How Do We Talk About Islam After Charlie Hebdo?

[cbayer]

http://religiondispatches.org/here-we-go-again-what-to-say-about-islam-after-charlie-hebdo/

BY ASMA AFSARUDDIN JANUARY 8, 2015



So here we go again—militants acting in the name of Islam go on a murderous rampage. They shout “God is great” and declare their fealty to the Prophet Muhammad while they kill and terrorize. Sickening déjà vu moments. For all those who want assurance that Islam is indeed on a collision course with the West (and vice versa), the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris served to do just that.

Add to that the continuous carnage being wreaked by the so-called Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (or Da‘ish) under the banner of a revived “caliphate” and there can be little doubt, it seems, that Muslims are increasingly devolving into killing machines motivated by blind rage. Such a phenomenon is furthermore understandable because Muslims supposedly can draw seamlessly from Islamic history and vocabulary to provide justification for their violence.

No matter how many learned books and articles are written about the rich, diverse, tolerant, and dynamic Islamic tradition, some will continue to choose to believe in this frightening narrative. In a recent New York Times column Thomas Friedman almost gleefully referred to a Moroccan man known as “Brother Rachid,” who declared that he had renounced Islam and who was subsequently moved to counsel President Barack Obama thus:

Dear Mr. President, I must tell you that you are wrong about ISIL. You said ISIL speaks for no religion. I can tell you with confidence that ISIL speaks for Islam. … ISIL’s 10,000 members are all Muslims. … They come from different countries and have one common denominator: Islam. They are following Islam’s Prophet Muhammad in every detail. … They have called for a caliphate, which is a central doctrine in Sunni Islam.

Brother Rachid, whose program has aired on evangelical satellite channel Alhayat TV for nearly a decade, may or may not be telling the truth about his past, but his invocation makes it possible for Friedman to articulate a prevalent accusation against Muslims in toto without appearing to explicitly endorse it.

more at link

[upaloopa]

1. I think if you follow some ancient text and believe

in some mystical ideas and supernatural deities, you need to keep it to yourself and your fellow believers. The rest of the world does not need to be effected by your beliefs.
And the rest of the world does not owe you something because of what you believe.

[hrmjustin]

2. We should not talk about our faith? is that your point?

[upaloopa]

3. You should talk to those who are receptive and

not to those who didn't seek you out.

[hrmjustin]

5. So should atheists follow the same rules?

[upaloopa]

8. Yes

[hrmjustin]

10. Ok, you are consistent.

[cbayer]

4. How far do you think that should be extended?

Do you think that people should be prohibited from wearing anything that might identify their religion?

Should places of worship never look like places of worship?

Should we prohibit all movies, documentaries and tv shows that feature religion in some way?

What about the 1st amendment? Should we make an exception when it comes to religious speech and prohibit people from speaking about it in public?

Are you responding to the article headline by saying we shouldn't be talking about Islam at all?

Just curious as to how you might implement this.

[trotsky]

6. Jesus fuck.

People have been murdered by religious fanatics and more victims could be coming at this very moment, and your primary concern is to start scolding people for suggesting that religion should be a private affair.

Unbelievable.

[upaloopa]

7. I am saying that we don't need to react a certain way

because of the existence of some religion.
We don't need to decide how we are to address Islam or any religion. We react to the actions of people not their beliefs.

[trotsky]

9. It's OK, you have said nothing wrong.

Don't be bullied.

People are dead, more people might be about to die, but some still think the problem is that we aren't deferring enough to people's religious beliefs.

[cbayer]

11. So do you think that the events in Paris should be separated from any discussion about Islam?

[upaloopa]

12. Hatred is a learned thing. The religion did not teach

them to hate, people did.

[cbayer]

13. I agree with you about that, but they are claiming that their

actions are based on their religious beliefs.

This impacts the huge numbers of muslims on this earth.

It seems important to recognize and address that. Pretending that it's not the case might prevent any opportunity to understand better why this happens and to find ways of preventing it in the future.

[upaloopa]

17. People will react out of ignorance on all sides.

If we can learn to subtract the actions of individuals from their religions we might be on a better tract to do something.
Instead of looking for faults in a religion we should learn why some religious people are prone to act violently. We need to investigate the individual outside of his/her religion.

[cbayer]

21. I honestly don't get your point, but it seems distinctly

different from where you started, and that was the part I objected to.

[upaloopa]

27. I am simply saying that we should separate the

motives of the killer from his religion. We can't blame the religion for the killings and we can't blame the satire of the religion for the killings. The individual acted out of learned hatred.

[cbayer]

30. I hope you will take the opportunity to read the article.

This is so very complex and I think everyone wishes there were simple answers, but there are not.

As you state, neither the religion nor the satire can be blamed for these killings, but religion is there regardless.

[uppityperson]

39. Every now and then I find myself agreeing. This post is one of those times.

[upaloopa]

41. We probably agree on other things

[rug]

26. I think if you I think if you reject some ancient tex tand believe

it all to be some mystical ideas and supernatural deities, you need to keep it to yourself and your fellow nonbelievers. The rest of the world does not need to be effected by your nonbeliefs.
And the rest of the world does not owe you something because of what you don't believe.

See how that works?

[upaloopa]

29. I already agreed with that

[longship]

14. Je suis Charlie!

The extent to which Islam followers are murdering people (or threatening to murder people) is the extent to which it has no claim of being a peaceful religion.

As Christopher Hitchens might say: One cannot claim the good without owning its hindside. And for Islam that is indeed very grim.

And Hitchens' friend, Salmon Rushdie, is still under a death threat from an Islamic ayatollah who is long dead.

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

[cbayer]

15. Did you happen to read the "Interview with a Muslim" I posted here yesterday?

I think it speaks well as to the dilemma events like this present to Muslims who find it heinous and abhorrent.

I guess we could extrapolate your argument to any group and hold anyone responsible for crimes committed by those who share an identification if they say they are doing it in the name of that identification.

The President of Egypt has taken a pretty hard stand again muslim extremism and I hope that others will follow.

What the fuck is wrong with these people is indeed a very good question, but I would suggest that the answer is far more complex than that they are Muslims.

[longship]

16. Then they need to speak out loudly.

And answer for how Islam acts when they control governments, and especially in the absence of government (Syria, Iraq, etc.).

The extent to which Islam does not wholly condemn the actions of their fellow followers is the extent to which it owns these actions. Christopher Hitchens said it this way (summarizing): they cannot claim the good without owning the hindside. And I would suggest that Islam has one helluva lot of hindside these days.

Of course, I would say similar for almost any religion, but especially Islam.

Murder is never acceptable.

[cbayer]

19. I agree that governments need to speak out loudly but I maintain

that it is not that simple.

I have very little respect for Hitchen's positions on these matters. I think he was a war-mongering muslim-hating bigot who could only see the hind side, even though it represents such a very small proportion of the whole. I do not agree at all that one can not claim the good without owning the hind side. It is important to recognize and try to eliminate the hind side, but no one should have to own it when it in no way represents them.

Murder is never acceptable. Murder in the name of religion is no more reprehensible than murder in the name of anything other than religion. Religion just becomes an easy thing to grab on to when one is assessing responsibility.

[longship]

23. A rhetoric question: How many people have to die?

I find my staunch secularism simply cannot understand why religion always seems to have this kind of underbelly. The Old Testament is full of it. And the history of just about all religions have similar in their histories. I admit that there are notable exceptions.

[cbayer]

25. How many people have to die for anyone to do anything?

I am in Mexico. People are dying in droves here, you just don't hear much about it. Just today there is an article about the number of women that are being killed on a daily basis.

http://jezebel.com/six-women-die-daily-as-murders-of-mexican-women-reach-p-1677497516

This has absolutely nothing to do with religion - absolutely nothing.

The old testament is full of it because history is full of it. Humanity has this ugly underbelly.

You are a human. When are you going to stand up and take responsibility for what the humans in Mexico are doing?

You are a man. When are you going to stand up and take responsibility for what the men in Mexico are doing?

[longship]

37. You have a point.

However, my point is that the Paris murders were done in the name of Islam. And it is my opinion, right or wrong, that when one is confronted with a problem one should look at the source of the problem for a solution, whatever that might be.

Hope you are well. It's frickin' cold here and I got about a foot of snow plowed off my driveway this afternoon. Ya want me to send you a snow cone?

[cbayer]

38. I think where we may have to agree to differ is that you

see Islam as the source of the problem and I think it is much more complicated than that and has a lot to do with politics, economics, land, tribes, etc. And there is always just angry young men out of control to look at as well.

I'm ok. It's still really hot here and I have developed a rather intense heat intolerance. I have had visions of lying down in a big pile of snow so any you could send my way would be greatly appreciated.

