Recently, I had a conversation with a fellow blogger name Damo, about a topic I've written about a few times before: Islamic extremism. Damo and I represent essentially the two sides of the prominent controversy over Islam: I argue that Islamic extremism does not reflect some way in which Islam is fundamentally different from other religions, whereas he argues that it does. I believe this is an important discussion to have, and I was glad we were both able to keep it civil and, I believe, present our respective sides in an effective and well-though-out fashion. Below is our full conversation (also available
on Damo's blog).
__________________________
Damo: Hi...Could you start by telling me a
little about yourself and give a brief outline on what you see as the
motivation behind the behaviour of Islamic extremists.
Me: I’m a college student who’s interested in
politics and current events, which I blog about. I’ve followed both
sides of the debate over Islam for a while now, so my opinions are based
on the arguments I find most convincing.
When it comes to Islamic extremists, I think their motivations vary.
With attacks like 9/11, anger at western foreign policy is what I’d say
the major motivation is. When it comes to a group like ISIS, I think
there’s a certain appeal that’s similar to a street gang’s appeal in the
inner city: people are attracted to violence and being part of a group
because of bad social conditions (poverty, dictatorship, etc.).
Certainly they use an interpretation of Islam to justify their acts, but
I think the interpretation attracts people based not on authenticity
but on the life it offers.
Damo: I don’t deny that foreign policy, poverty and
dictatorships play a role in the Islamist/Jihadist cause. I do however
maintain that these grievances are often viewed through a religious lens
and that the primary concern of Jihadists is what they believe Islam
commands. So whereas I think you would say that Islam is an excuse or
justification for violence, I would say that in many cases it is the
root cause.
If poverty and dictatorships where enough to create this mind-set,
how do we explain the many physicians, scientists and engineers who have
become Jihadists? How do we explain the thousands of western Muslims
who have decided to abandon their lives of relative comfort and emigrate
to a country they probably couldn’t point to on a map, to participate
in the most sickening atrocities it’s possible to imagine? A landmark
study in 2003 conducted by Dr Marc Sageman,
as reported in the New York Post,
found that “two-thirds of al Qaeda’s members had a university
education” and that “the vast majority of terrorists came from solid,
middle-class backgrounds and their leadership hailed from the upper
middle class.”
For the most part, these are not poverty stricken people whose
desperate last resort against persecution is terrorism. These are people
that fundamentally believe in the superiority of Islam, Sharia and
Muslims, who view women as unequal, who believe in murdering adulterers
and homosexuals and who aspire to create an Islamic theocracy by any
means necessary.
Me: You’re correct that many jihadis have an
education and are not themselves poor. With the westerners who have
joined ISIS, I suspect that for many feelings of social isolation and a
desire to be part some sort of cause.
In any case, a
worldwide survey of Muslims by Gallup
found that radical Muslims (who approved of 9/11) cited political
rather than religious reasons. While certainly some kind of tribal
mentality comes into play when well-educated Muslims become jihadists
(as they see themselves as responding to grievances suffered by other
Muslims), I think that mentality has more to do with human nature than
anything in particular about Islam.
You’re right that many jihadis do want theocracy, but we can still
only explain that by looking at social circumstances. Obviously not all
Muslims interpret Islam in the way jihadists do; what explains the
difference? In my view, it often comes down to the social circumstances
of the jihadists and their own personal desires and grievances.
Damo: I see, so your view is that social isolation
and a desire for a cause explains a compulsion among some number of
Muslims to behead non-Muslims, to hurl gays from rooftops and stone
adulterers to death. What role (if any) do you think is played by
Islamic doctrine and Islamic jurisprudence in this behaviour in it’s
condemnation of non-Muslims, gays and apostates in the first place? In
other words; do you think there’s any connection between the way groups
such as ISIS act towards apostates, for example, and what the Quran,
Hadith and Islamic Law say about apostates? Again, you are right to say
that there are often political grievances at play but let’s not forget
that religion and politics tend not to be separable in Islam the way
that they are in other religions. For that reason, I take issue with
describing many of these issues as purely ‘political’.
Example:
Lee Rigby’s killing is often described as politically motivated on
account of his killer’s diatribe against the bombing of Muslim lands by
the West. However, describing this as politically motivated is
superficial and ignores the explicitly religious underpinnings. It
ignores the multiple times that Muslims, Allah, Mohammed, Sharia and the
Quran were mentioned in the killers short monologue. It ignores that
Adebolajo had described himself as a “soldier of Allah” and had stated
his intent to martyr himself. It ignores the fact that there is only one
factor that would cause a British born Nigerian to identify Iraq and
Afghanistan as “our lands” and it ignores the following quote from
Adebolajo:
“We are forced by the Quran in Surah At-Tawbah and in
many many ayat throughout the Quran that we must fight them as they
fight us.”
This is a person who believes he is connected to Muslims around the
world by the Ummah and as such will instinctively take the side of his
Muslim brothers in any and every conflict and without any consideration
given to the atrocities and abuses they routinely commit as further
illustrated by this quote:
“So what if we want to live by the Sharia in Muslim lands?”
