Islam Etc.

I confess – if that’s what it is – I am irritated by the debate fashionably called The Clash of Civilisations. When I see or read about women socially imprisoned in Darth Vader costumes, barbaric legal systems, repressive, dictatorial and backward looking societies, it doesn’t look like a clash of civilisations. Rather, it looks like a clash between modern liberal democracy and medieval theocracy. One is civilised, and the other isn’t.

In The Crisis of Islam, Bernard Lewis states that

I haven’t read this book, but read a Sunday Times review 13.4.03. The reviewer reports that

On the question of Israel, Lewis turns the argument on its head by saying it is “so to speak, the licensed grievance – the only one that can be freely and safely expressed in those Muslim countries where the media are either wholly owned or strictly overseen by government”. Israel’s democracy makes it vulnerable to criticism where Syria, for example, has escaped censure for ‘massacring its citizens’ because it has an authoritarian regime which does not accept criticism. Islam hates Western values which it perceives as degenerate, when it would use its energies more creatively by addressing the primitive aspects of Muslim culture. I don’t doubt – as Prince Charles recently said – that it has been a major contributor to science and art. At the moment however, it doesn’t contribute very much apart from an intransigent and hypocritical criticism of the West, as if Islam is a superior cultural force. As the reviewer notes

By "noisily shouting at obvious targets”, Islam fails to consider its own failings. I agree there’s an alarming social decay obvious in large Western cities. But equally there’s a vibrant creative and intellectual life based on opportunity, freedom of speech, and a relatively high level of education which has nothing to do with wealth: in rich Saudi Arabia, there are only eight universities despite a population of 21 million people. The fundamental difference between Islam and the West is the imprisoning influence of religion. It worries me a little saying this, because the world is trapped into a form of ‘political correctness’ which is actually nothing more than intellectual censure. Some things, apparently, cannot be questioned or opened up for philosophical and humanistic inspection. You’re not supposed to say these things, and the consequences can be grave. Salman Rushdie attempted it and the result is still emblematic of a wider situation. ‘How dare you challenge me’ has become an accepted intellectual position which rests not on rational or even humanitarian principles, but a vehement defensiveness which may well have historical origins, but which is more accurately understood as a religious mind-set. Rushdie called his fatwa "an extreme form of literary criticism". I'm not a fan of his books, but that's a memorable and perceptive remark.

All religion, not just Islam, is fanatical in the sense that it accepts no authority except its own tradition. It’s a question of degree rather than basic attitude. I’m not anti-Muslim, I am anti-religion. By which I mean, I have a different philosophical stance. It's against my beliefs. Christianity has its own shadowy and corrupt history; it’s just that Islam currently exemplifies the friction between religion (intellectual passivity, the belief system), and open minded society. Sociologist Karl Popper described the difference between open and closed society, and his analysis applies equally to political and religious regimes:

The real problem, it seems to me, is the passion and vehemence that religion creates. If you have a belief system that says there is someone you can trust, who has all the answers to life’s deepest questions, that there is a salvation, that’s a powerful story that people will defend because they are relying on it. But there is no proof, the person is not available for questioning or clarification, and a belief is not a fact.

I have a friend who once questioned a vicar when he was delivering his sermon in a church. He wasn’t being obstreperous or disruptive, but philosophical. ‘Hmm, that’s interesting, you say there’s a soul. Now, how do you know that, what is this soul like, does it have a sense of perception and if so there must be duality; now, isn’t God supposed to be a unity?’ And so on. I’m not sure exactly what his interjection was, but I do know it was philosophical rather than polemic. What happened? Someone called the police. Religion – all religion – does not encourage or allow open minded enquiry since all the answers are presumed to exist within their respective bibles. Intellectually, it’s like a set of bed-time stories that put you to sleep rather than wake you up, psychologically speaking. And those stories are regarded as the sole, absolute source of knowledge.

