A while ago I returned to my car from shopping to discover a leaflet on the windshield. It purported to be from the local Imam, thanking me for helping to fund the imposition of Sharia law by shopping at my local chain supermarket. Apparently the store sells some items marked as Halal, and the theory is that license fees for this are funding radical Islam. Knowing how hard the chain squeezes their suppliers, Sharia law is apparently pretty cheap.
There is no doubt that some people campaign against Islam as a way of trying to exclude brown people, or religions other than their own. Islam makes an easy target to whip up fear against "them".
This does not mean Islam is innocent, however. The reason it's an easy target is that a significant number of the world's current trouble spots involve Muslims as the perpetrators of violence, using explicitly religious justifications. You can argue about the exact extent to which religion really is at fault... and you should be able to do so without being called "Islamophobic" or "racist".
After the recent blowup between Sam Harris/Bill Maher and Ben Affleck/Nicolas Kristof, Kristof wrote an article explaining his position. In it, he downplays the extent to which Muslims hold extreme views about religion. He points out that in Indonesia, only 16% of the population favour the death penalty for apostasy.
Wonderful. I was brought up going to church, and eventually decided it wasn't for me. My Indonesian equivalent would be walking the streets knowing that one in six of the people around him thought he should be killed; this in the world's most populous Muslim country, with a deserved reputation as a moderate democracy.
It certainly must be said that other religions and groups have had their turn at horrific violence; a list from the last century in Christian Europe alone would make sobering reading. But that does not mean no-one should be criticised for holding the sort of extreme views that lead to such tragedies. It means everyone who holds them should be criticised.
Humanity has made enormous progress over recorded history in the noble art of living with each other without committing mayhem. Violent death rates were lower in the 20th century than they have ever been, even with two world wars and numerous other conflicts.
When Islam ceases to be a prime motivator in mass violence, we will move on to whatever (hopefully lesser) force takes over the number one spot. Until then, the only way it can avoid criticism is to clean up its act. People who cry "Islamophobia" at such criticism need to quit labelling and start explaining why it is unjustified.
Any religion (some of) whose adherents think that I should be put to death merely for being an atheist is a dangerous one; and it is not "phobia" for me to say so. Moderates are welcome to defuse such criticism by persuading the extremists to change their minds.
There is no doubt that some people campaign against Islam as a way of trying to exclude brown people, or religions other than their own. Islam makes an easy target to whip up fear against "them".
This does not mean Islam is innocent, however. The reason it's an easy target is that a significant number of the world's current trouble spots involve Muslims as the perpetrators of violence, using explicitly religious justifications. You can argue about the exact extent to which religion really is at fault... and you should be able to do so without being called "Islamophobic" or "racist".
After the recent blowup between Sam Harris/Bill Maher and Ben Affleck/Nicolas Kristof, Kristof wrote an article explaining his position. In it, he downplays the extent to which Muslims hold extreme views about religion. He points out that in Indonesia, only 16% of the population favour the death penalty for apostasy.
Wonderful. I was brought up going to church, and eventually decided it wasn't for me. My Indonesian equivalent would be walking the streets knowing that one in six of the people around him thought he should be killed; this in the world's most populous Muslim country, with a deserved reputation as a moderate democracy.
It certainly must be said that other religions and groups have had their turn at horrific violence; a list from the last century in Christian Europe alone would make sobering reading. But that does not mean no-one should be criticised for holding the sort of extreme views that lead to such tragedies. It means everyone who holds them should be criticised.
Humanity has made enormous progress over recorded history in the noble art of living with each other without committing mayhem. Violent death rates were lower in the 20th century than they have ever been, even with two world wars and numerous other conflicts.
When Islam ceases to be a prime motivator in mass violence, we will move on to whatever (hopefully lesser) force takes over the number one spot. Until then, the only way it can avoid criticism is to clean up its act. People who cry "Islamophobia" at such criticism need to quit labelling and start explaining why it is unjustified.
Any religion (some of) whose adherents think that I should be put to death merely for being an atheist is a dangerous one; and it is not "phobia" for me to say so. Moderates are welcome to defuse such criticism by persuading the extremists to change their minds.
No comments:
Post a Comment