Here’s an exercise in critical thinking. First watch this performance of Reza Aslan on CNN. If you didn’t know better (and you will in a few minutes), you’d think he acquitted himself well, showing that Islam is not a harmful religion and turning back the critical questions by labeling their askers as bigots. But analyze his arguments as he speaks.
Well, you may take issue with Aslan’s contention that people can be motivated by politics and their social milieu to do bad things, but NEVER by Islam. You may also know of the Pew Poll’s finding that many Muslims throughout the world harbor views that are divisive, oppressive, bigoted, or misogynistic. But for the definitive refutation of the above, read the guest post on The Friendly Atheist site by ex-Muslims Muhammad Syed and Sarah Haider. Yes, it’s all from last year, but not much has changed since then, and the piece has nearly 3,000 comments.
Syed and Haider’s conclusion?
We believe that Islam badly needs to be reformed, and it is only Muslims who can truly make it into a modern religion. But it is the likes of Reza Aslan who act as a deterrent to change by refusing to acknowledge real complications within the scripture and by actively promoting half-truths. Bigotry against Muslims is a real and pressing problem, but one can criticize the Islamic ideology without treating Muslims as themselves problematic or incapable of reform.
There are true Muslim reformists who are willing to call a spade a spade while working for the true betterment of their peoples — but their voices are drowned out by the noise of apologists who are all-too-often aided by the Western left. Those who accept distortions in order to hold on to a comforting dream-world where Islamic fundamentalism is merely an aberration are harming reform by encouraging apologists.
If you are a violent person, you will read Quranic verses that call for the beheading of infidels in a violent way. If you are a peaceful person you will read those verses and think infidels are to be hugged. See? Religions don’t kill people. People kill people.
This argument has always struck me as way too simplistic, and it even has some bizarre racist undertones, especially when applied to whole cultures. It’s statistically the case that Islamic nations tend to have much more violent policies – towards, say, blasphemers – than otherwise. If disposition is the main factor, are those areas full of violence genes? Does the desert bake the embryos into aspiring thugs, or is a disease going round that turns people’s brains into “hate” mode?
Of course disposition plays a part in whether a particular individual will behave one way or another, but to the extent that cultural milieu – especially such a pervasive and persistant cultural milieu as religion – is unimportant?
This is a very shrewd observation. Maybe the nature/nurture argument is oxymoronic because nature is all there is. There are no environmental influences! It’s very elegant.
And then on the other side, any imam who makes any effort to revise the Koran runs the risk of having a fatwa declared on him by another.
What an odious, loathsome religion.
Full Dave Rubin interview with Sarah Haider here. 52 mins. x
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WbhZgh2DPw
I have no more time for Islan’s apologist speech. It never changes and it is the same old stuff. His family had to flee the revolution in Iran and he has been living nice and comfortable in the U.S. since. He even switched religion a couple of times. If Islam is such a nice friendly religion, why not stick with it. If he lived in one of those countries he spends so much time defending and switched religion a time or two he might be dead. But still he apologizes until it makes one sick.
I wrote about this exchange on my website more than a year ago too in a post that still gets several hits every day – ‘Reza Aslan: Lying for Islam on FGM’. Jerry was kind enough to write about it on WEIT at the time.
FGM is not just an “African problem” as he insists, and WHO etc are having much better success at stopping it in Christian countries because no one says they’re doing it for Jesus. The health workers can therefore focus on the health problems associated with FGM and get local cooperation in stopping it.
It’s different in Muslim areas because of the four main schools of thought, two have fatwas in favour of it, and the other two recommend it. In Indonesia it’s done on Muhammad’s birthday as part of the celebrations in several areas. (So much for women being 100% equal there Mr Aslan. And what have you got to say about the virginity tests women have to have before they become police officers in Indonesia?)
Still, CNN have given him a show about religion – that can’t be far away either. It will be interesting to see what he/they come up with.
FGM is a Brummie problem as well: there’s an FGM awareness poster in the foyer of the secondary school I occasionally work in, half a mile from where I was raised. That jolted me. x
That’s interesting! I didn’t know that. I’ll have to read up on it.
17,000 FGM cases in the last few years in the UK, although accurate stats are hard to come by. (Can’t remember my [online] source). Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s foundation tracks them in the US, as does the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Other European countries would be worth investigating.
Thanks. I knew it was happening because many of those countries have laws trying to stop it (incl NZ), but as far as I’m aware, there’s never been a prosecution. I can imagine that stats would be very hard to come by.
Just to clear up any ambiguity.