Religions characteristically have difficulty accommodating, explaining or accepting sexuality, and demand that their followers accept their dusty proclamations of guilt or the words of an elderly fool living at the Vatican, as if he is your parent and you are a sexually naughty teenager with no responsibility for your own life. Eve has always been a sexual temptress responsible for temptation and was thus a spiritually inferior part of the human race. Why does Christianity have such difficulty with the notion of women priests? The women in their Darth Vader costumes are subject to the same oppression and censure. The recent Taliban regime was only an extreme example of a widespread attitude, much of which is not substantially different. In Judaism, menstruation is supposed to be dirty, women never enter mosques... etc. The primary difference between Islamic theocracy and the West is that in the latter the prevailing religion, Christianity, is considerably diluted and ameliorated as part of a multi-faceted society which also embraces scientific, political and diverse intellectual and cultural life. Islam has only one primary facet – what you read in a dusty old book which is the only volume on the Holy Reading List.

I accept that Islam may have “given dignity and meaning to drab and impoverished lives” etc., and I think Christianity may have done the same. I also differentiate between ‘religion’ ie patterns of dogma, and ‘people’. I frequent my local Al Khayam curry house, and very good it is. On one occasion I was reading a newspaper carrying a front page report about the capture of a senior Taliban leader. I was happy about this: a small piece of good news amidst general gloom. One of the staff saw the editorial, was about to say something and then decided not to with the words “fuck it”. I think he was sympathetic towards the cause of the Taliban, and objected to the Western interpretation. How did I feel about that? Well, the morality of Taliban aggression is so clear – and unacceptable – that I have to conclude this young man was simply lacking education. I felt very little, although it was clear that his life was set apart from mainstream society. I still go to Al Khayam, and I still like the people there – more so than McDonalds staff.

In the last few years I have met two people who were memorably kind and polite. Both were practising Christians, and I attribute their character to this. I like the part of religion that is a civilising and cultural force based on respect for other people, community, and valuing the possibility that there is a higher spiritual agency. Great. The gentle civility of these two people was endearing. On another occasion I entered a church to investigate its lunchtime food, and was struck by the pleasant welcome that greeted me. The young people were particularly delightful – smiling and obviously happy. But is this what religion purports to be – a pleasant community of like-minded people, who value your life and the lives of other people? Actually no, it isn’t. Ultimately, religions are based on metaphysical premises that are philosophically questionable and - in my opinion - naive. There is a heaven; believe and you will be saved. Allah is great, Allah Rules OK, do as you are told and you will join Him.

I accept the cultural and socialising benefits religion may have, and I accept the people that ‘believe’. What I don’t accept is the lack of philosophy, the set of questionable assumptions which are their ultimate basis. And in the case of Islam, I do not accept the sexist, oppressive and regressive traditions. If we must have religion, then why not find a religious form which is open rather than closed, tolerant rather than superior, based on love and compassion, and which respects men and women equally?

Civilisation grows up. Admittedly we still have to witness cruel and vicious wars, drug culture and crime culture erode society, we damage the environment, and educational and economic opportunities polarise society into haves and have-nots. But generally speaking, much of society has ‘come a long way’ in terms of open mindedness and intellectual sophistication. We understand, for example, that racism and sexism are unacceptable and we still have, despite recent controversy, the United Nations. Islam seems to oppose the modern world, and insists that it has a superior moral and cultural stance. This, it seems to me, is an invitation for further analysis rather than a no-go area.

Further:

Islamic thinking: everything is referred back to the koran. This is a relatively sophisticated set of writings. However, isn't it strange and ridiculous discussing whether a woman should speak in public? And instead of saying hey, wake up, this is 2003, go off into a detailed analysis of an ancient book? Why waste time and energy doing this? Or this: discussing the tradition of the veil in Christianity, as a way of endorsing the Muslim treatment of women. Instead of saying hey, this is 2003 and sexist oppression/denigration is no longer acceptable, the author goes off again into a koran research.

Why not think for yourself, ie outside all traditions, all received teachings, all the pronunciations of the dusty old fools who are the 'religious leaders' around the world? And if you are interested in spiritual enquiry, look a little deeper. In Sufism - the esoteric or mystical core of Islam - they talk of 'time and place'. Meaning, spiritual teachings have to adapt to and thus be relevant for different cultural contexts.

This site is both informative and alarming. It demonstrates what I refer to as the religious mind-set - and how dangerous it can be.

Ultimately, I see these matters as educational concerns. That is, they can be understood as different kinds of thinking.