Of course not all Muslims interpret their religion this way because I
would suggest that Muslims are just as capable of ignoring or
reinterpreting specific religious doctrines as followers of the other
Abrahmic faiths do. Unfortunately though, this scriptural cherry-picking
is rather more difficult in Islam as it has not gone through a
reformation the way Judaism and Christianity have and the Quran is
claimed to be the infallible, unalterable word of God rather merely a
product of divine inspiration.
Me: Groups like ISIS certainly turn to Islamic
scripture when it comes to who they target and kill. However, it’s
important to note that jihadi groups by no means follow some purist
interpretation of Islamic scripture; for instance, many have engaged in
suicide bombing though suicide is considered forbidden in Islam, as in
the other Abrahamic faiths. ISIS itself has been accused of violating
Islamic law by a number of Muslim scholars who wrote an
open letter
to its leader. ISIS does have a religious motivation for targeting
gays, but the reason they do so is not because they interpreted Islamic
scripture in the most honest way possible, but rather because they
interpreted Islam in the most violent way possible. As for moderate
Muslims, there are varying interpretations of what Islamic scripture
means when it refers to apostates and unbelievers, so I don’t think
Islam is any more inherently problematic than Christianity or Judaism.
Damo: Unless I’m misunderstanding something here, it
seems that your argument has shifted somewhat. It appears that rather
than maintaining that Islam is a pretence or an excuse for political
grievances, you are now acknowledging religious motivation for the acts
of Islamic radicals like ISIS, but you merely dispute that they have the
correct understanding of Islam.
Suicide is indeed forbidden Islam, but that’s a different action than
what Islamists refer to as Istishhad, a concept for which the Quran and
Hadith promise vast rewards. Jihadists refer to these acts as
“Martyrdom Operations” rather than the pejorative term “Suicide Attacks”
as the whole point is to die in the act of killing infidels which they
view as a homicidal, not suicidal act.
Whether or not these people have the correct understanding of Islam
is not for me to say. My only point is to show that their understanding
of Islam is the primary motivation for their behaviours and agendas and
they reiterate this vocally at every turn. The below quotes are from
failed suicide bombers interviewed for
Pierre Rehov’s documentary Suicide Killers:
“Those who blow themselves up get a good bonus from God.
They marry seventy-two virgins. When I put on a belt I was not afraid,
on the contrary. I was excited. I felt I was the most powerful person on
earth. I really did want to be a martyr.”
“Our final goal is to kill the enemies of Islam. All the enemies of Islam. Killing them all is a holy act.”
When a Muslim carries out an act which could be directly attributed
to multiple commands in the Quran, which is justified by the Hadith and
the life of Muhammed, which is argued by Islamists as being Islamically
justified and for which the perpetrator himself cites explicitly
religious motivation, I do often wonder what more evidence would be
required to convince people of the religious nature of the act. And I
note that this dismissal of a religious motivation is
never adopted when that act is something essentially unproblematic such as abstinence from pork products or praying towards Mecca.
It’s a little concerning that you would highlight the vagueness and
ambiguity of Islam in defining apostates – people who it also seems to
suggest have committed a crime worthy of death – as an indication that
Islam is no more problematic than Christianity or Judaism.
Me: My stance hasn’t shifted, although perhaps I
haven’t always been totally clear. If not, I apologize for that. While I
don’t deny that Islamic extremists subscribe to interpretations of
Islam that justify violence and cruelty, I think these interpretations
come not from some good faith attempt to figure out what Islam’s texts
really promote, but rather they come from a desire to find a religious
justification for violence of an often political nature. When it comes
to ISIS targeting gays, for instance, I suspect that the idea that
homosexuality is part of “Western values” leads them to find an
interpretation of Islam that endorsed killing gays.
You make an interesting point about non-problematic religious
practices. I would say these are engaged in as part of a way to make
life meaningful; people feel that they are committing themselves to
something when they have to make sacrifices for it. While the specific
ideas for what sacrifices to make (not eating pork, Hajj, etc) certainly
come from Islamic scripture, the fundamental desire for some kind of
sacrifice is largely part of being human. Similarly, while extremists
may get their ideas for who to target from Islamic scripture (based on
their personal interpretation of it), their fundamental desire for
violence comes from social circumstances.
As for apostates, perhaps it will be less concerning if I elaborate.
Many Muslims argue apostasy was about turning against Islam in its early
days and siding with those persecuting Muslims (similar to treason),
and so people who simply convert from Islam should by no means be put to
death.
While I certainly won’t argue that there are parts of Islamic
scripture that certainly contain violence and what I would call
barbarism, I don’t see this as fundamentally any different than
Christianity or Judaism, and I don’t think that Islam’s scriptures are
uniquely illiberal
Ultimately, I think violence and terrorism can be directed by
religious texts, but I do not think the motivation itself can come
simply from a text.
Damo: Ok thanks for the clarification. So I assume, using your explanation that we should essentially view the
61% of British Muslims
that want homosexuality punished as a crime, to be bad faith actors
that are deliberately misinterpreting their religion due to a distaste
for western values brought about as a result of our foreign policy?
Similarly this rather charitable interpretation would also include the
83% of Pakistanis that support stoning adulterers to death as well as the
1 in 5 Muslims in Austria who believe that apostasy should be a capital offense?