FGM is illegal in UK – yes sadly it occurs, but it is also illegal to have any part in aquiring FGM outside of UK too, so helping with ‘holidays’ where it is done is a no no.
BUT
There have yet to be any cases that have resulted in guilty verdicts – it is hard to prove and underground. Our law has not been on the books for that long (c 5 yrs; google will tell you) and it is to be hoped that when girls appear in pregnancy in due course people will be awake to the fact that it was done whilst a UK resident and an investigation will be done. I find it hard to believe that any child ‘wants’ it done.
As an aside – I worked as a gynaecologist in West Africa in late 70s; FGM was routine but only in certain tribes, and I do not remember it ever being in a Christian (who were much the minority).
It was mainly the Fula (or Fulani) tribe who traditionqally were nomadic, Muslim and ranging roughly over the immediate sub-saharan area.
Scarring was often so bad that one wondered how they got pregnant and they also needed a Caesarian Section. Man’s inhumanity to man (gender neutral) is mind boggling.
It is mind boggling! Man’s inhumanity to woman (not gender neutral!) is pretty shocking too. In some African Christian countries there is still a fair bit of FGM, but as you infer, it’s a hangover from pre-Christian times. It was around long before (probably millennia) Christianity came on the scene, and just carried on. It was only Islam that made it a part of their religion, I assume because the way Islam works is they have to have a religious ruling on every part of life.
I hope we see prosecutions for FGM carried out on the women of countries like your and mine where it’s illegal under any circumstances, including travelling to get it done, but it will take extremely brave women to be the first. I can’t blame them for not wanting to do it. For a start, it’ll likely mean prosecution of at least one parent.
Your career sounds like a really interesting one!
Here you are, Heather. Sharia courts in the UK are being discussed in MSM. This from some bods called the Islamic Sharia Council in protest at Baroness Cox going after sharia courts and attempting to declare them illegal.
http://www.islamic-sharia.org/the-independent-sharia-courts-the-inside-story/
Cheers Dermot!
Yes and Aslan is the same guy that thinks that Indonesia is somehow a progressive place to live. Not according to the minority Indonesians I know.
Well, I suppose it’s progressive in comparison to Saudi Arabia and DAESH-occupied territory …
‘Moderate’ Indonesia has had three outburst of genocidal violence since independence all ‘coincidentally’ directed at non-Muslim groups: Chinese, Timorese, Papuans.
I had forgotten Aslan was scheduled for his own show on CNN. Maybe they will change their mind based on recent events and criticisms.
The most pressing question is: Can Islam change? I say yes. There is plenty of evidence that Islam can change for the worse.
Dr. Coyne posted a study by an Oxford University professor in 2014 showing statistical correlation, not just geographic, between Islam and FGM:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/10/18/guest-post-the-relationship-between-islam-and-female-genital-mutilation/
A study by an Oxford University professor in 2014 showing statistical correlation, not just geographic, between Islam and FGM which Dr. Coyne posted in 2014:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/10/18/guest-post-the-relationship-between-islam-and-female-genital-mutilation/
It behooves anyone who is not Muslim, but especially those from Christian and Jewish backgrounds, when speaking of radical or fundamentalist Islam to be scrupulous in mentioning, in the same breath, the problems with radical and fundamentalist Christians and Jews least one come across as a bigot.
It behooves all of us to make the distinction that in the vast majority of Christian fundamentalist churches, there is no segregation in worship service between man and woman. And that woman are not forced to “cover-up” in not infrequent cases.
There are fundamentalist Jews, but what is the Islamic counterpart to Conservative, Reform, and secular Jews? And how are Islamic apostates treated within majority Muslim countries and areas (as in Europe)?
dd,
Thank you for so clearly illustrating my point.
tt
tt
How is fair comment bigotry?
aa
Fewer (though still too many) modernist Christians claim that their revisionist Christianity is what Christians have ALWAYS really believed (Alas, Karen Armstrong is one that does.)
In contrast, Aslan (Turkish for “lion” but it should be translated as “lyin'” in his case) makes many claims about what Islam has “always” believed about slavery and other matters that are certainly dubious.
He’s clearly living in his own wish-fulfilling Narnia.
/@
Yes, of course. God forbid we treat Islamic believers as a group of adults who can understand context by themselves.
I disagree. Though certainly there are times when the cross reference is appropriate, I do not feel I am under any obligation to genuflect an obligatory reference to bizarre sub populations of Christians and Jews (as opposed to large populations of Muslims) to appease the PC crowd.
Aslan posits Turkey as example of Muslim society that treats women well. But what he does not say is that many of those reforms were the result of M. Ataturk secularization and that since the rise of a more Islamic Turkish government, many of these changes have weakened.
