A Thought

I was reading DhimmiWatch today (I like this site, not because of the attitude, but because they do an excellent job collecting interesting articles from all over the world about Muslims in Western societies) and I found in it a comment on the arrest of the Saudi journalist I mentioned earlier. If you look at the Arab News article (which you can't, because they won't publish it online any more -- booo) and then look at the article they've got on DhimmiWatch, you can see where point of view becomes incredibly important in journalism. Obviously, I do not approve of arresting people on heresy charges, and on death threats and whatnot. Obviously, I do not think that this man should be punished for anything he said relating to Islam. However, the man does (according to the Arab News, at least) have a lawyer, and his case is going to trial not in the Ministry of the Interior but in a local court, thanks to his lawyer's efforts. You have to keep in mind that Saudi Arabia does have some sort of legal system, even if everyone believes its laws to be outdated. And a lot of people, including the man himself, have spoken out against his arrest.

Of course, that doesn't make it okay to have a law against apostasy, but come on, what do you expect? Guys, one generation ago our parents were fighting wars against the "Godless commies" and, to hear my grandfather talk about it, the atheists still have something nefarious going on. We're still fighting battles against homophobia in the more liberal areas, and in the less liberal areas white supremicists and male chauvanists still frequently have a lot of power. Being "godless" or "unchristian" is still, in some parts of the United States, not acceptable. My little sister spent her Thanksgiving helping feed Katerina victims in Mississippi, and she stayed in a convent with a bunch of nuns who tried desperately to get her see the light. My Louisiana relatives are not pleased that I'm not a regular church-goer.

Keep in mind that "the West" hasn't got it all figured out. Life is a bundle of paradoxes. The belief that it is morally right for everyone to have the right to create their own morals is troubling in and of itself -- what if people decide to create a moral system which denies people the right to choose? None of the answers are black and white and although it may seem like a balance has been reached in the West, that's a misconception. The balances are shifting all the time. Islam obviously throws something of a wrench into the gears, but as an inherently optimistic person I'd like to say I think eventually a new balance will be found.

Religion obviously complicates this. Christianity and Judaism been dealing with all of the paradoxes for centuries and centuries. Islam has too. Obviously, in comparison to the current mainstream manifestations of Christianity and Judaism, Islam is on the whole more conservative. And it is obviously also true that most Muslim countries are ruled by semi-repressive or all-out repressive regimes and are denied many things which we "Westerners" consider basic human rights. And one of those things is the right to choose our own religion.

But we have to keep in mind the goal, here. In my mind, this is not a moral issue but a practical one with moral aspects. The idea is to live together without us all having to kill each other. There is nothing black-and-white about any of these issues. As with most religions, you can largely find what you're looking for in Islam. Of course Islam isn't accepting or tolerant if all you're looking for is the intolerant bits. If we were to interpret religions at their most literal and conservative, then very few religions would come across looking moderate or accepting. Even Hinduism, at its most literal, involves a lot of fasting and sitting in the forest living off of berries and avoiding women who are at their "unclean" time of month. And no religion, at base, really wants to accept the idea that other religions could also be correct.

So, since in that direction lies only dissention, I say we have no choice but to go another path. It is NOT blind to emphasize the aspects of Islam which are tolerant and peaceful: it is hopeful. It is not going to happen immediately, but with time more and more people may come to see it the way these hopefuls do, and may choose to interpret the Qu'ran and hadith in a fashion more conducive to neighborliness than to discord. It would be just as wrong for the West to squash Islam, and the right of Muslims to believe in their religion, as it is for Saudi Arabia to arrest this journalist for apostasy.

So how shall we approach it? Shall we be alarmist and spend our time pointing out all of the things that seem to point to an impending Muslim takeover of the universe? Or shall we recognize that Islam has a growing influence in the world and do our best to recalibrate our own balances in order to fit that in?

Now, that said, I am not trying to justify a mitigation or reconsideration of "Western" values. There are some things I consider absolutely integral to ANYBODY living peacefully together. By this I mean freedom of speech and belief primarily, although I'm sure if I were pressed there'd be other things. Without freedom of speech, there is no way that two societies or cultures with different beliefs can ever communicate in an atmosphere of peace. But it took a long time for that idea to gain widespread acceptance, and there are places in the West where the battles are still being fought. Any strict morality of Right and Wrong does not really lend itself to freedoms of speech and belief, but given time and a lot of effort a balance between the two can be found. It's THAT we should be focusing on, not on the failures of the moment.

I think the fallacy that the people at DhimmiWatch are falling under is one which the Islamists themselves would be happy to agree with: The idea that the Islam practiced today in the conservative regimes is the one, true, eternal Islam sent down by God in the Quran and obvious to all who have eyes to see and read it. This is false. If there IS a one, true, eternal Islam then God's the only one who knows what it is. Islam has been changing since Muhammad, and at times it has been more tolerant, and at times it has been less tolerant (much like the history of other major ideologies and religions). Even DURING the time of Muhammad it changed, as God added verses that dealt with the immediate concerns of the fledgling Medinan community. Obviously, there are some things which will tend to remain constant over time: the basics of belief, the five pillars, the shahada. But how scholars interpret the Qu'ran and the hadith has always been changeable.

I'm not trying to say that pointing out problems in the Muslim world is useless; obviously, in order to correct a problem, one must first address it. But to come to judgement regarding whether Islam is inherently a tolerant or peaceful religion, particularly if your judgement is that it is neither tolerant nor peaceful, is useless and harmful. What, then, are our options? World war? Wipe out the Muslims once and for all in one enormous crusade? Ignore them and hope they'll go away? Kick them out of our countries and refuse to sell them goods? Like it or not, Islam is one of the major world religions, and one way or another we have to learn to live with each other.

And, as my pal Jesus always liked to say, before you point out the splinter in someone else's eye, you'd better remove the log from your own.