We are talking about hundreds of millions of Muslims that you seem to
suggest are intentionally misrepresenting ‘true’ Islam to fit their
preconceived ideas about how homosexuals and apostates are
representative of the West. At what point do we simply accept that these
people believe exactly what they claim to believe? How much more
demonstrable of their beliefs do they have to be before we do so? And
how does a deliberate misrepresentation of the doctrine of martyrdom
serve the interests of the suicide bomber who is now obligated to kill
himself as a result of this supposed wishful thinking?
I know the internal debate in Islam about the definition of apostasy,
but there are also debates about what constitutes “turning against
Islam” and “persecution” of Muslims. We are talking about a vague and
interpretable text which is the supposedly inerrant word of the creator
of the universe, and this ambiguity is a very real problem which rather
predictably results in the deaths of people whose only crime was
exercising a sceptical approach to the faith they were indoctrinated
into. The legal systems of 23 Muslim-majority countries consider
apostasy a criminal act and since Islam’s inception there has never been
a system of Sharia in which capital punishment was not mandated for
apostates. All four major schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence mandate
the death penalty for apostates. I would suggest this indicates
something of a difference between Islam and its comparative religions,
if not necessarily scripturally then certainly in the way Islam is
viewed and practiced by many of its followers.
If you don’t mind me saying it appears that you seem to doubt that
Muslims actually believe their religion to be true and simply use it as
an outlet for natural human instincts and for registering disappointment
with societal and political situations. Would that be accurate?
Me: I should first clarify that when I’ve been
talking about Islamic extremists I’ve only been talking about violent
jihadis so far (eg ISIS, al-Qaeda). If you want to talk about Muslims
who aren’t jihadists but support the death penalty for gays or
apostates, that’s a slightly different issue from my standpoint. I
wouldn’t say that these people support what they do because of hatred
toward the west, but rather I’d say it has to do with the political and
economic history of their countries of origin; you mention British
Muslims, for instance, many of whom are immigrants or children of
immigrants raised in households run by immigrants and living in
communities of immigrants.
If we look at the history of Muslim countries worldwide, it’s no
surprise that many aren’t terribly advanced; we often find histories of
colonialism, violence, dictatorship, etc. If you compare the Christian
countries of Africa with the Muslim countries (given that they have
similar backgrounds), you find the Christian countries are pretty
similar in their societal attitudes and practices.
In terms of violence occurring throughout Islam’s history, I would
say that is accurate; it is also true of Christianity and Judaism.
Your understanding of my view of what Muslims believe and how they
use their religion is a little off, but on the right track. I don’t
doubt that Muslims, including extremists and ultraconservatives,
sincerely believe in the tenets of their religion; I simply think the
reasons they believe in their specific interpretation of their religion
have to do with political and economic factors. Many don’t recognize
this; it’s what I would consider something that happens on an
unconscious level.
Damo: That’s actually quite an interesting point and
one which I’d not previously considered. I suppose it could well be
true that socio-economic and political factors unconsciously influence
the interpretation of Islam that different Muslims subscribe to. However
the major variable here is the religion itself. I think your
explanation relies to some extent on the assumption that Islam is
essentially a peaceful religion that is being misrepresented, albeit
unconsciously, by Muslims who believe their interests are served by
understanding it as a violent, intolerant ideology. I think this may be
an assumption too far.
Your point about illiberal attitudes held by large numbers of British
Muslims being due to a kind of historical cultural baggage is one which
I would largely accept. However, I would not divorce Islam from that
culture the way you seem to. Islam is not only an intrinsic part of many
of these cultures, but also the dominant part.
If socio-economic factors were enough to explain Islamism, why don’t
we see an influx of radicalism and religious intolerance from the Ahmadi
Muslim community who not only suffer the same socio-political climate
as many orthodox Muslims but are also relentlessly persecuted and
enthusiastically murdered by them? I’d suggest the difference in
behaviour is the result of a difference in what behaviour each group
believes Islam deems permissible. I’m afraid your explanation still
doesn’t do much to dissuade me that the primary motivation of Jihadists
and Islamists is their understanding of Islam and their devotion to a
Prophet they believe to be the perfect role model of behaviour. To
caricature Muhammad or publically criticise Islam in a book, film or
magazine in virtually any country in the world today is to put your life
in serious jeopardy. This represents an attack on free expression
unrivalled by any other religious group and in accord with an
understanding of what Islam mandates regarding idolatry, aniconism and
blasphemy.
Me: I wouldn’t really call Islam a fundamentally
peaceful religion; while there are definitely Muslims who interpret
Islam in such a way as to lead a peaceful life, I don’t think that the
scriptures and historical practice of Islam itself focus on peace or
nonviolence as a primary value. I don’t disagree with people who say
that there are things in the Qur’an which are quite violent, I just
don’t think that separates the Qur’an from the Bible or Torah.
As for your statement about Islam being intertwined with culture, I
very much agree with that; I don’t think that the culture of British
Muslims or any other Muslims is separate from Islam, but I would say
it’s a relationship that works both ways; while their culture may often
be influenced by Islamic ideas and scriptures, their culture also
influences their interpretation of those scriptures and of Islam itself.
Your example of the Ahmadi Muslims is interesting, but I think it
actually illustrates a point I’m trying to make. The Ahmadi Muslims
believe in the Qur’an and the Hadith as do other Muslims, including
violent jihadis, but clearly they interpret them differently and thus
there is a different result. Why is that the case? I wouldn’t be able to
say, but I imagine one might find an explanation by looking at the
history of the Ahmadis.
Let’s look at it this way: going back several hundred years, we had,
in Europe, a sort of Christianity that was very different than what
exists at least in western Europe today: it was much more violent and
fundamentalist. Surely, people were bringing up their children to
believe in this religion, so how is it that western Europe is so
different today in terms of its religion? I think that the explanation
is because of the economic, political, and scientific shifts that have
happened. So, in cases where we have violent and fundamentalist versions
of Islam, I think there must be a similar explanation in terms of the
economic and political situation and history of the regions, and often I
think we can find it.
Would these regions look different (not necessarily better, but
different) if they had never been introduced to Islam, but rather some
other religion or no religion at all? Certainly. But the reason they are
so backward is not ultimately because that is what Islam requires, but
rather because of their situations and histories.
Damo: Arguably the central theme of the Quran is a
hatred and distrust of unbelievers. This is not true of The Bible or the
Torah. The violence in the Quran is proscriptive whereas the violence
in the Bible is largely descriptive. There is no Quranic equivalent of
the New Testament. There is no Quranic equivalent of the Sermon on the
Mount. There has been no reformation towards a more moderate
understanding within mainstream Islam the way there has been within
Christianity and Judaism, and those that attempt to orchestrate one are
labelled ‘Uncle Toms’, ‘porch-monkeys’ and ‘lapdogs’ by thinly veiled
bigots, both Muslim and Non-Muslim alike. Please don’t take this as a
defence of Christianity or Judaism. I think all three Abrahamic
religions are dangerous and divisive nonsense, but specific differences
within these religions matter a great deal and should not be dismissed
as unimportant.
I agree with your statement regarding Islam being virtually
inseparable from culture in many instances and it being a two-way street
of influence, but we have to acknowledge the religious imperative of
wealthy, educated, privileged Muslims who have been born and raised in
secular, tolerant, pluralistic, democratic societies, enthusiastically
abandoning lives of relative comfort to live under a severe 7th century
theocracy. They are not victims of poverty. They are not uneducated.
They are not mired in social hardships. In many cases they are converts
to Islam and are also therefore not affected by this sense of cultural
baggage you mentioned previously.
Ahmadi’s believe essentially the same doctrine as other Sunni Muslims
but the difference in behaviour lies in a specific addition which is
their belief in a Messiah whose purpose was to end religious war and to
enjoin love and peace among all people. This one difference in belief
makes all the difference in the behaviour its followers – people that
suffered identical socio-economic climates as other Sunni Muslims from
the same regions as well as considerable levels of violence, persecution
and intolerance towards them.
I believe that the moderation of Christianity in Western Europe can
be easily explained almost exclusively by the occurrence the
Enlightenment and the scientific revolution. Secularism is and was a
guarantee of removing the influence of fundamentalist religion over
political power. This is not the case with Islam where we have entire
countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Republic
of Pakistan governed by the precepts of an explicitly political
religion. Again, this Enlightenment needs to take place within the
Islamic world but any attempts to do so are currently being resisted on
all sides as an inherently racist project.
Me: I don’t know that the Enlightenment and
scientific revolution can entirely explain the secularization of Western
societies, though you can argue it got the ball rolling, so to speak. I
certainly agree some kind of Enlightenment is needed with countries
like Pakistan, Iran, and particularly Saudi Arabia (in my view, the
worst theocracy on earth and one of the worst human rights violators).
However, Islam and secularism have been introduced to each other before;
while it’s looking increasingly bad now, Turkey has historically been
pretty secularist while overwhelmingly Muslim, and Iran’s prime minister
was a secularist democratic socialist before he was deposed and
replaced with the western-backed Shah. So it’s not as if secularism has
never occurred in Muslim societies.
I don’t agree that all reformers are viewed as native informants;
Malala Yousafzai is certainly promoting values that should be widely
embraced and has received praise from leftists. The reformers you were
referring (I assume people like Maajid Nawaz and Asra Nomani) have been
attacked more for their views on foreign policy and the policies they’ve
endorsed for Western governments to take toward their own Muslim
populations. I think it’s widely agreed some kind of transformation is
needed in many Muslim societies.
Damo: When you say you don’t see Islam as being any
worse that Christianity or Judaism do you mean scripturally or in
practice? Do you think that Islamic doctrines related to jihad and
martyrdom have any analogous principles in Christianity as far as
scriptural encouragement and associated real-world consequences?
When I speak of reformers I’m talking about people who are attempting
to bring about a reformation of Islam and the way that it is
interpreted. Malala Yousafzai is an incredibly courageous and humbling
person doing vital and commendable work, but she is not engaged in a
project of Islamic reform. Transformation is not just required in some
Muslim societies, the religion itself and the approach to understanding
it needs to be reformed. I can’t think of a single person attempting to
undertake this important and difficult work, or indeed supporters of
this project, who aren’t routinely labelled House Muslims, Zionist
shills, neo-cons or otherwise dismissed as having a racist agenda. Can
you? Either, all Muslim reformers and their supporters really have a
racist/bigoted/Islamophobic agenda, or there is smear campaign against
these people by those who resist their work out of either stupidity or
malice. And when those leading the charge of opposing these people and
their work are spiteful liars and laughable hypocrites such as CJ
Werleman, Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, Chris Hedges, Mo Ansar et al, I
can hazard a guess as to which one of those assumptions is more
accurate.
We have a global problem with the number of Muslims who believe
things that are completely incompatible with modern Western democracy.
Whether or not they are inspired to think this way by foreign policy,
gang mentality, cultural baggage or socio-economic issues; the fact is
that
237 million Muslims want those who leave Islam to be killed.
281 million Muslims want Sharia as the law of the land and support whippings and amputations.
289 million Muslims
agree with stoning adulterers to death. Other than a project of
attempted global Islamic reformation, how do you think these views and
their behavioural implications should be challenged?
Me: When I say I don’t see Islam as being worse
than Christianity or Judaism, I mean both scripturally and in practice.
The worst war crime of the 21st century so far (the US-UK invasion of
Iraq) was done using Christianity as an
explicit justification (by Bush).
Hardliners in Israel
often use scriptural justification for denying the Palestinians a state
and expanding settlements. There are plenty of examples of doctrines in
the Bible that encourage violence (including in the New Testament) and a
number of saints are martyrs, so it isn’t hard for Christians to find
justification for violence and martyrdom.
There are of course plenty of people who promote a nonviolent
understanding of Islam without being attacked by the left. I would still
say Malala is one of them, as she promotes the idea that Islam is
compatible with, and even encourages, women’s education, civil rights,
etc. There’s also, for example,
Mubin Shaikh, who Werleman has praised.
One of the best approaches I think the West could take in dealing
with the doctrines you mentioned is to stop supporting their spread.
Currently, we consider Saudi Arabia a close ally despite the fact that
it is the worst theocracy on earth and a state that is eager to spread
its Wahhabi ideology as widely as possible. Western foreign policy like
drone strikes, invasions, and supporting dictators in Muslim countries
also only helps radicalize more Muslims. While this approach wouldn’t
cure the damage that has already been done (or eliminate all promotion
Islamic fundamentalism, of course), I take a dubious stance toward any
civilizing missions, given how poorly those have worked out previously.
Damo: Bush is certainly a religious nutcase and
born-again buffoon who is said to have made some incredibly moronic
statements with reference to God telling him to remove Saddam but I
think it’s a serious stretch to imply that the Iraq War was motivated by
Christian belief. I’m pretty sure the UK, Australia, Poland, the Kurds
and the 35 other countries which formed the coalition forces were not
involved due to their understanding of Christian scripture and a belief
to be acting under the instruction of God. The United States is a
country with secularism mandated by its constitution. I don’t see how
this is in any way equivalent to the actions of Islamic Jihadis whose
long term goal is the imposition of a global fascistic theocracy. You’re
correct regarding fundamentalist Israelis but again I don’t see that as
being at all comparable to a worldwide jihadist movement intent on
global domination carrying out 164 deadly attacks last month alone in 26
different countries.
I also have serious trouble with your comparison between the
martyrdom of Christian saints and the concept of the Shaheed in Islam. I
suspect that the difference between someone being put to death
(Christianity) and somebody being celebrated for dying in the act of
jihad and the military expansion of Islam is what does it for me. As Sam
Harris has pointed out:
“There’s a difference between being fed to lions… and
having a doctrine of holy war which tells you that it’s incumbent on
every Muslim man to fight in defence of the faith and that there’s no
other certain way to get into paradise.”
I also suspect that difference manifests itself in the modern world
by the difference in the proclivity of Christian Palestinians (for
example) and Christian Pakistanis to run into crowded synagogues and
mosques and blow themselves to pieces. Islam simply fetishizes dying for
God in a way that Christianity & Judaism don’t. Islam is the only
Abrahamic faith which holds up a violent conqueror, warlord, beheader
and taker of child brides as the perfect role model for behaviour.
Again, I am no friend of Christianity but this is an extremely
consequential difference that should be acknowledged.
I completely agree that Saudi Arabia is the most nauseating theocracy
on the planet and that our governments’ alliance with them is a moral
disgrace. However, it seems to me that the understanding of Islamic law
that they enforce on the populous of that society has little to do with
their suffering at the hands of Western foreign policy. Rather it is a
direct implementation of religious law dictated by the Quran. There’s a
reason thieves have their hands cut off and the reason is that it’s the
punishment mandated by Allah in verse
5:38 of the Quran.
It is not the West that is radicalising Saudi Arabia. And I wonder what
alternative could be offered in responding to the actions of terrorist
organisations if we abstain from using drone strikes. In other words,
what would have been a more effective and less radicalising approach to
killing Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi (for example) than using the most precise
military technology at our disposal?
Me: I don’t mean to say that the goals of Bush or
religious Zionists are necessarily comparable to the goals of violent
jihadists, just that the violence is (and, similarly, is totally
unjustified). There were certainly other motives than religion that
motivated the invasion of Iraq, but we know that the head of the US (the
country leading the invasion, in effect) viewed religion as a
justification. Similarly, the 9/11 attacks had more motives than just
religion, but it would be entirely fair to view them as religious
violence.
Harris is mistaken if he believes that martyrdom is the only sure way
to get to paradise in Islam; good deeds, faith in God, etc. are also
viewed as sufficient. In terms of the veneration of Muhammad, it’s
important to remember the emphasis Judaism and Christianity put on
Moses, a figure whose atrocities (
as described in the Old Testament) are easily worse than many acts ascribed to Muhammad.
You’re correct that Saudi Arabia’s fundamentalism does not stem from
western foreign policy. By no means is that the only factor that can
lead to religious extremism. My point was that the West has backed them
and enabled them to spread their Wahhabi ideology, which is an important
factor in how radical Islam became such a problem in the Middle East.
As for drone strikes, I did not so much have in mind those against known
terrorists (though those too raise questions about due process and
civilian casualties) as much as “
signature strikes,” which target groups of people basically for looking suspicious.
Damo: So I think we’re reaching more of an area of
disagreement here now. I think it’s a serious stretch to describe the
2003 intervention in Iraq as ‘religious violence’ or to compare it in
any way to the attacks of 9/11. The jihadists on 9/11 used civilians to
kill civilians by hijacking commercial airliners and deliberately using
them to inflict as many casualties among innocent people as possible.
The motivations and justifications of the hijackers and the architects
of this atrocity alternate between explicitly religious, and political
grievances viewed through a religious lens. Bin Laden was an opponent of
American secularism. He was a supporter of killing people for
not
following certain religious beliefs. His agenda, and the agenda of
every jihadist organisation, is a global theocratic state governed by
Islam. He was an opponent of the American involvement in the liberation
of (Catholic) East Timor from (Muslim) Indonesian occupation. He was an
opponent of American military’s defence of Saudi Arabia in the 90’s on
the grounds that the proximity of non-Muslim forces to Muslim holy sites
was an offence to Islam and that the Saudi government’s invitation to
the U.S was a “violation of Islamic law”. He was an opponent of American
support for Israel on the grounds of a religiously inspired
anti-Semitism and a revulsion for Jews occupying a land he deemed to be
designated to Muslims by God. These are the reasons for the 9/11 attacks
and anyone calling them political is missing the overtly religious
nature of these complaints.
I’ve mentioned the differing agendas in these two acts because I
believe intentions are morally significant. It matters on some crucial
level whether or not you intend to kill civilians or whether you take
measures to avoid killing civilians. It matters whether you intend to
attempt a liberation of a terrorised people from the tyranny of a
vicious psychopath or whether you intend to engineer the circumstances
that will foist an even more fascistic, oppressive form of governance
upon the world as a whole. To imply that these religious motivations are
comparable to the motivations of either the U.S or the 39 other
countries that made up the coalition forces in Iraq (including Kurdish
Muslims) would be a bit much. And to state that it is an example of
religious violence inspired by Christianity on account of Bush’s moronic
statement about God talking to him, is to fail to recognise night and
day differences in the motive and agenda of each group and their acts.
I think we’re splitting hairs a little bit regarding martyrdom being
the only sure way to get to paradise. Admittance to heaven (Jannah) in
Islam operates essentially on a points system. A way of bypassing this
and guaranteeing a place ‘in the garden’ and enjoying the vast rewards
bestowed only upon martyrs is to “slay and be slain” in fighting for the
cause of Allah. I repeat, Islam simply fetishizes dying for God in way
that Christianity & Judaism do not and the consequences of this
difference are significant in the real world.
Of course Moses is held in high regard in Christianity and Judaism. That’s not the same thing as Muhammed being revered as a
perfect
human being and role model whose behaviour should be emulated. This is a
difference that cries out to be acknowledged. Do we have a global
problem of Christians emulating the behaviour of Moses in the Old
Testament? I’d suggest not. Furthermore, considering that Moses is also
revered as a prophet in Islam, it doesn’t make much sense to offer him
as an example of Christianity and Judaism’s moral equivalence with
Islam. Islam venerates Muhammed
and
Moses. However, I take your point that there are many instances in
which Christian scripture is at least as morally dubious (if not more
so) than Islamic scripture. The difference again, is in the specific
doctrines of Jihad and Martyrdom and the willingness of Christians to
disregard much of their religion’s immoral texts – a willingness that is
significantly less forthcoming among the global Muslim community. Ergo,
I view Islam as a bigger real-world threat and more deserving of
scrutiny and contempt at this period in history than I do Judaism or
Christianity.
Again, I completely agree that western support for Saudi Arabia is a
moral disgrace and likewise I agree that there are many valid criticisms
one could make of western foreign policy. However I think any potential
solutions to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism are obliged to
address the doctrines of Jihad and Martyrdom within Islam. Again, I
offer the example of Palestinian and Pakistani Christians who suffer the
same political and socioeconomic conditions as their Muslim
counterparts yet do not have a seemingly limitless supply of people
eager to blow themselves to pieces in crowds of innocent civilians.