Iran, too, was at one point far more liberal toward women, but that has been rolled-back since the coming of a hard-line Islam.
In terms of Saudi Arabia, Aslan just skates over the fact that it’s not just another Muslim country, but its holy land. And that is significant given that its social and intellectual harshness is in no small part due to the royal family’s seeking of religious approval as a source of its moral ruling authority.
Yes and I think the examples you provide hint at the solution to reforming Islam. As with taming Christianity, it will do so through exposure to liberal, secular values. So it is most likely that reform will take place in the west long before it does elsewhere.
I am not sure. Western Communist parties went to the dustbin of history only after the collapse of communism in the Soviet bloc which deprived them of both ideological justification and funding.
If ISIS and the Taliban suffer crushing military defeats and Saudi Arabis rolls down from the position of “ally”, Western Muslims may start asking question whether Allah really wants them to rule the planet.
I’d have to agree. There is nothing much in Islam that supports reform. As far as I can see it has no place for democracy. Only some major political setback could discourage it’s growth and at least allow for reform.
Good point. Yes, you can point out that not all Islamic countries are totalitarian shitholes… but when you take a closer look and see that the more emphasis a country puts on Islamic orthodoxy, the worse it turns out, it becomes clear that this not a great defense of the religion. It’s intellectually on the same level as “I know smokers who don’t have lung cancer, so it must be harmless”.
“many Muslims throughout the world harbor views that are divisive, oppressive, bigoted, or misogynistic”
Well they hardly have a monopoly on such views, so that’s a poor reason to single out Islam.
True, but it might also be a reason not to pull any punched when Co, Inc up against these views, simply because the people holding them are Muslim.
Islam has a disproportionate share of cultures and nations that perpetrate FGM, honor killings, imprisonment and/or death for apostasy, imprisonment and/or death for blasphemy, imprisonment and/or death for adultery, death for same-sex relations, and enforcing the separation of genders in public. Are we allowed to ‘single it out’ yet?
Not to mention their support for theocratic as opposed to democratic principles.
It’s the “many” that singles Islam out.
/@
I admire the CNN hosts for remaining unflappably objective. They were unwilling to accept Aslan’s spiel at face value and seemed skeptical of his claims of innocence for ISLAM. At one or two points they appeared to hold him at arms length as if fending off a noxious odor. I wanted to applaud when they didn’t bat an eye as he accused them of bigotry.
@rickflick: Tricky. I read the overall frame of Reza’s points as an informal endorsement of his views by CNN.
I’ve transcribed the interview, including the clips from Bill Maher and Benjamin Netanyahu. It’s four pages, and so, here’s a link to my Dropbox, if curious to see how the conversation reads:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kyejncn4y30bwz5/Reza%20Aslan%20interviewed%20by%20Don%20Lemon%20and%20Alisyn%20Camerota%20on%20CNN.docx?dl=0
After walking through the discourse, what I see is Alisyn and Don functioning to represent the world, as Reza claims that their conversation is bigoted for generalizing Muslims. But as the world doesn’t want to be seen as bigoted, Don and Alisyn thank Reza for educating them. This functions as an instructional guide for how viewers should respond to their own lumping. Additionally, Reza’s main point was that religions are neutral entities not be criticized. Religions are safe spaces.
Viewers should internalize the following:
Don’t talk generally about Muslim anything and don’t critique religion. For, if you do so, you are a bigot and bring something bad to the table, unlike religions, which simply allow people to bring themselves, good or bad, out.
Thanks for transcribing. I hope you know we’ll be expecting this service for everything from now on. 😉
I was pretty happy with how the hosts signed off:
Don: Well, we’re just asking the questions, Reza. And you’re answering. I think you answered very fairly and we appreciate it.
Thank you, Reza Aslan.
Alisyn: We appreciate your perspective and helping everyone understand your perspective.
They avoided seeming to agree with him, which you will quite often see (especially on Faux). In fact, I get the impression they probably disagreed with Aslan. They seemed very prepared for him with their poker faces.
@rickflick: I know it looks like they disagreed with Reza (I think they did have points of tension), but that’s actually why it works. If you are a good person, you should listen to others’ views. That’s standard liberal arts decorum. I think this piece will function educationally to spread the view that religion is not to be critiqued and that attempting to describe Muslim anything is something done by the ignorant and intolerant.
They may have inadvertently contributed to the safe space (religion as safe space) and regressive left agenda.
Virtue ethics motto: “What kind of person do I want to be? And what do I want to see in the world?”
