The
recent televised dust up over the essential character of the Islamic religion
and its place in the modern world has probably garnered more attention than it
deserves because of its venue, the Bill Maher show on HBO. Nonetheless, Maher and his guest, author,
neuroscientist and atheist philosopher, Sam Harris, voiced the feelings and
concerns of many Americans whose opinions of the Islamic religion are heavily
influenced by the 9/11 attacks and chaotic violence which has occurred in the
Middle East for decades. The more recent
abhorrent brutality of the Islamic State, the Taliban in Afghanistan and
Pakistan ,and the terrorist acts of Al Qaeda have dominated the news and
overwhelmed any public perception that there is indeed a “moderate Muslim”
majority.
The
discussion owes much of its notoriety to the response of Maher’s other guest,
movie personality, “activist” and doctrinaire liberal, Ben Affleck, who in full
politically correct attack mode, yelled that Maher’s remarks were “ gross, racist and stereotyping.“ Of the
three, only stereotyping really fits.
“Gross”, a word with many meanings, was just Affeck’s
personal choice of adjectives. Since Islam is not a “race” Maher’s comments
could hardly be “racist”, but in debates over social issues, “racist” like it’s
two tiresome sisters, “sexist” and
“homophobic” is one of the first bullets out of the left wing gun.
While
it is difficult to understand why anyone would care what Bill Maher or Ben
Affleck think about anything , the debate struck a
collective nerve in the liberal media establishment probably because both Maher
and Affleck are creatures of the political Left. But since Maher seemed to speak for so many
ordinary Americans (the un-rich and un-famous), his comments are worth some
analysis.
To
this end, there has been a multitude of condemnation from the expected sources
on the Left. A less excited examination
however has been offered by Fareed Zakaria, well known expert on international
relations, and known for his political eclecticism although in general a
resident of the moderate Left.
Zakaria
first makes the most common argument against characterizing the religion of
Islam as violent, intolerant and anti-modern by pointing out that world -wide
there are 1.6 billion Muslims. However, he then goes on to weaken the
importance of this fact himself.
“The places that have trouble accommodating themselves to
the modern world are disproportionately Muslim.”
“In 2013, of the top 10 groups that
perpetrated terrorist attacks, seven were Muslim.”
“Of
the top 10 countries where terrorist attacks took place, seven were
Muslim-majority.”
Still,
Zakaria seeks to reject Maher’s wholesale condemnation of Islam with the “moderate
Muslim” argument.
There are; “Places such
as Indonesia and India “which “have hundreds of millions of Muslims who don’t
fit these caricatures.”
However, Zakaria, Indian born himself, while basically correct, chooses
to ignore the fact that numerous violent acts by Muslim mobs against the Hindu
majority have occurred in India , the most common being the destruction of
Hindu temples. With regard to Indonesia,
the world’s most populace Muslim nation, A 2012 Op-Ed article in the New York
Times, by Andreas Harsono of Human
Rights Watch, exposes the inaccuracy of this portrayal.
“It is
fashionable these days for Western leaders to praise Indonesia as a model Muslim
democracy. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has declared, ‘If you want
to know whether Islam, democracy, modernity and women’s rights can coexist, go
to Indonesia.’ And last month Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, lauded
Indonesia as showing that ‘religion and democracy need not be in conflict.”
However the facts tell a different story. Also from Harsono:
“The
rights of religious and ethnic minorities are routinely trampled. While
Indonesia’s Constitution protects freedom of religion, regulations against
blasphemy and proselytizing are routinely used to prosecute atheists,
Bahais, Christians, Shiites, Sufis and members of the Ahmadiyya
faith — a Muslim sect declared to be deviant in many Islamic countries. By
2010, Indonesia had over 150 religiously motivated regulations restricting
minorities’ rights.”
“In August 2011,
for example, Muslim militants burned down three Christian churches on Sumatra.
No one was charged and officials have prevented the congregations from
rebuilding their churches.”
“Christians are
not the only targets. In June 2008, the Yudhoyono administration issued a
decree requiring the Ahmadiyya sect to “stop spreading interpretations and
activities that deviate from the principal teachings of Islam,” including its
fundamental belief that there was a prophet after Muhammad.”
“Mr. Yudhoyono is
not simply turning a blind eye; he has actively courted conservative Islamist
elements and relies on them to maintain his majority in Parliament, even
granting them key cabinet positions. These appointments send a message to
Indonesia’s population and embolden Islamist extremists to use violence against
minorities.”
However, the essence of Zakaria’s argument, and others like
President Obama, is the commonly used percentage argument.
“A
small minority of Muslims celebrates violence and intolerance and harbors
deeply reactionary attitudes toward women and minorities.” Says Zacharia.
Of course when
using 1.6 billion as a base it is easy to describe large groups as “”small”
based on percentages. This is a valid argument if one is responding to a lazy
claim like Maher’s that all practitioners of Islam behave in similar ways. However, no matter the percentage level of
extremists and terrorists who justify their barbarism with their religion, if
the real number of such individuals is very large, then as Zarkaria admits, “But
let’s be honest. Islam has a problem today.”
In fact, the “small percentage”, “tiny minority” etc. argument
becomes irrelevant. Islamic extremists
are operating throughout much of the world.
Current estimates of the number of fighters in the Islamic State alone
are in the range of 40,000. Then of
course there is a plethora of other armed militias operating in the battle
against the Assad regime in Syria and the search among them for “moderate”
Muslims is approaching futility. Add to
this the Hezbollah Shi’ite terrorist organization in Lebanon, the various Sunni
extremist groups in Gaza, Libya, and Somalia, the infamous Boka Haram group in
Nigeria, and of course al Qaeda and its numerous affiliates across the Middle
East, and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Extremists Imams openly preach violence in mosques in Britain,
France and even in the United States while “politically correct” apologists led
by President Obama continue the “tiny minority” trope. If only one percent of the world’s Muslims ‘participate
in or support the anti-west, fundamentalist’s jihad, their real number would amount to
sixteen million and Zakariai’s admission that “Islam has a problem” becomes a
serious understatement. But the problem
is in no way exclusively internal to Islam.
Islam’s “problem’ becomes everyone else’s problem. The existence of
disparate violent groups united by a common interpretation of their religious
teachings promise permanent conflict, international
political and economic instability, and the continuous threat of senseless
violence perpetrated against the world’s private citizens .
The jihadists are Muslims.
They exist in large numbers. They
justify their horrific acts with the same religious texts that the larger
Islamic population uses as a basis for their faith:
Zakaria says that “reform” from within coupled with “respect”
from outside “will work with Islam over time.”
But who will lead the “reform” from within? If such an international movement currently
exists it is invisible and ineffective and there is no “time”.
No comments:
Post a Comment