[uppityperson]

40. ++++++

[edhopper]

18. I read somewhere recently

that Islam needs an Enlightenment of it's own.
I think this is true in some form.

[cbayer]

20. The president of Egypt used those words recently.

[edhopper]

22. That is good to hear

though he is a bit of a thug.

[cbayer]

31. There are many interpretations of what he has said, but mine is

that it is a call to marginalize and reject islamist extremists and take back the fundamentals of islam. He is enraged that they have come to represent islam and that the world believes that they are driven by basic islamic beliefs.

[rug]

24. Same as before.

No matter how many learned books and articles are written about the rich, diverse, tolerant, and dynamic Islamic tradition, some will continue to choose to believe in this frightening narrative.

These people are unreachable. Some are downright gleeful and look to this as vindication.

[cbayer]

28. Exactly and I am becoming increasingly angry about it.

It's a muslim problem, not our problem. Muslims are violent. Muslims support this kind of episode.

Garbage and hate, that's it.

[Goblinmonger]

35. How does it get fixed, then? I really don't know.

There seems to be a lot of evidence that if we (the west and the US specifically) get involved in trying to fix it, that only seems to make things worse. And I kind of get that, actually. So do we just back out and let those nations deal with it on their own? Is that going to bring about a resolution? Though not the focus of her book, when I read Malala's story, it didn't seem like Pakistan was really able to do all that much for a lot of reasons. And I think there is a lot of merit for the idea of letting the own culture deal with their own problems. And I'm not saying all Muslims are violent, but hopefully we can all agree there is a problem there.

I'm not trying to be flippant. How does this problem get solved? And how does one address the problem without other people coming back with charges of racism and hate? (OK, tiny bit flippant on that last sentence, but not my intent before that.)

[cbayer]

36. Much greater, more knowledgeable and experienced minds than I could

even get close to have pondered these question and come up empty.

I can only speak for what I think individuals can do. When there are sects within larger groups that are clearly loathsome and inhumane, I think it is important to carefully clarify that they may wear a label shared by many, but they do not represent others with that label.

They should be specifically targeted for rebuke and isolated from the greater group to the extent possible.

There is a problem with violence in this world. As I pointed out in another response, I am living in a country with an unspeakable amount of violence at this time and that violence has nothing at all to do with religion. Should all Mexicans be held responsible because these are Mexicans perpetrating these crimes? All men? All men from certain areas? Everyone who ever uses any kind of drug whatsoever?

Or should we as a community of humans stand up and say that these are bad individuals who need to be marginalized and eliminated?

Saying that tens of millions of Muslims support this action is unsupportable, inflammatory and irresponsible. Even if it were shown to be true, it is a call to arms against the muslims who do not, who would number in the 1.25 billion range. It is bigotry pure and simple to try and tie these extremists to the vast majority of a population that bears no resemblance to them whatsoever except for a religious label.

It's not that hard to address the issue without being charged with racism and hate, but it might be easier to use racism and hate to address the problem than to be thoughtful.

Did you read the article, perchance? What do you think of his points about what Islam is and is not? What do you think of the Egyptian President's recent speech?

[pinto]

32. This is ironically a time to find some common ground. A step back from extremism.

The world wide litany of violence, murder and abuses is common knowledge now. Yet, the perps remain perps. In that context, it's cut and dried. I can't buy into Islam as the problem, though.

I think we may hear more from Islamic representatives on the issues. I hope so.

[rug]

33. I remenber similar reactions to the Red Army Faction and Baader Meinhof.

Those actions had not a lick to do with religion.

Islam has replaced communism as the boogeyman.

[cbayer]

34. Islam has replaced communism as the boogeyman. Exactly.

[okasha]

44. ++++

[pinto]

45. Agree.

[Cartoonist]

42. I hate it when people use the word "WE" incorrectly.

Speak for yourself. (directed at source, not cbayer)
I think for myself and don't need someone to think or speak for me.

[cbayer]

43. I agree. I particularly dislike it when it happens on a discussion board

and people presume they have the authority to talk for some group, when all they are entitled to talk about is themselves.

In his defense, later in the article, it becomes apparent that the "we" he is talking about is primarily "Those of us who teach Islamic Studies in various American institutions", and that is the dilemma that he most directly addresses.

Anyway, I thought it was a very good article and made some really valid points.