Islamophobia

[zhao]

as if he was an isolated case

don't think the author thinks that. he's only the most visible and vocal one.

 

[crackerjack]

WOW!! this dude on Oxford Union rocks SO hard with SO much awesome sauce.

Hasan is a brilliant speaker and panelist and a very good writer. He could do with being less of a dick on Twitter, though.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Someone's uploaded this video with the title "Mehdi Hassan | Islam is a peaceful religion", which is somewhat at odds with what he actually says:

I'm not here to argue that Islam is a pacifistic religion: it is not.

I guess it's the motion being tabled but it seems strange that he says something that apparently contradicts it while urging the floor to vote in favour.

It's become a modern liberal article of faith that "Islam is a religion of peace" but it's not really true, is it? It didn't grow from an upstart cult into a major world religion in a single human lifetime because its followers pursued an aggressive leafletting campaign. That's not to say it's inherently a 'religion of war' either, because it's not inherently a religion 'of' anything. Like most other well-established faiths, it's so widely open to interpretation that it can be claimed as justification for a huge range of mutually contradictory positions.

What Hassan is actually saying is that the Quran has peaceful aspects and warlike aspects, and that a minority of Muslims fixate exclusively on the latter and ignore the rest. He contrasts this with an approach that emphasises the peaceful aspects and downplays the violent aspects. They're both interpretations.

 

[crackerjack]

What Hassan is actually saying is that the Quran has peaceful aspects and warlike aspects, and that a minority of Muslims fixate exclusively on the latter and ignore the rest.

As do a loud, large and frequently poisonous number of western critics from whom Hasan is defending Islam. But I agree, it's a daft title for the debate.

 

[zhao]

Someone's uploaded this video with the title "Mehdi Hassan | Islam is a peaceful religion", which is somewhat at odds with what he actually says:

the title is a bit misleading. But a religion which predominantly advocates peace does not necessarily mean pacifist - the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

it's not inherently a religion 'of' anything. Like any other faith, it's so widely open to interpretation that it can be claimed as justification for a huge range of mutually contradictory positions.

Of course Islam is inherently, on the whole, a religion of peace, as is Christianity and Judaism. the vast majority of it is rhetorics of peace and brotherly love, and a tiny proportion which allow violence. Maybe similar to the proportions of mainstream and extremist practitioners world wide - with exceptional periods such as the Crusades, or maybe some years of Muslim military conquest.

Hassan ... an approach that emphasises the peaceful aspects and downplays the violent aspects. They're both interpretations.

No, the peaceful and violent aspects are nowhere near equal or interchangeable, and Hassan is giving an accurate image of a religion which on the whole advocates peace, but contains a small part which allows for militarism. But it is his detractors, the Western Islamophobes, which always emphasize the violent aspects.

When criticism of religion morphs into an undue focus on Islam - particularly at the same time the western world has been engaged in a decade-long splurge of violence, aggression and human rights abuses against Muslims, justified by a sustained demonization campaign - then I find these objections to the New Atheists completely warranted. That's true of Dawkins' proclamation that " often say Islam [is the] greatest force for evil today." It's true of Hitchens' various grotesque invocations of Islam to justify violence, including advocating cluster bombs because "if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too". And it's true of Harris' years-long argument that Islam poses unique threats beyond what Christianity, Judaism, and the other religions of the world pose.

^ THIS. (except i would change "decade-long" to "half-century-long" or "century-long")

...I find extremely suspect the behavior of westerners like Harris (and Hitchens and Dawkins) who spend the bulk of their time condemning the sins of other, distant peoples rather than the bulk of their time working against the sins of their own country. That's particularly true of Americans, whose government has brought more violence, aggression, suffering, misery, and degradation to the world over the last decade than any other.

(again i would change "decade" to "century")

'New Atheism' should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim -- arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing.

In brief... 'New Atheism' should begin by looking in the mirror.

That is the hallmark of this New Atheist movement: exploiting rational atheism to support and glorify US state power and aggression; they have become a prime source for pseudo-intellectual justification of US government conduct.

I was appalled at how [the New Atheists] essentially co-opted secular language to present the same kind of chauvinism, intolerance, and bigotry that we see in the Christian right. They're secular fundamentalists. . . . I find that it's, like the Christian right, a fear based movement. It's a movement that is very much a reaction to 9/11. The kinds of things that they write about Muslims could be lifted from the most rabid sermon by a radical fundamentalist."

 

[Mr. Tea]

As do a loud, large and frequently poisonous number of western critics from whom Hasan is defending Islam.

Yes, and the ironic confluence of their interpretation of Islam with that of militant Islamists is a point he makes. To judge from that clip, he's speaking in response to some fairly bonkers (or at least, extremely one-sided) anti-Islam rhetoric.

But I agree, it's a daft title for the debate.

Surely impossible to assess because the term "Islam" refers not to a single thing but to a huge and varied assortment of beliefs, values and practices?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Of course Islam is inherently, on the whole, a religion of peace, as is Christianity and Judaism. the vast majority of it is rhetorics of peace and brotherly love, and a tiny proportion which allow violence.

I don't think there's a lot to be gained by weighing up the number of verses in the Quran (or the Bible) that talk about brotherly love vs. the number that talk about violence. What's far more important is the values, beliefs and practices of people who follow religions today. Yes, the main themes of the New Testament are those of love, peace and forgiveness and some Christians adhere to that creed admirably, but that doesn't stop a lot of Christians in the USA (and elsewhere, of course) having views on certain issues that are totally at odds with this. Many of them have a monomoniacal fixation with the part of the Old Testament that forbids homosexuality while ignoring the bits that prescribe the death sentence for having tattoos or sowing more than one crop in a field. Likewise some Islamists claim religious justification for suicide bombing despite the fact that suicide is explicitly forbidden in the Quran (or maybe the Hadith, I'm not sure - it's pretty canonical, anyway). Likewise you can talk all you like about the Buddhist doctrine of non-violence but that's rather at odds with, for example, the history of Japanese imperialism. And so on.

The views of certain high-profile atheists are by-the bye as this thread is about Islam, not atheism. I have no more interest in defending Hitchens' views on the Iraq war than Mehdi Hassan does in defending the Taliban.

You might find this interesting: a piece on the "new, new atheists", including a contribution by the British-Iraqi physicist Jim al-Khalili, who also wrote this excellent book:

 

[zhao]

I have no more interest in defending Hitchens' views on the Iraq war than Mehdi Hassan does in defending the Taliban.

example of Hassan defending the Taliban please.

 

[Slothrop]

I think that was his point. I don't think Tea is particularly in agreement with Hitchens on the Iraq thing, either.

 

[zhao]

what was whose point?

 

[Slothrop]

Tea's. He was making the point (approximately) that using the example of Hitchens and co as a stick to beat secular atheism as a whole is no more valid than using the Taliban as a stick to beat all religion.

 

[Mr. Tea]

example of Hassan defending the Taliban please.

Lol, if you're gonna miss the point, you might as well miss it in style, I suppose.

 

[zhao]

Tea's. He was making the point (approximately) that using the example of Hitchens and co as a stick to beat secular atheism as a whole is no more valid than using the Taliban as a stick to beat all religion.

but no one is doing that.

 

[zhao]

ah right

I have no more interest in defending Hitchens' views on the Iraq war than Mehdi Hassan does in defending the Taliban.

just misread this -- missed the "Hassan *DOES* in defending" bit.

Simple misreading. lets not get too excited.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Tea's. He was making the point (approximately) that using the example of Hitchens and co as a stick to beat secular atheism as a whole is no more valid than using the Taliban as a stick to beat all religion.

This wasn't precisely the point I was making but is a good point nonetheless. Isn't automatically equating atheism with Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins et al a bit like automatically equating Islam with Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini?

 

[zhao]

equating atheism with Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins

again, NO ONE IS DOING THAT.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Haha, sure, if you say so.

 

[Sectionfive]

Am actually shocked at how shallow Atheism's understanding of any sort of, well anything outside of the echo chamber they appear to inhabit. I wouldn't hold Dawkins as representative by any means but they make a good go of convincing me otherwise tbh. Genuinely saw one defender ask what "colonialism and imperialism" (always in scare quotes) had to do with debating Islam. Odd bunch tbh

 

[zhao]

Haha, sure, if you say so.

but perhaps we SHOULD start examining strains of xenophobia, eurocentrism, ethnocentrism, and modern-centrism in mainstream Atheism.

 

[e/y]

Isn't automatically equating atheism with Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins et al a bit like automatically equating Islam with Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini?

But these critiques aren't about atheism in general, they are about a specific subset - "New Atheists" if you will, and the 'intellectual' figureheads for this group are Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins and so on. They set the terms for discourse (lacking, intentionally or not, in historical, class, race, etc contexts) and propagate their bigoted ideology.


Related, this is good I think:

"Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. (…) Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. (…) The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. (…) Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.”

(Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1843)

That would be Karl Marx, being smarter about religion than Richard Dawkins will ever be, 170 years ago. The same text include the line about religion as ‘the opium of the masses’, which is probably the most wildly misused line from Marx. Opium was a medicine and comfort while also being a potent drug – when the phrase is used to mean “LOL religious people are so dumb it’s like they’re on smack LOL I am the great rationalist”, it misses precisely Marx’s recognition of the *social function* of religion, as well as its contradictory content, as both protest against suffering and a consolation that often enables its perpetuation.