a humanist, I naturally disagree with this assumption.
What is Islam?
As Islam is a religion, its followers obviously believe it is sacred. The origins of the term "sacred" is that of consecrated ground not open to public use; it can only be approached by a select clique of priestly figures who address deities and perform rituals for them. For Islam to be sacred means that its teachings are supreme and its core premises are off-limits when it comes to serious debate. And it's not even the case that only non-Muslims are barred from entering the inner sanctum of metaphysical construct; in practice many Muslims are also excluded, due to illiteracy, lack of education, or social restrictions. Allah has the final say - "He" is the final authority, not humans. It follows that those who can effectively know and communicate His message are to be trusted in a Muslim community. This is because the revealed words straight from Allah, however they are interpreted, are permanently set down in a sacred book that is never allowed to be altered.
Of course, there are individuals born into the Ummah who criticize Islam, both those who identify themselves as Muslims and those who do not. This makes it problematic to define with certainty who is a true Muslim and who is not, especially as there is no legal or political leader in charge of all Muslims who can decide such matters. In lieu of this political vacuum, Muslims often conform to certain standards preserved by scholar-jurists, which sometimes, incidentally, conflict with non-Islamic ethical standards in obvious ways.
Islamic Premises
The word islam primarily refers to a response - to bow down and show deference in front of a superior power. The theological concept prompting this is "tawheed" - the belief that Allah is a unique, supreme being who rules the universe, and there is nothing else comparable in stature. If this is accepted, the most appropriate response in life is to entirely submit ourselves to Him. The profane versus sacred distinction is not between different spheres of life - home, family, occupation, diet, etc. - as they are all subject to laws from above, so to speak. The crucial distinction in Islam is that between the "created" universe and the "Creator" who runs it. The Created and the created can never be equated, except with very delicate qualifications (certain philosophers and Sufis have been executed for seemingly coming too close to transgressing this barrier).
Secondarily, the interpretation, often favored by Muslims themselves, especially in sermons and in their attempts to win over non-Muslim converts or skeptics, of the meaning of Islam is that of peace, well being, or prosperity. It is true that the root of the word Islam - slm - is a conjugate roughly translated as "peace" much like the Latin pax, which referred to the Roman domain in where there was an absence of war or social-political conflict. It could also mean peace with a deity (pax deus) that occurred through right ritual. Indeed, the blessing wasn't just a protection from blight, sickness, or other natural plagues and unfortunate occurrences, but also carried over into the realm of political and economic dominance. A common Roman battle cry was "nobiscum deus" or "God is with us."
This much is clear - this religious peace, including the "inner" or mental kind, comes from without. This is very much a top-down affair, thus it is inherently authoritarian, even imperialistic. In keeping with the Abrahamic view, humans were purposely designed by God, and have no independent qualities apart from what their Maker gave them. It is God that is good, and humans are only contingent - we all rely upon a Supreme power/being for our goodness. If we do what we are "created" to do, we submit/surrender ("islam") to God's authority and his desires. This is the essence of Islamic morality, nothing more, nothing less.
The Status of Non-Muslims
In Islam, a Muslim is better than a non-Muslim, since Muslims alone follow the original template of all human life. "Dhimmi" is sort of compromise category; it allows that a non-Muslim can be an almost-Muslim. Dhimmis are those who follow a sacred text recognized as acceptable, but nonetheless flawed. Dhimmis are only flawed in that they have not fully accepted the teachings of Islam and its perfect book - dictated by Allah - the Qur'an. Previous religions are rendered inferior versions of the true deen (religion). Islam teaches that the Qur'an preserves all genuine revelations from the past, and can never be upgraded or improved upon. Its messenger was the "seal of the prophets," and its teachings cancel out all others, at least on points where there is disagreement.
If dhimmis are not ready or able to understand that the Qur'an is ultimate truth, they can still live as protected, but ruled over, subjects. Even though their religious books do not contain all pure doctrines, they at least have portions of Allah's truth, so that fact might be enough to win them an eternal reward in the afterlife. Islam contains the (false) assumption that all religions have a supernatural paradise as their final goal, so whatever actions get a soul into heaven is good enough (which is understandable considering that Islam's prophet apparently only had access to monotheistic religions that held this belief in common). Dhimmis should not, perhaps cannot, be compelled to change their religion according to the Qur'an.