CNN modeled listening and ended with a diversity catch phrase “your perspective.” Although it sounds like your perspective could have been used synonymously for “your opinion”, on campuses where honoring perspectives is connected to diversity and viewed as educational and a way to make one a better person, CNN’s discourse promoted religion and contributed to censoring culture through an appeal to virtue.
You are probably right, but, on the other hand, they are not Faux News. They leave things pretty well up in the air. If, for example they had Bill Maher on a day or two after this, they leave a lot of room for the viewer to make up their own mind. I think that’s a plus.
I’ll take your word on this 🙂
I don’t have a TV, but I do know what you are saying about Faux.
From memory of seeing the news at other’s homes, I’d think one generalization is that CNN socializes liberals, whereas Faux socializes Republicans. But I can be wrong about this, given that I’m not tapped in.
The problem with reformations is that they never take everyone along with them, see the Catholic Church, and Orthodox Jews. There’s always a sizable group that refuses to have anything to do with it. And the books and writings remain to fuel the hatred and ire of future generations; so that even if things are quiet now, there is no knowing when alienation, boredom and the desire for glory, will overcome the gifts of civilization, and stoke the fires of a new Phoenix rising from the old ashes. As long as books full of evil are promoted as the “Word of God” we shall have no peace.
Good point. In effect, Islam has had it’s reformation in some of it’s western intelligentsia. Yet there are still a billion unreformed Muslims.
The reformation did not make Christianity more “modern”. It was the ensuing religious wars with their atrocities and hugely devastating effects that ushered in the enlightenment and science as we know it. Christianity essentially lost its monopoly on explaining the world and destroyed its moral authority in the process.
It might be well possible that Islam will battle out their differences with itself and others until the people have enough of it.
It is quite amazing to recall that the scientific revolution came at a time of protracted war. Alas, we can’t even get that benefit now, it seems.
Too true, alas.
I think Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer nails it:
“Jews, Christians, and Muslims encourage violence because they refuse to fully challenge the authority of “sacred texts” that overflow with violent images of God and stories justifying human violence in God’s name….
“Jews, Christians, and Muslims must address the problem of violence and “sacred” text if we are to have any reasonable hope for an alternative future. A world being destroyed by violence, much of it done with justifying reference to God and “sacred” text, is a world in desperate need of new understandings of divine and human power. The futility of violence and resiliency of injustice requires us to unleash our imaginations in order to move beyond religious certainties into unfamiliar terrain where patriarchal assumptions that dominate “sacred” texts and political life are challenged in light of historical need and human experience. …
“The violence-of-God traditions at the heart of the Bible and the Quran have invaded our own hearts. By sanctioning violence in “sacred” texts and in reference to them, we invariably progress along a treacherous pathway. God is powerful and proves to be God through superior violence. The God of superior violence justifies human violence in the name of God and in pursuit of God’s objectives that with frightening regularity mirror our own objectives. In the end, violence replaces or becomes God. Violence is widely embraced because it is embedded and sanctified in “sacred” texts and because its use seems logical in a violent world.”
From: Is Religion Killing Us?: Violence in the Bible and the Quran — by Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, Trinity Press International 2003
That sounds like a book worth reading!
I would only quibble with this: “[t]he violence-of-God traditions at the heart of the Bible and the Quran have invaded our own hearts.”
Surely, ultimately, it was the violence in our own hearts that we made into religions.
A load of twaddle, there is no-one more devout than a Convert. To admit the faults of Islam ,which are legion, is to admit he was a fool to embrace the insanity of Islam.
The real truth is that Islam and its current adherents promote the same bigoted, backward and murderous ideas that our grandfathers went to war against in 1939!
In the UK. Oswald Mosely’s Blackshirts were met with the same revulsion as the proponents of such beliefs should be treated with today!
Islam isn’t a religion of peace it’s a fascist ideology!
It isn’t racism! Its opposition to the idea that people should be killed because of their sexuality, Lack of belief in gods,or whether they belong to a different religion!
In this case Judaism!
People like myself who oppose these beliefs aren’t bigots! I’m actually proud of my grandfather and his generation who fought such poisonous beliefs and stamped them out!
He would be most disappointed to see that his efforts were in vain and that the poisonous weed has returned.
Interesting analogy. It works pretty well, except that with Islam there is a lot of restraint evident in the fact that the fascistic aspect of Islam is, at the moment, extremely limited. I think the vast majority of Muslims in the world are to some degree amenable to a more modern view of law and justice. Sharia and Jihad do not presently preoccupy their lives as Nazism did the Germans. Still, there is a long way to go.