Me: Intentions are certainly morally significant; I
don’t think anyone disputes that. However, we have to examine the real
intentions behind the Iraq War. Invading and occupying Iraq (illegally)
meant killing anyone who (justifiably) attempts to resist this
occupation. The motives of the invasion had little to do, I believe,
with any humanitarian impulse toward the Iraqi people and much to do
with a hatred of Saddam Hussein, who was no doubt a brutal tyrant, but
who the Bush administration proved willing to destroy a country in order
to eliminate. The invasion and occupation did involve killing people
deliberately, including people who were justifiably trying to resist an
illegal occupation of their country. It’s hard to spin that as “good
intentions,” or anything other than, well, murder. Certainly there was
more than religion at play here (particularly for the other countries
involved), but it is clear that Bush viewed religion as part of his
justification.
You may well be right that Islam places a greater emphasis on
martyrdom than Christianity or Judaism; however, I think this is of
limited significance. Extremist Christians and Jews seem to have no
problem finding ways to justify violence, and violence is what we are
really concerned about, not martyrdom.
As for Moses, you’re right, of course, that he is a prophet in Islam
too. My point was merely that Muhammad is by no means a uniquely violent
or problematic figure among the Abrahamic religions. As for people
emulating him, we certainly do have extremists in Israel, including in
the government, who show a total disregard for Palestinian lives because
they believe they are entitled to their Holy Land, by divine decree.
If we take your point about Jews and Christians (I think you
mentioned Christians in particular) being willing to overlook the parts
of their scripture that are problematic, and assume, for the sake of
argument, that the issue is that Muslims are less likely to do the same,
we still have to ask why that would be. The fact the religions are
different doesn’t really explain it, since we’re trying to figure out
why one group seems to interpret its religion more liberally on the
whole (again, assuming your point for the sake of argument), and I don’t
think the Bible has any sort of disclaimer noting that its adherents
can feel free to ignore the parts they don’t like. Furthermore, we know
that there are plenty of Muslims who don’t adhere to problematic
religious doctrines. I suggest the reason behind why a person is able to
ignore the problematic doctrines in their religion has a lot to do with
the surrounding culture they’re raised in, their socioeconomic
circumstances, etc. While culture is certainly influenced by religion,
it is also influenced by many other things, as we have to acknowledge
that the culture of say, Saudi Arabia is pretty different from the
culture of Albania or Turkey, for instance, despite the fact that they
all adhere to the same religion.
Damo: We could argue about the intentions of the
Bush administration and the intentions of coalition forces in Iraq all
day long but I doubt we will ever get to the point where we can draw an
accurate parallel between these intentions and the intentions and
actions of ISIS (or other jihadist groups for that matter.) Bush and
Blair’s agenda was not to install a fascistic theocracy over the people
of Iraq in which the dictates of one religion are enforced at gunpoint
upon the whole of society and where any transgressions against religious
law are met with death. This is the agenda of ISIS and every other
jihadist group in the world. This is a clear moral distinction that I
think should be acknowledged.
There is only one religion in the world that makes credible threats
of death against anyone who satirizes, criticizes or lampoons its
prophet. Free speech on this issue is dead and it has been killed by
people claiming the right to enforce Islamic law on free society. To
publicly criticize Islam anywhere in the world today is to put one’s
life in serious danger and to surrender oneself to excruciating security
provisions.
No other religion is acting like this on the world
stage and this is another massive distinction that you seem to be going
out of your way to avoid acknowledging.
Concern about “violence” is simply far too vague. It’s not
only
a concern about violence, it’s a concern about supremacism, fascism,
human rights violations, persecution of minorities, theocracy,
inequality, illiberalism and global terrorism. Islam is currently the
primary offender by far and the Islamists and Jihadists reiterate their
religious imperatives at every turn.
“This war is fundamentally religious” – Osama Bin Laden
“I and thousands like me have forsaken everything for what we believe
in. Our driving motivation does not come from tangible commodities that
this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam.” Mohammed Siddique Khan
(7/7 bomber)
Judaism and Christianity are older religions than Islam and have
undergone reformations which Islam has not. Christianity and Judaism
have suffered a long and relentless collision with secularism in a way
that Islam has not. Again, blaming culture and socioeconomic opportunity
ignores the fact that the majority of jihadists are middle-class and
educated. The first
British suicide bomber in Syria was from my home town, where he was raised and spent the majority of his life.
2 of the 5 Muslims
convicted of plotting to detonate fertilizer bombs in Bluewater
Shopping Centre, the Ministry of Sound night club and in British
Synagogues were also from my home town. We know what kind of Islam Mr
Bin Laden would be following if he were born into a millionaire family –
because
he was born into a millionaire family. We know that Mohammed Atta would still have flown a plane into the World Trade centre
even if he was educated at a western university because
he was
educated at a western university. Again, if lack education and
socioeconomic opportunity affect ones likelihood to become a jihadist
then it is only to reduce that likelihood, not to increase it.
It appears that I’m re-treading the same ground here so I think maybe
we could start thinking about wrapping this up now if you agree? Happy
to give you the last word.
Me: Sure, I’m ready to wrap things up here if you
are. I appreciate you giving me the last word. I’ll just offer my
response to what you’ve said and if you want to respond you’re, of
course, free to, but if not it will stand as my last word.
