In the Sunday New York Times book-review section, Irshad Manji, writer, moderate Muslim—moderate enough to have received many death threats—and teacher at New York University, has reviewed the new book by Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz (Islam and the Future of Tolerance), which I’ve read, as well as Not in God’s Name: Confronting Religous Violence, a new book by Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks (which I’ve not read). It’s a strange review, which, while laudatory about Sack’s book, and moderately laudatory about Harris’s and Nawaz’s says some strange things about atheism and “liberals”. I’ll give just a few quotes from Manji:
Nawaz’s story bolsters the point about liberal denial. He became an international recruiter for Islamists while enrolled at the prestigious University of London, from which he took a break. This undermines the common liberal assumption that violence appeals only to the destitute.
Really? Is that a common liberal assumption? Is it more common among liberals than among conservatives? Manji continues (my emphasis):
Harris is right that liberals must end their silence about the religious motives behind much Islamist terror. At the same time, he ought to call out another double standard that feeds the liberal reflex to excuse Islamists: Atheists do not make nearly enough noise about hatred toward Muslims. Irrationality is irrationality, and rational people should expose it constantly. But there is the rub: Humans are not exactly rational beings. The caricature of faith to which some atheists resort is proof positive. Besides, their ridicule spawns a grievance that further lures young Muslims to become Islamists. An unintended, unhelpful consequence.
I’m not sure how much noise we’re supposed to make about “hatred toward Muslims,” given that many atheists do decry “Islamophobia.” But Manji’s claim that the so-called strawmanning of religion by atheists actually promotes extremist Islam is simply bogus. Where is her evidence? Do members of ISIS really read Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens? And isn’t the “caricature of faith” that we supposedly make actually true in some cases, particularly when faith motivates violence and hatred? With this statement, I think, Manji has lost considerable credibility, for she’s simply made stuff up that fits her narrative.
She manages to get in another slap against atheism:
Nawaz describes secularism as “the prerequisite” for a better future. He means an American separation of church and state. However, America is not the world, and secularism in another culture can easily become an exclusionary dogma. Witness France. Even secularism’s better angels have trouble defeating the tribal mind-set. Last year, I attended a Sam Harris event where a crush of fans trailed him, mob-like, around the venue. Oy.
Yes, some of the French bigotry against Muslims, or immigrants in general, is reprehensible: witness the popularity of Marine Le Pen. But seriously, equating Sam Harris’s “fans” as a form of tribalism equivalent to that of the religious? That’s imply silly. Again, Manji undercuts her argument with such silly observations.
I won’t go on, as you can read the piece for yourself, and see Manji’s unstinting admiration of Sacks and her mixed feelings about Nawaz and Harris. Here’s just one more unthoughtful observation:
Sacks concludes that decency toward the misfit, even to the infidel, takes precedence over loyalty to your own.
This should hearten Sam Harris, who despises the tendency of Muslims (and others) to stick up for fellow believers, especially when they act like “psychopaths.” Still, I have to wonder if Harris and his disciples will put stock in any reinterpretation, no matter how learned. After all, Harris opines that to reform religion is to read scripture in “the most acrobatic” terms. Sacks turns the tables on such skepticism, observing that “fundamentalists and today’s atheists” both ignore “the single most important fact about a sacred text, namely that its meaning is not self-evident.”
No, the single most important fact about a sacred text is that we can’t decide what it means, and so it’s infinitely malleable to the uses of both liberals and fundamentalists. Or maybe the single most important fact about a sacred text is that is wasn’t written by or inspired by a deity, and therefore has no more value than any other work of fiction. Regardless, it’s clear that some people’s interpretation of sacred text promotes violence and oppression, that in works like the Qur’an it’s not much of a stretch to interpret it that way, and that Rabbi Sacks, to promote his message of tolerance, has to do considerable violence to the Old Testament. And what gives him the power to decide what the real meaning of scripture is? Can he tell us what the story of Job is all about, or the tale of Jonah and the Giant Fish?
