-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I first discussed this at the start of October with friends. However it holds as true today.
A number of you have probably seen the Media Matters for America video which shows Reza Aslan defending Islam as a religion. He criticizes those who pillorize it as violent, and backward, and argues this is simple intolerance.
His comments sparked a response from groups such as Ex-Muslims of North America (EXMNA), who argued here why Aslan is in fact wrong. A number of detractors of Aslan used EXMNA's arguments to try and debunk him. Whilst I agree with a couple of EXMNA's points - Aslan is overall far more convincing. Islam is not inherently violent and dangerous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aslan vs EXMNA - Religion is a Problem?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is true, EXMNA note, that Aslan does rather stretch the truth (issues such as FGM being an 'African' problem (and actually Sudan is probably the worst country, and it's Muslim)). However he does it with just cause.
EXMNA's agenda is fundamentally different to a simple countering of Aslan - so there-in lies the first problem of those using them to counter his words. Aslan was making the point that this issue shouldn't be simplified to just 'Muslims' as a homgeonous entity. EXMNA's article by contrast is making the point that Islam / Islamic societies need modernizing and developing. Those are 2 very different points. Both are correct - but the article seeks solutions to its perceived problem from the wrong perspective.
EXMNA imply Islam is intrinsically sexist and patriarchal. In some ways it is (and in some ways it is not). Christianity and Judaism are equally so, "to honour and obey". Traditionally Christian countries in Europe were far more sexist than they are now. Although it is a generalization, largely, as Western societies developed, industrialized and became richer, the women's stake in society grew. There is a similar trend of women's rights being underdeveloped and under-development in many countries - regardless of religion.
Therefore, one can see fundamentally that it's poverty and underdeveloped societies that are the problem - not religion. When a society becomes more developed, the position of the most marginalized improves too (perhaps not on an equal footing - but it still tends to improve). Whether it is a Christian society or a Muslim one, the more developed the society, the better the position of women (typically).
As any religious apologist will tell you - religion doesn't cause bad things; that's just an excuse for the bad actions of people. The Taliban were some of the most blasphemous people on earth (by the vast majority of clerics' standards). The same holds true for Al-Qae'da (and without a doubt ISIL). Just look to Myannmar. The fundamental point of Buddhism is peace. Yet in Myannmar we have Buddhist monks inciting and leading the slaughter of innocent Muslims. Religion acted neither as a force for good nor evil here. Only as a way to tribally identify 'us and them'. George W. Bush is a similar case. To some Christians is loved. To others he is decried far daring to proclaim that his acts were in the Christian spirit of loving his enemies and praying for those who persecuted him. The same holds true for former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty = The Problem
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a good number of countries, it is true women that women are horribly repressed compared with men. These societies are also Muslim. But it's correlation - not cause. The thing which usually tends to go hand in hand with these countries is crippling poverty - and that's a trend you can see in plenty of other countries (just go to Latin America, or much of Eastern Europe, or other impoverished Asian countries where Islam isn't the religion of choice). (Calculations are from the UNDP's human development index (I like the map - it's fun and easily accessible!))
Islam promotes a wide variety of things. Surprisingly, other religious texts do too. The Bible, for example, promotes plenty of very unsavoury practices (admittedly, largely in the Old Testament), but it also instructs people to practice some truly amazing things too. ((It should be noted here that Islam adopts all of the Bible's teachings, as Islam considers the Bible as scripture, and thus part of the Qu'ran.))
Yes it is true that, in practice, Islam tends to be more fundamentalist than Christianity these days. Fundamentalism at its root purely means literalism in the case of believing and following religious teachings and scripture. It shall be assumed for the purposes of this essay that fundamentalism is a bad thing (the author recognizes that there is a debate to be had on that). However, the main point, Islam is at its most fundamental in areas of greatest poverty. Where Islamic fundamentalism is at its strongest, there tends to be a strong correlation of poverty.
Historically, when Europe was far poorer, fundamentalism was far greater. That is true today too (the most messianic Jews tend to be pretty impoverished, and living in conditions that many in the West would not desire). It is thus poverty, which causes fundamentalism - not a religion or a belief system itself. Yes - there are plenty of exceptions, and some very wealthy states such as the UAE are still very conservative. However, the wealth of these states was artificially sudden due to the discovery of oil. These societies did not have the organic growth of the type experienced by Europe, and the wealth generated is largely not distributed amongst the people. Countries thus have a rich state, with impoverished people, who are ideological extremists.
When looking for non-fundamentalist members of Islam, some of the least observant Muslims tend to be the most Westernized, and affluent. Egypt is quite a good example (as is Tunisia). Both treat women fairly well. Not amazing - but not bad compared to neighbouring states. Egypt has gotten worse recently, but that's been in direct tandem with the violence, instability and worsened economic conditions that the Arab spring brought.
If we look back to EXMNA's article - the countries both it and Aslan refer to are complicated ethnically and religiously, and treat women in complex ways subject to background, class etc. These countries are also fairly impoverished.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violence - Not an Islamic Phenomenon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXMNA's article conveniently ignores Aslan's fundamental point of Islam not being violent; it is instead people. Few Muslim states are very militaristic (just compare them to the US, UK, France, Russia and others). Considering Aslan is making a rebuttal to the torrent of Islamophobia which appears in the media these days, it's rather awkward that his detractors were unable to rebuke this simple, fundamental point. It would also seem to be pretty vital considering they're implying Islam needs major reform...
Internally within societies - violence is linked to poverty and weak states. Just look at the cross-section of warriors fighting in Iraq during the civil war and where they came from. Pious Muslims were but a tiny minority. The vast bulk ex-servicemen, who were made unemployed and denied their pension following Saddam's toppling. Others were terrified civilians, desperately trying to protect their families, in an increasingly-panic driven frenzy of murder.
If one compares violence within Muslim societies with that of other countries, the murder rate is in fact highest in Latin American states. The poorer the country, the higher the number of killings.
The societies in the Arab Spring that were most stable were those with strongest states (Saudi Arabia actually just bribed their way out of crisis by making everyone feel economically secure). The most violent countries in the world are those with the weakest states (Somalia, DRC, Venezuela etc.).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran - State vs Society
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran is a very dangerous example to try and make points with. But actually it's pretty solid evidence that Islam ≠ bad.
The state and the society are vastly different things. The young generation are (by about the best polling data we have - and I can send you my source for it, though it was from a Chatham House presentation) are about 75% liberal. Their parents were very conservative. Their parents were actually pretty liberal (and left wing).
You get similar trends around the world of generations being more conservative / liberal than their parents. In the UK, the present 'young' generation have more conservative morals and values than their parents, who were far more neo-liberal than their parents.
The point here is that Iran is undoubtedly Muslim. It's also got superb education. The people I've met are really lovely. Everything I've heard is that it's beautiful as a country. It's just also rather unfortunate that the government is nuts and a nasty-assed place to live (but you don't need to be a Muslim to be a nutty dictator).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islam is not an intrinsically violent religion as some state. It just correlates that Islam is the religion of many impoverished societies. There also tends to be a correlation between fundamentalism (which we shall assume is bad), and poverty. Violence is also not an Islamic phenomenon. Plenty of other religions and peoples engage in violence - both transnational and intranational. The issue there becomes a question of weak states. States which are strong tend to see greater calm and stability than those which are weak.
Overall, Aslan undoubtedly somewhat generalised - to make a media splash (and he succeeded). His detractors are however incorrect / talking at cross purposes. EXMNA (an organization devoted to denouncing Islam, so not exactly impartial) fail to rebuke key questions such as Islam's predisposal to violence. They also go off on tangents in their rebuttal, rather than addressing the issue directly. It would therefore be fair to say that Aslan is far more correct. His arguments bear up better under scrutiny, and his detractors points' are best on circumstantial evidence at best.
Introduction
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I first discussed this at the start of October with friends. However it holds as true today.
A number of you have probably seen the Media Matters for America video which shows Reza Aslan defending Islam as a religion. He criticizes those who pillorize it as violent, and backward, and argues this is simple intolerance.
His comments sparked a response from groups such as Ex-Muslims of North America (EXMNA), who argued here why Aslan is in fact wrong. A number of detractors of Aslan used EXMNA's arguments to try and debunk him. Whilst I agree with a couple of EXMNA's points - Aslan is overall far more convincing. Islam is not inherently violent and dangerous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aslan vs EXMNA - Religion is a Problem?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is true, EXMNA note, that Aslan does rather stretch the truth (issues such as FGM being an 'African' problem (and actually Sudan is probably the worst country, and it's Muslim)). However he does it with just cause.
EXMNA's agenda is fundamentally different to a simple countering of Aslan - so there-in lies the first problem of those using them to counter his words. Aslan was making the point that this issue shouldn't be simplified to just 'Muslims' as a homgeonous entity. EXMNA's article by contrast is making the point that Islam / Islamic societies need modernizing and developing. Those are 2 very different points. Both are correct - but the article seeks solutions to its perceived problem from the wrong perspective.
EXMNA imply Islam is intrinsically sexist and patriarchal. In some ways it is (and in some ways it is not). Christianity and Judaism are equally so, "to honour and obey". Traditionally Christian countries in Europe were far more sexist than they are now. Although it is a generalization, largely, as Western societies developed, industrialized and became richer, the women's stake in society grew. There is a similar trend of women's rights being underdeveloped and under-development in many countries - regardless of religion.
Therefore, one can see fundamentally that it's poverty and underdeveloped societies that are the problem - not religion. When a society becomes more developed, the position of the most marginalized improves too (perhaps not on an equal footing - but it still tends to improve). Whether it is a Christian society or a Muslim one, the more developed the society, the better the position of women (typically).
As any religious apologist will tell you - religion doesn't cause bad things; that's just an excuse for the bad actions of people. The Taliban were some of the most blasphemous people on earth (by the vast majority of clerics' standards). The same holds true for Al-Qae'da (and without a doubt ISIL). Just look to Myannmar. The fundamental point of Buddhism is peace. Yet in Myannmar we have Buddhist monks inciting and leading the slaughter of innocent Muslims. Religion acted neither as a force for good nor evil here. Only as a way to tribally identify 'us and them'. George W. Bush is a similar case. To some Christians is loved. To others he is decried far daring to proclaim that his acts were in the Christian spirit of loving his enemies and praying for those who persecuted him. The same holds true for former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty = The Problem
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a good number of countries, it is true women that women are horribly repressed compared with men. These societies are also Muslim. But it's correlation - not cause. The thing which usually tends to go hand in hand with these countries is crippling poverty - and that's a trend you can see in plenty of other countries (just go to Latin America, or much of Eastern Europe, or other impoverished Asian countries where Islam isn't the religion of choice). (Calculations are from the UNDP's human development index (I like the map - it's fun and easily accessible!))
Islam promotes a wide variety of things. Surprisingly, other religious texts do too. The Bible, for example, promotes plenty of very unsavoury practices (admittedly, largely in the Old Testament), but it also instructs people to practice some truly amazing things too. ((It should be noted here that Islam adopts all of the Bible's teachings, as Islam considers the Bible as scripture, and thus part of the Qu'ran.))
Yes it is true that, in practice, Islam tends to be more fundamentalist than Christianity these days. Fundamentalism at its root purely means literalism in the case of believing and following religious teachings and scripture. It shall be assumed for the purposes of this essay that fundamentalism is a bad thing (the author recognizes that there is a debate to be had on that). However, the main point, Islam is at its most fundamental in areas of greatest poverty. Where Islamic fundamentalism is at its strongest, there tends to be a strong correlation of poverty.
Historically, when Europe was far poorer, fundamentalism was far greater. That is true today too (the most messianic Jews tend to be pretty impoverished, and living in conditions that many in the West would not desire). It is thus poverty, which causes fundamentalism - not a religion or a belief system itself. Yes - there are plenty of exceptions, and some very wealthy states such as the UAE are still very conservative. However, the wealth of these states was artificially sudden due to the discovery of oil. These societies did not have the organic growth of the type experienced by Europe, and the wealth generated is largely not distributed amongst the people. Countries thus have a rich state, with impoverished people, who are ideological extremists.
When looking for non-fundamentalist members of Islam, some of the least observant Muslims tend to be the most Westernized, and affluent. Egypt is quite a good example (as is Tunisia). Both treat women fairly well. Not amazing - but not bad compared to neighbouring states. Egypt has gotten worse recently, but that's been in direct tandem with the violence, instability and worsened economic conditions that the Arab spring brought.
If we look back to EXMNA's article - the countries both it and Aslan refer to are complicated ethnically and religiously, and treat women in complex ways subject to background, class etc. These countries are also fairly impoverished.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violence - Not an Islamic Phenomenon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXMNA's article conveniently ignores Aslan's fundamental point of Islam not being violent; it is instead people. Few Muslim states are very militaristic (just compare them to the US, UK, France, Russia and others). Considering Aslan is making a rebuttal to the torrent of Islamophobia which appears in the media these days, it's rather awkward that his detractors were unable to rebuke this simple, fundamental point. It would also seem to be pretty vital considering they're implying Islam needs major reform...
Internally within societies - violence is linked to poverty and weak states. Just look at the cross-section of warriors fighting in Iraq during the civil war and where they came from. Pious Muslims were but a tiny minority. The vast bulk ex-servicemen, who were made unemployed and denied their pension following Saddam's toppling. Others were terrified civilians, desperately trying to protect their families, in an increasingly-panic driven frenzy of murder.
If one compares violence within Muslim societies with that of other countries, the murder rate is in fact highest in Latin American states. The poorer the country, the higher the number of killings.
The societies in the Arab Spring that were most stable were those with strongest states (Saudi Arabia actually just bribed their way out of crisis by making everyone feel economically secure). The most violent countries in the world are those with the weakest states (Somalia, DRC, Venezuela etc.).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran - State vs Society
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran is a very dangerous example to try and make points with. But actually it's pretty solid evidence that Islam ≠ bad.
The state and the society are vastly different things. The young generation are (by about the best polling data we have - and I can send you my source for it, though it was from a Chatham House presentation) are about 75% liberal. Their parents were very conservative. Their parents were actually pretty liberal (and left wing).
You get similar trends around the world of generations being more conservative / liberal than their parents. In the UK, the present 'young' generation have more conservative morals and values than their parents, who were far more neo-liberal than their parents.
The point here is that Iran is undoubtedly Muslim. It's also got superb education. The people I've met are really lovely. Everything I've heard is that it's beautiful as a country. It's just also rather unfortunate that the government is nuts and a nasty-assed place to live (but you don't need to be a Muslim to be a nutty dictator).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islam is not an intrinsically violent religion as some state. It just correlates that Islam is the religion of many impoverished societies. There also tends to be a correlation between fundamentalism (which we shall assume is bad), and poverty. Violence is also not an Islamic phenomenon. Plenty of other religions and peoples engage in violence - both transnational and intranational. The issue there becomes a question of weak states. States which are strong tend to see greater calm and stability than those which are weak.
Overall, Aslan undoubtedly somewhat generalised - to make a media splash (and he succeeded). His detractors are however incorrect / talking at cross purposes. EXMNA (an organization devoted to denouncing Islam, so not exactly impartial) fail to rebuke key questions such as Islam's predisposal to violence. They also go off on tangents in their rebuttal, rather than addressing the issue directly. It would therefore be fair to say that Aslan is far more correct. His arguments bear up better under scrutiny, and his detractors points' are best on circumstantial evidence at best.