Non-Muslims who are not dhimmi, know about Islamic teachings, but still don't convert to it are regarded as ingrates towards Allah, or "kaffir" (literally "deniers") which is a very grave sin in Islam. Throughout Islamic history, there has been debate among Muslims on just who is kaffir and who is not. Once the kaffir have been labeled as such, they have sometimes been killed or enslaved. Some have even gone as far as holding that kaffir should be killed by virtue of being kaffir, because it is an Islamic duty. There is obviously a strong element of contempt and prejudice in the concept of kaffir. This is a strong obstacle to Muslims considering the merits of non-Muslim cultures from a more objective standpoint.
Islam versus Muslim
Islam, like any memetic system, is accompanied by a particular set of practices and rules. To argue that Islam is intrinsic to all human beings, and that humans cannot exist without Islam, is to argue that those who do not follow Islam are not really human beings. This is an obvious incitement to oppress such people, as it dehumanizes.
Islam cannot exist apart from human agency, it is true. But while Islam needs human beings in order to be a reality, humans can certainly exist without Islam. Quranic revelations may have been consciously created by the Prophet Muhammad, or it may have come from his unconscious mind. He may have even tapped into a collective consciousness. But it is not simply a given that a supernatural being dictated these truths to him from without. Certainly, not all religions share Islam's theological premises. Religions are nested within culture and are not "revealed" independent of a context of shared meanings and understandings.
Conclusion
Clearly, humans can be discriminated against in unfair and rigid ways, and Islamic civilization does not have a monopoly in this regard. The previously mentioned caste system in India is a notorious example. Discrimination can lead to bigotry, which is prejudice against certain pre-set categories of human beings. Even if individuals in the rejected group do not define themselves in a homogeneous fashion, they are defined as such by their oppressors. Bigotry can apply to categories of physiological type (race), culture and lineage (ethnicity), nationhood (language and geography), class, or in the case of Islamic based kaffir-o-phobia, religion.
One can certainly disagree with another person's religion without considering that person an inferior human being, one with less rights than oneself. A category is not inherent to a person's essence, but is simply a tool given potency by those who create and apply that label. Power is a practice. A label cannot make you do something to someone unless you believe in a certain meaning that it connotes. Likewise, a label cannot determine your destiny except if you have beliefs about what the label represents. And a label on its own does not have sentience.
Even if we accept that the act of setting up social classifications is a natural tendency in human beings, stemming perhaps from evolutionary cognitive processes, labels are not unchangeable. We can decide to break free of labels if we wish. Further, bigotry is more than just labeling - it is crude labeling applied to people inflexibly. The result is that people suffer, not the labels. The quality of human life, from the point of view of a humanist, is what matters, not the sanctity of symbols, including the signifier "Islam."
Fairness should be a universally binding right, while religious beliefs and rituals should only be contingent upon this principle. While the latter can affect whether one acts according to basic standards of accepted human rights, beliefs about ultimate reality have shifted throughout history, and vary considerably in different parts of the world today. Reasoning is employed in religion, but it does act a final arbiter in religion as it does in other endeavors such as math, science, or philosophy. Religion taps into a different impulse; emotional and existential concerns about what is ultimately important. "Evidence" in religion, to justify its claims, if sought at all, can come in several forms.
While Muslims should not automatically be treated any differently from non-Muslims just because they are Muslims, this also means that Muslims should not engage in acts that violate the legal and democratic rights of others, Muslim or not, just because they claim that it is a required duty of their religion. Religions are basically a complex of beliefs, rituals, and signifiers. What is required in religion is certainly open to debate or modification, at least if we look at the historical evidence. Further, non-Muslims should have the same degree of liberty to talk or write about Islam, even if they get their facts wrong, as Muslims have in discussing religions other than Islam.
Islam can only be a "victim" insofar as a human being who practices Islam is a target of bigotry - a Muslim being persecuted just for being a "Muslim." In addition, persecution of those from a certain ethnic background or geographical region is clearly a form of bigotry, but can be more properly called "racism" or "nationalism" than Islam-o-phobia. Islam itself has no feelings or special rights.
Undergirding these points, of course, is a naturalistic worldview that holds that, in terms of ethics, the natural consequences of our actions should determine standards of human rights, rather than an intuitionist or purely deontological moral scheme based on supernatural premises. Fairness should be based on impartial criteria in order to be effectively put into practice, and defining what is true or important for all people based on the teachings of one religion is not an impartial, or fair, stance to take.
Topic: Islamophobia