If I were to ridicule a pro-lifer’s beliefs and they then went out and shot an abortion doctor, everyone would agree that the blame for the shooting was theirs, not mine. If I ridiculed a Zionist Jew’s beliefs about their right to the land, and they then went out and shot a Palestinian, everyone would agree that the blame for the shooting was theirs, not mine. So if I ridicule a muslim’s beliefs and they then become a jihadist, why does the blame fall on me for that?
Having your beliefs made fun of does not give you carte blanche to kill people.
I suspect the answer lies in the unwitting prejudice of lowered expectations.
I saw Irshad Manji speak at the Unique Lives & Experiences 2011 talk series at Roy Thomson Hall.
As both a lesbian and a moderate Muslim she does face constant death threats, and not just from other Muslims, in her talk she recounted her experiences hosting QueerTelevision for the Toronto-based Citytv in the late 1990s and the constant stream of invective received from the general public.
At the time of her 2011 talk she did not use a body guard and in my opinion she is one of the bravest people I have met.
In her talk she took aim at those she described as “grumpy atheists” so this is not a new theme on her part.
After the talk at the book signing session I asked her to autograph my copy of her book “The Trouble With Islam Today” to a “grumpy old atheist”. She seemed amused by the request and complied.
When I hear someone say “angry atheist” I let them know it’s a similar trick to “strident feminist” or “pushy Jew” or “uppity Black.” It’s a way to distract from the message by “otherising” the messenger.
“Sacks turns the tables on such skepticism, observing that “fundamentalists and today’s atheists” both ignore “the single most important fact about a sacred text, namely that its meaning is not self-evident.””
Huh? Isn’t that what atheists say constantly? Only the religionists claim to know the “real” meaning(s).
My reading of the Quran is that it’s intent is to be so clear and literal that it can not be interpreted. The book itself states that interpretation is not allowed. The book itself states that it is to be followed literally word for word. The book itself states that God has gone to great lengths to create a book that is so perfectly plain and straight forward and literal that there is no room for interpretation or moderation. And having read this book I have to agree. It can not be interpreted any other way than literally. The real meaning does seem self evident. This is in stark contrast to other religious texts which are wide open to interpretation. But not the Quran. It’s main purpose was to take interpretation out of the equation. It can be taken literally to the letter, or rejected outright, but it can not be interpreted to mean anything other than what it literally prescribes. It is void of ambiguity.
If that were really true not only would there be no moderate and liberal Muslims, there wouldn’t be any splintered sects, either.
When it comes to religion it really doesn’t matter how straightforward and unambiguous a text is, or how many times the said text emphasizes this point or congratulates itself on its clarity. The religious framework is one where interpretation is positively encouraged because of that all-vital connection with God. Unlike normal situations in nature, divine authority plays games with meaning because it can’t be cross-examined. God is hidden in ‘metaphysics.’ Therefore observation from every angle is different no matter what a book plainly states.
It’s like people looking back at the holocaust and insisting that the Final Solution was originally meant as a metaphor about the foolishness of valuing wealth at the expense of love. Faith is Calvinball in action: new rules, new rules!
Even Islam can play.
Religion isn’t big on evidence, period. So what the book actually says isn’t very important.
Just make up a bunch of shit …
Sastra makes a good point about real-world dealings with Muslims. I think you’re right about the Koran itself, though, which is why atheists have to spend a lot more time dealing with Christian apologetics and Sophisticated Theology® than anything similar from Islam. One does have to keep pointing out that it’s not a “religion of peace,” at the very least.
Agreed!
“The religious framework is one where interpretation is positively encouraged because of that all-vital connection with God.”
Not in Islam. You are projecting other religious notions onto Islam. Nowhere in all of Islamic scholarship is interpretation of the Quran “positively encouraged.” The precise opposite is commanded.
And I can call myself a moderate Christian, because I like the idea of “love thy neighbor” but if I did I would be wrong, because I do not believe in any of the core ideas of Christianity. Similarly, moderate muslims can call themselves muslims, but they can be wrong about that. And they are. According to every theological incarnation of Islam, if you don’t believe that the Quran is literally the perfect infallible unalterable word of the one true God, you are an infidel, not a muslim. Saying you are a muslim does not make you a muslim. Holding a certain set of core beliefs makes you a muslim.
