Just how “terrifying” is Islam?

The proposed Islamic cultural centre and mosque in New York has recently been drawing a lot of press, and a lot of fire, apparently because of it’s nearness to the September 11th ‘Ground-Zero’. The usual thuggish language has been employed by the usual suspects, and quite honestly, I don’t think it’s really worth commenting on them.  But what is interesting is some of the discussion from people I wouldn’t normally consider “The Usual Suspects”.

Of all the major religions, I find Islam—in its bellicosity, its subjugation of women, its reliance on texts filled with hate and horror (and yes, I know the Old Testament has its gruesome parts and vengeful God), and the desire of many adherents to install Islamic law in their countries—the most repugnant.

The above quote is not from the Daily Mail, or from Sarah Palin, but from Jerry Coyne, author of “Why Evolution Is True”, a man whose blog I enjoy immensely and whose views I generally agree with (to the extent a British leftie like me can agree with an American, anyway). Reading his discussion on the New York mosque, however, this quote jarred quite significantly.

In his discussion he’d already mentioned Sam Harris’ take on the New York mosque, quoting:

And honest reasoning declares that there is much that is objectionable—and, frankly, terrifying—about the religion of Islam and about the state of discourse among Muslims living in the West, and it is decidedly inconvenient that discussing these facts publicly is considered a sign of “intolerance” by well-intentioned liberals, in part because such criticism resonates with the actual bigotry of not-so-well-intentioned conservatives. I can see no remedy for this, however, apart from simply ramming the crucial points home, again and again.

As a “well-intentioned liberal”, an atheist, and a person with no like of religion in general, I would kindly request that Sam Harris take a long run off of a short pier, if he would be so kind.

Jerry Coyne and Sam Harris (and other self-declared liberal-lefts) are wrong. Islam is not the religion as portrayed in Western media. Islam is not monolithic. Islam is not out to destroy you, eat your babies or chop your hands off. Islam is different. The various forms that Islam take incorporate various practices that are – on the surface at least – rather alien to Western culture. But this does not make “Islam” “the most repugnant” of religions, nor is it terrifying.

I will be the first to admit that I don’t fully understand Islam. I do, however, understand Christianity. I understand that the Christian Bible has some god-awful things in it, but I understand that Christians do not believe that mass slaughter is moral because it is in the Old Testament. They don’t believe that children should be stoned to death if they disobey their parents, they don’t believe that rape victims should be forced to marry rapists under penalty of death. That these issues are screwed up in the Bible make amusing rejoinders to the question of religion and morality, but most honest atheists would recognise that Christians don’t do that. Similarly, most atheists would recognise that Stephen Green of the Christian Voice does not speak for most British Christians, that Fred Phelps does not speak for most American Christians, and that – for that matter – the Pope really does not speak for most Catholic Christians.

So why is there this automatic assumption that Islam is any different from Christianity? Why does Jerry Coyne feel comfortable writing “and yes, I know the Old Testament has its gruesome parts and vengeful God” when excoriating Islam? Why does the Christian Bible get a free-pass in this instance, yet Islam is slammed as “the most repugnant”?

If you read the press, you’d think the answer was obvious. It was Muslims that hijacked four planes on September 11th. It was Muslims that blew up bombs on July 7th. It was Muslims in Madrid. Muslims wear face veils. Muslim clerics have said some outrageous things. Blah blah blah.

So What?

It was Christians that spent decades trying to blow each other up over Ireland. It was Christians who assassinated abortion doctors. The Pope is a bloody Christian. The Bishop of Rochester is a bloody Christian. For that matter, Stalin almost certainly was an atheist. Do the Atheists who so freely condemn Islam really want to go down that road? After years of atheists saying “Oh no, Stalin may have been an atheist, but it wasn’t atheism that made him a mass-murderer”, do they really want to assert that what they read in the newspapers must be indicative of Western Muslim moral thought in general? Seriously?

As I said earlier; I don’t understand Islam. I don’t know what it is like to grow up as a Muslim, or to live as a Muslim in the West. I do not have the knowledge to separate the hyperbolic bullshit from the facts. But then I suspect neither do Jerry Coyne or Sam Harris. So I’ve decided I’m going to do something about this. I want to learn about Islam as it is actually practiced in the West. I have no idea how to do this, but I’d like to try. This seems like a good starting point.

4 Responses to Just how “terrifying” is Islam?

  1. Kirth Gersen says:

    Islam is somewhat of a special case because it’s a pre-packaged religion, culture, and system of government, all in one. Yes, there are internal squabbles over whether Ali is a legitimate heir to the Caliphate, etc., but all of the sects share the same set of writings on how government should be run, and on how life should be lived, and on how God should be worshipped. Some follow them more closely than others.

    The Swiss ban on minarets is more a territorial dispute than a religious rights one — which law is sovereign on this particular piece of ground: Swiss law or Sharia law? And the French ban on the burqu’a is about refusal to culturally assimilate, more than it’s about “our religion is better than yours.” Given the immigration and birth rates, Western Europe is facing a very real possibility that their laws and culture will be virtually wiped out and replaced by those transplanted from the Middle East. And that’s what’s making them nervous. The religious part has little if anything to do with it.

    • armchairdissident says:

      Islam is somewhat of a special case because it’s a pre-packaged religion, culture, and system of government, all in one.

      Well, this is clearly and obviously untrue: Islam is practised by some 1.5 billion people around the world from various different cultures so it cannot be true that Islam is pre-packaged with culture.

      On the issue of "system of government", Muslims vote in elections in the UK, in the US, in France, in Spain, in Italy, in Portugal, in Turkey: Muslims vote in elections throughout the world. Muslims may be liberal, labour, conservative, green, or Monster Raving Looney Party. They may be in favour of the monarchy, or staunch republicans (not to be mistaken with the American GOP). Some may be detractors who don't vote; who are – to all intents an purposes – indistinguishable from the huge number of Brits who don't vote.

      Even if you limit your search to the Muslim world in the Middle-East. Saudi Arabia is not the same as the UAE. Iran is not Turkey. Iraq (pre- and post-war) is not Kuwait. Islam clearly no more has a single political system than Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism or any other religion (except, perhaps Scientology, which is just genuinely insane).

      The objection of "religion" being pre-packaged is so obviously untrue as to barely deserve comment. At no point did I mention the issues or politics or opinions surrounding the principle of a Muslim Caliphate, yet you seem to dismiss the differences between Shia and Sunni as "internal squabbles", as opposed to religious differences. But to define those difference as simply "internal squabbles" is, as I understand it, to define a Catholic as a Protestant.

      The Swiss ban on minarets is more a territorial dispute than a religious rights one — which law is sovereign on this particular piece of ground: Swiss law or Sharia law?

      The Swiss ban on minarets is outrageous, as is the French ban on covering the face. They are both hugely illiberal and un-secular laws. I strongly hope that the French law is struck down at the earliest opportunity.

      Given the immigration and birth rates, Western Europe is facing a very real possibility that their laws and culture will be virtually wiped out and replaced by those transplanted from the Middle East.

      This is simply delusional.

  2. Kirth Gersen says:

    (Continued) For people like Coyne, Harris, and myself as well, who are mistrustful of any mixing of church and state to begin with (because of the frequent attempts by well-meaning U.S. evangelists to trample that separation), we look with some sympathy at Western Europe and its current culture of secular multiculturalism, and find it a more pleasing image than a strongly religious culture based (in writing at least) on the life of Muhammed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: