I’ve tried writing
this several times, once about the perils of multiculturalism and
once again about the compatibility of Islam and democracy, when truth
be told, once I stripped away the meandering introductions all it
really boiled down to was an articulation of my distaste for Islam.
Now that that’s out in the open, I’m sure the cries of
Islamophobe will come rolling in – which is one of the reasons I’m
not too keen on this religion of peace. (That would be the same
religion of peace that is currently engaged in internal civil war,
with Shia and Suuni factions bitterly opposing one another)
This is something
that should really go without saying, but I feel the need to
preemptively defend myself – I don’t hate or dislike Muslims,
it’s the ideology I have a problem with. To
coin a phrase, I’m hating the sin and not the sinner.
While
I’m at it, I should point,
in the interests of fairness,
I have no great love for Christianity, much less any organised
religion. But here I am,
talking about Islam and not Christianity, because today Christianity
is like a muzzled dog, there’s no bite.
This
a difficult topic to discuss because any concern or critique is
immediately seized by the twin hands of Islamophobia & Racism,
and the life is throttled out of the discussion before it’s began.
(Much in the same way any criticism of Israel is immediately
anti-Semitic). Strangely, it’s usually those on the left that are
quick to toss around labels, the very same people who are normally
guardians of ideas like feminism, equality, and gay rights. But
there’s a danger to shutting down debate, if valid concerns are
ignored, if people are derided as racist or Islamophobic, their views
are driven underground, If people are pressured into silence, then in
the end it is unsavoury groups on the far right that champion the
cause. Do not underestimate how many voters are single issue voters.
If
we take a memetic1
approach to religion then its function is to replicate and survive,
and in order to do that it must contain a set of processes which
allow it to remain intact, or adapt. One of the ways a religion can
secure its future is by preventing criticism, in other words, it has
defence against environmental threats. This manifests as a belief
that holy texts are divine revelation - the true, infallible word of
god; it is therefore perfect
and to question it would be to criticise god himself. This memetic
trick is quite clever, it presents claim and evidence as
one entity – this
knowledge comes straight from god, god has given you this
knowledge, therefore it is true. The
memetic defence can go a step further by dictating punishments for
those who do question or criticise its authority, acting
as a deterrent to would be blasphemers and punishing the inquisitive
souls who raise uncomfortable questions.
The
Abrahamic religions have a rich tradition of punishing those who
blaspheme, yet there is only one
which continues to do so,
both in the United Kingdom
and the Middle East. Admittedly, in the UK the punishment is not
delivered by the law courts as blasphemy laws were abolished in 2008,
instead retribution comes from the public.
Take the case of gymnast
Louis Smith who drunkenly mocked Islam in a private video which was
leaked; he was given a two
month suspension and also
received death threats for
his actions. Imagine if this video
had been mocking
Christianity, it wouldn’t
have made the news. This is
how de facto blasphemy laws work, by creating such a social taboo
around a subject that
there is no need for the courts to intervene. The Church of England
is the state church, and it wouldn’t dream of acting in such a
manner, it respects the hard won ideals of the enlightenment - that
no idea is above criticism, beyond reproach, or immune
to mockery.
If
practitioners of any faith wish to hold their belief system in such
high esteem that they consider it unquestioningly
perfect, fine, but do not
expect non-believers to hold it to the same standard; nor should us
heathens and kuffars
be expected to self-censor for fear of offending believers - nor
should we be expected to receive censorship for that which may
provoke a reaction, e.g. the drawings of a prophet. Again, argue bad
taste until you’re blue in the face, but the fact that a simple
satirical cartoon can elicit such a violent and quite literally
lethal response is
unacceptable in the modern world. If you disagree with the violent
response but in the very same breath qualify your disdain with
“...but you know the reaction you would get”,
you are an apologist. Let us
not deflect – the real issue is not
the drawing (no matter how offensive or in bad taste you declare it
to be), but the reactions.