Ultimately, while of course Bush and Blair’s goals in invading Iraq
were far less deranged than those of ISIS, they were not valid reasons
for the war, either. Bush’s motivation (I don’t think Blair would have
ever gone to war against Iraq if Bush hadn’t) was a desire to protect US
interests and a hatred of Saddam Hussein (probably given that Hussein
tried to kill his father). He viewed Hussein as being some sort of
figure of Biblical evil (this can be seen through his weird references
to “
Gog and Magog”
when he tried to persuade the President of France to join the
coalition). While his goal wasn’t theocracy, these are clearly not valid
reasons to illegally invade and occupy a country, imprisoning or
killing anyone who (legitimately) resists occupation. He viewed religion
as a motivation for this. Again, the violence and destruction of the
occupation was not accidental; while certainly civilians were
unintentionally killed, part of an occupation means capturing or killing
anyone who attempts to resist the occupation, and when the occupation
is not justifiable, killing those who resist is flat-out murder. Thus,
Bush was willing to engage in mass murder for religious reasons.
With all due respect, I have to feel you’re being a bit hyperbolic in
terms of the dangers of publicly criticizing Islam. I testify to the
fact that, in the US, criticism of Islam and Muslims (including of the
stripe that I’m guessing you would probably agree with me is totally
repugnant and bigoted) is a dime a dozen, and I can’t think of any
Americans who have been killed because they were a prominent critic of
Islam. Furthermore, there are plenty of instances of Christian
terrorists killing people who never did anything to them (abortion
doctors, gays, Jews, etc).
That’s not to say you don’t have any point whatsoever. I would
imagine that drawing a crude picture of Muhammad does put your safety in
more danger than drawing a crude picture of Jesus. However, that is
only one aspect of the religions. The fact that there are fewer
Christians willing to kill people who draw disrespectful pictures of
Jesus than there are Muslims who would kill you for drawing a
disrespectful picture of Muhammad (assuming that that’s true) doesn’t
prove that, on the whole, Islam is a worse or more damaging religion.
There is a significant population of Evangelicals in the US who, using
their religion partly as justification, take an extremely callous
attitude when it comes to foreign policy and readily endorse
international aggression and terrorism. Currently, many of them have
lined up to support
Ted Cruz, who has endorsed the idea of carpet-bombing Syria,
as you may have heard. I don’t know of a Muslim country that poses the
sort of threat to world peace the US does, particularly when its
Evangelicals come into power (as they did with Bush and would do if, God
forbid, Cruz were elected president).
One of the things I think it’s easy to do in conversations like this
is to conflate two separate things: (1) how bad or good a religion is in
terms of its tenets, holy texts, etc. and (2) how bad or a good a
religion is in terms of its impact on the world today and the attitudes
of its followers in comparison to those of other religions’ followers.
Part of the reason I’m not a fan of commentators like Sam Harris is
because I think that they put aside the differences between these two
issues, or insist that, for any religion, (2) is more or less entirely
determined by (1). That’s simply false; otherwise, how would we explain
the radical differences in the actions of Martin Luther King and George
W. Bush, despite the fact that both were devout Christians and used
religion to justify their actions?
I’ll lastly address your point about jihadists. You are right–many
are wealthy or upper-middle class. However, jihadists are a curious case
because they are often not really devoutly religious in any normal
sense of the word. Prisoners of ISIS have said that there
was little discussion of the Qur’an, for instance, and people who have joined ISIS have been found to have, right beforehand, purchases books such as
“Islam for Dummies” and “The Qur’an for Dummies.”
Similarly, the 9/11 hijackers went to strip clubs before their attack.
These are people who for whatever reason are attracted to the idea of
having a cause to die for, being a part of something bigger, etc., and
they use a cherry-picked version of Islam to serve their purposes. As
you might remember, Osama bin Laden was found to have
pornography stashed at the compound where he was killed.
These are not devout Muslims in any normal sense of the word; they
certainly use Islam to justify their actions, but they use it to justify
the actions they WANT to engage in (murder, mayhem, terrorism). Let me
address the issue of (2) first. I think Christianity is a much bigger
threat to the world today than is Islam, because of the power the US
holds and the influence of extremist Christian doctrines in the US. The
US has engaged in heinous actions over and over, using Christianity as
its justification (
Reagan also did so,
justifying his policies as part of a fight against godless communism).
Of course, it’s not really fair to blame all of Christianity for these
sorts of things, just as it’s not fair to blame all Islam for the bad
actions done in the name of Islam (of which there are plenty, and which
certainly go far beyond jihadism, as we can both agree).
Now let’s look in terms of (1). I’ll admit I’m not extremely familiar
with Islamic scripture, though I am familiar with a lot of the bits of
it that are used to argue that Islam is a horrible, violent religion.
While there are certainly parts of Islamic scripture that I would
readily call barbaric, I think at times verses are misconstrued or taken
out of context. For instance, it’s often overlooked that “disbelievers”
does not simply mean non-Muslims, but refers to polytheists who had
actively persecuted Muslims. From what I do know of Christian scripture,
there’s plenty there that I would call barbaric and reprehensible. This
goes from the obvious and extreme violence in the Old Testament into
the New Testament, where Paul deems people who lack “natural attraction”
and those who disobey their parents as
worthy of death. So I would not say Islam is uniquely bad in regards to its core doctrines and scriptures.
__________________________________
Damo writes a blog that can be found at
https://concretemilkshake.wordpress.com. He can be found on Twitter at
@concretemilk.
