One Eye Closed
This piece by Karen Armstrong has a big gaping hole in the middle of it.
[Blair’s rebuke of ‘moderate Muslims’] ignores the fact that the chief problem for most Muslims is not “the west” per se, but the suffering of Muslims in Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq and Palestine. Many Britons share this dismay, but the strong emphasis placed by Islam upon justice and community solidarity makes this a religious issue for Muslims. When they see their brothers and sisters systematically oppressed and humiliated, some feel as wounded as a Christian who sees the Bible spat upon or the eucharistic host violated.
Speaking of ignoring facts – why is the chief problem for most Muslims the suffering of Muslims in Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq and Palestine to the exclusion of the suffering of Muslims in Afghanistan, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia and indeed Iraq as well as many other places, that is caused not by ‘the west’ but by other Muslims? Why do ‘most Muslims’ not have a problem (or if they do, why does Armstrong not think they do, or if she does think they do, why does she not mention it?) with suffering that is caused to Muslims by other Muslims who beat them up, kill them or their friends or relatives, tell them what to do, impose sharia on them against their will, lock them up in their houses for life, tell them what to wear, stone them to death in front of their children, explode them in markets and hotels and buses and other crowded places, frighten them, tyrannize over them, set off civil wars around them, and generally make their lives hell? If most Muslims feel wounded when they see their brothers and sisters systematically oppressed and humiliated, as indeed they might, as might all of us, whether they are our ‘brothers and sisters’ in religion or not, as we all might simply because they are fellow human beings – then why is that feeling supposed to explain the connection between Tony Blair’s foreign policy and the rise of Islamism? Why couldn’t the people who feel wounded at the suffering of their ‘brothers and sisters’ feel justifiable rage at the Islamists instead of feeling inspired to join them in blowing people up? And why does Karen Armstrong, who is no fool, appear not to have asked herself that question?
“The moment you start to debate “The Word”, or say … “but this bit means something else or less violent or oppressive” then you have opened the door to a truly tolerant society.”
Interesting. And I think true up to a point (up to a point because often people also cling to the ‘faith’ aspect all the harder once that door is open, even the people who do the opening). That’s pretty much the essence of what I’ve been trying to argue to Jeffrey M: that if he judges morality on rational grounds, then reliance on the deity to guarantee said morality in some way becomes superfluous and basically meaningless. If we’re the ones doing the judging of morality (and we’d better be) then what’s god for? Just a kind of volume control?
Been thinking about this question recently, after reading Stephen Law’s new book.
He makes a strong case for moral education based on independent, critical thinking rather than acceptance of authoritarian positions (religious or otherwise). But he is actually fairly conciliatory towards religious schooling as long as it is done in an open, questioning way.
It left me wondering whether such religious education could ever really exist (without indocrination, without making unfounded truth claims, without enforcing rituals, worship, religious segretation on young minds etc..what would be left?)
Or is that the point, and Law is just making a show at not being anti-religion to avoid the kind of ‘atheist fundamentalist’ tag that Richard Dawkins gets?
Yes, the chief problem for most Muslims is the suffering of Muslims caused by ‘the west’, to the exclusion of the suffering of Muslims caused by other Muslims. The reason for this is suffering inflicted by one’s own group doesn’t matter as much as suffering inflicted by outsiders. So much for identity.