There’s
also the small issue of the findings of a fairly recent ICM poll
which suggested over half of Muslims think homosexuality should be
illegal – which is a far cry from taking umbrage to the notion of
same sex marriage. Now, I certainly don’t think a person is
homophobic for having religiously based reservations on the topic (I
do think their beliefs are homophobic). Wanting to criminalise my
lifestyle on the other hand? A touch homophobic. In the interests of
fairness, I did hear a Muslim say homosexuals were condemned only
when they conducted their affairs in public, but keep it behind
closed doors and it was all fine. Ah, yes, nothing like an entire
life lived in total secrecy – because as soon as someone were to
find out, either by mistake or wilfully, then it was over, time for
condemnation and punishment.
Of
course, some would argue this is all down to interpretations of the
text, that those who would profess such views are twisting the faith,
are not true Muslims,
just as those preaching literal (or ‘radical’) interpretations of
the texts would level the same charge. It’s a simple logical
fallacy, the ‘no
true Scotsman’. Open to interpretations or not, the fact is, the
texts offer justifications for the actions in the minds of adherents.
And
yes dear reader, I’m perfectly aware that ‘Not all
Muslims...’
- I’m
perfectly aware there are moderate Muslims who do not think or react
in the ways mentioned above, but then clearly we’re not talking
about that denomination of the faith. (I thought we were supposed to
mock Not all x
responses?
Or is that only when it comes to men and white folk?)
When it’s stripped away, and I’m being honest, I resent the
pedestal Islam is put upon – I dislike the social taboo surrounding
criticism of the religion, the violent reactions to satirical
cartoons, and the apologetic responses from non-believers to those
attacks. I dislike the fact non-believers constantly proclaim Islam
as ‘a great faith’ - if it’s so great why aren’t you apart of
it? These are things afforded to no other section of society, it
elevates an imported religion above the church of the state, and we
are forced to capitulate to it, to surrender our right to freely
criticise and mock in order to keep the peace and not offend anyone.
We spent too long winning freedoms from one religion to simply
surrender them to another.
A few years ago there was an outcry about Halal meat sold in
high-street restaurants and big-name supermarkets without being
labelled as such. The idea of the packaging remaining unlabelled is
curious – if you are trying to attract faith-conscious shoppers,
why skip the label? Unless you think the label will put off more
people that it would attract? So then what is the purpose? One can
only assume it has something to do with the logistics of the supply
chain - buying a Halal meat, selling a portion in unlabelled
packages, and marketing the remainder as Halal. As a former
vegetarian I never accepted the argument against Halal on animal
welfare grounds, most Halal meat is stunned before the blood is
drained, just as typically slaughtered animals are stunned (although
there still remains a small percentage where this is not the case).
What is of concern are those members of the public who hold religious
views and are unknowingly eating Halal meat; for some, eating meat
that has been blessed in the name of another god is idolatrous –
and if we are now in the business of respecting all faiths, then it
would be unethical for such meat to remain unlabelled.
We laugh at other traditions, but we’re commanded to revere Islam,
which, just as many other religions do, has precepts so fantastic,
every rational person should pause for thought – child brides,
winged horses, and splitting the moon in two. There’s also the
wholly voluntary practice of women not at all being forced to cover
their hair, face, or entire body – because they should be modest -
lest they stir up (apparently) uncontrollable urges in men, which
then...victims blames. (If the woman was modest she wouldn’t
have been raped!) I suppose in that sense modern feminism and
ancient Islam are compatible, all men are rapists.
The lack of criticism allowed is a problem, it does a huge disservice
to the modernisers and reformers within the Islamic community;
members who are so very often on the front line of abuse. We need to
make it clear that rational debate and criticism is allowed; that
concerns about religious practices or extremism are not
‘Islamophobic’, and they’re certainly not hateful.
1Memes
are cultural units of expression which are analogous to genes. Ideas
and practices which are repeated and replicated, transmitted across
a population and down through generations. e.g. ear-rings as
decorations