People can call themselves whatever they want. It doesn’t mean they are right about that.
Good point. This suggests we should be a little more optimistic about these things, knowing that a large part of the billion people in the world who call themselves Muslims are actually not Muslims. That’s a refreshing thought.
Thank god.
moderate muslims can call themselves muslims, but they can be wrong about that. And they are. According to every theological incarnation of Islam, if you don’t believe that the Quran is literally the perfect infallible unalterable word of the one true God, you are an infidel, not a muslim. Saying you are a muslim does not make you a muslim. Holding a certain set of core beliefs makes you a muslim.
People can call themselves whatever they want. It doesn’t mean they are right about that.
Says who? There simply is no religious truth of the matter about any religious proposition other than that certain people believe it. Outsiders can carp all they want about how they can’t draw logical connections between the supposed sacred texts of a raligion and what its adherents say they believe, but adherents are free to ignore us outsiders.
And why would we want to insist that the only “true” meaning of a religious text is the crazy one? In whose interest is that?
I think one of the biggest problems with interpreting ancient texts (religious especially, but not limited to such) is how much analogy one is allowed to draw. I have had Christians and Jews tell me that the genocides in Numbers , for example, are literal history, but it does not follow from that one should expect to commit genocide as a Christian (or Jew). History does show that the examples are influential though, and this is hard to do consistently even for the *good* stuff; it vitiates the point of parables and such, for example.
I had the same reaction. Sacks delivered a Paul Bunyan sized straw-man with that one.
The assumption that religion appeals to the destitute is perhaps not a liberal assumption, but it’s certainly a leftist one. Marxist historians rely very heavily on a class and economic perspective and tend to downplay abstract reasons like worldview and ideology in historical developments in favor of more earthly, material reasons. These kind of historians will, for example, point to famine and tax as the reason for the French Revolution, while more nationalist historians will probably point to enlightenment values and the influence of French philosophers as the chief cause.
Apparantly, liberals and leftists are all more or less one political group with regards to social issues.
Most muslims in Western Europe come from countries that were once colonies: Algeria, Egypt, Marocco, etc. They also mostly live in the lowest classes of society, which is ofcourse the class leftists most care about. The idea that islamic radicalism is the result of poverty, fits ideally in the socialist political narrative. That doesn’t necessarily mean the idea is rubbish ofcourse.
And yet she says this:
So evidently she finds it wrong-headed to believe that violence appeals only to the destitute, but at the same time she thinks its correct to believe that Islamism appeals more to the ridiculed.
Fundamentalists are not enraged by atheism. Atheism is a threat, but not a motivation.
🐾
Is that cat sign language for “sub?”
😸
Well, I was going to read Manji’s article but then it occurred to me that doing so partakes of the tribal mindset, and I’d be no more than a member of the crush of fans trailing her around the internet, mob-like. It might make her too popular and turn her into a demagogue, all while stripping me of my individuality and ability to think for myself.
So I passed.
I’m more and more convinced that we are in the middle of the “Confirmation Bias Wars”, where people do externalize their biases and thus “make them true” as they influence more people that way. There are these elastic terms, here, of who is “Harris’ Disciple” and of course they remember instances that fits their notions, which further confirms their idea. This gets written down, and of course becomes “a thing”. You can only try to falsify, and resist this rubbish. What we can do in general — I have no idea.
“Yes, some of the French bigotry against Muslims, or immigrants in general, is reprehensible: witness the popularity of Marine Le Pen.”
Any specific examples of her bigotry against Muslims? I heard some time ago that she protested against Muslims using public spaces for prayer, but by the look of this video, this doesn’t seem to have been a baseless objection.
Anyway, whenever I see videos like the one above, or the one here, in which French Muslims burn the Israeli flag and demolish part of a city, I’m glad it doesn’t take place where I live…
“therefore has no more value than any other work of fiction”
Arguably less, since fiction doesn’t represent itself as being true.
In her comments on secularism, she may be distinguishing between American-style separation of church and state and French laicite. America is more tolerant of displays of religious affiliation, whereas France prohibits the wearing of headscarves in public schools. I don’t think she’s wrong to say that the latter is more exclusionary (though personally I think there may be something to be said for it). Nor is it a position held just by extremists in France.
What about hatred towards atheists, of which there seems to be plenty. Is it incumbent on religious groups to make noise about that?
Really? Is that a common liberal assumption? Is it more common among liberals than among conservatives?
I would say yes. As examples, both Obama and new Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau have made the claim that ISIS is a response to poverty. The facts suggest that this is not case.
Dan
just finished reading Harris/Nawaz book. It felt more like a pamphlet and a recording of a live conversation, not sure why they decided to put it into book form, except for the money part.
Nawaz makes some excellent points, for example this,
The Betrayal of Liberalism:
A great liberal betrayal is afoot. Unfortunately, many “fellow travelers” of Islamism are on the liberal side of this debate. I call them “regressive leftists”; they are in fact reverse racists. They have a poverty of expectation for minority groups, believing them to be homogenous and inherently opposed to human rights values. They are culturally reductive in how they see “Eastern” – and in my case, Islamic culture, and they are culturally deterministic in attempting to freeze their ideal of it in order to satisfy their orientalist fetish.
While they rightly question every aspect of their own Western culture in the name of progress, they censure liberal Muslims who attempt to do so within Islam, and they choose to side instead with every regressive reactionary in the name of “cultural authenticity” and anti-colonialism.
They claim that their reason for refusing to criticize any policy, foreign or domestic – other than those of what they consider “their own” government – is that they are not responsible for other government’s actions. However, they leap whenever any (not merely their own) liberal democratic government commits a policy error, while generally ignoring almost every fascist, theocratic, or Muslim-led dictatorial regime and group in the world. It is if if their brains cannot hold two thoughts at the same time. Besides, since when has such isolationism been a trait of liberal internationalists? It is a right-wing trait.
They hold what they think of as “native” communities – and I use that word deliberately – to lesser standards than the ones they claim apply to all “their” people, who happen to be mainly white, and thats why I call it reverse racism. In holding “native” communities to lesser, or more culturally “authentic” standards, they automatically disempower those communities. They stifle their ambitions. They cut them out of the system entirely, because theres no aspiration left. These communities end up in self-segregated “Muslim areas” where the only thing their members aspire to is being tin-pot community leaders, like ghetto chieftains. The “fellow travelers” fetishize these “Muslim” ghettos in the name of cultural authenticity and identity politics, and the ghetto chieftains are often the leading errand boys for them. Identity politics and the pseudo-liberal search for cultural authenticity result in nothing but a downward spiral of competing medieval religious or cultural assertions, fights over who are the “real” Muslims, ever increasing mysogyny, homophobia, sectarianism and extremism.
It was, literally, a recorded conversation, then transcribed. I think they explain their reasons pretty well in the front material.
Perfectly stated, Jerry. This is exactly the point that I wish more religious people would acknowledge and ponder. Yet when we, as atheists on the outside, point to this glaring quandary we’re told that we “just don’t understand the true meaning”. Um, HELLO? Neither do you folks, apparently. You’re simply picking and choosing. It’s madness.
I read this a few days ago, and was amused by Sackss criticism of gnu atheists talk of acrobatics when he then goes on to do a remarkable double back flip himself!
/@ Girne (Kyrenia), Cyprus
I haven’t read the book yet, but I did watch the hour long discussion between Harris and Nawaz.
My impression is that Nawaz takes a position that I wish many others would learn — namely simply refusing to discuss the existence or non-existence of God. Most other religious people and faitheists get stuck on that point and demand allowance to pontificate about what God wants. Nawaz refuses to do this, and simply keeps his personal faith to himself and exercises his right not to discuss it. (A right earned by not demanding that others accommodate it.)
People who Harris is a bigot or fixated on cartoon versions of religion, should note how swiftly Harris agreed to these terms and have a meaningful discussion about making religion more tolerant.