Islam and Prejudice

Baroness Warsi, co-chairman of the Tory Party, is reported as saying that prejudice against Muslims is seen as normal. The BBC claims that she will say (how I hate that - it's not news until it's said, and it's only then that the actual content and context can be judged) in a speech to Leicester University that prejudice has passed the dinner-table test. Well, I am wary of being prejudiced. I certainly try not to be, but I am also aware of having a very negative impression of Islam, a different impression from that which I held when it was the subject of academic study in my student days. But it is right to scrutinise one's views, so let's have a look at what's going on for me.

Obviously there is the effect of terrorism. It's not that Christians (say) haven't adopted terror tactics in the recent past: they have. The murder of doctors involved in abortion in the US comes to mind. Prior to that, the Klu Klux Klan had Christian associations, even though their behaviour defied any reasonable interpretation of Christianity. The divide in Ireland was on religious lines, and even Catholic priests were rather close to active terrorists. I guess the same may be true of the other side, though I know of no accounts. But in Ireland the primary motivation was political, not religious. Religious leaders sometimes spoke out against terrorist activity, though also some did not. But the horrific mass murders perpetrated by Islamist terrorists recently, both against the West and against their own co-religionists so appall decent people it is extremely hard not to be strongly influenced by them. And it has to be said that very prominent religious leaders have encouraged, or supported, such actions. Starting from Ayatola Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie, urging the murder of someone who had written a book he disapproved of (probably without reading it) some incredible, horrible, things have emerged from Islam. And, in the UK at least, recent events make one think that being the victim of a terrorist mass murder by someone who is not a Muslim is very much less likely than by a perpetrator who is a Muslim.

And all this is against a background of views that seem to be rooted in the 6th Century CE - if not more primitive than that. You only have to think of the uneducated imam who declared "Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes". This was in a sermon delivered at Tehran University. (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8631775.stm) It's not difficult to find other similar examples of a world view that seems to predate the ark. I know you also get idiotic, uneducated views promoted by Christians - the Creation Museum being an outstanding example - but even the brainless lunatics who still think the earth was created in 7 days on 22 October 4004 BCE don't think that the presence or absence of clothing is related to plate tectonics or vulcanism. Mind you, I know a few who think that God takes a personal and detailed interest in their parking requirements, and you only need to watch the NFL briefly to see that many players think he is a football fan and supports their team. Ignorance is a terrible affliction where ever it is found, but Islam seems to take pride in it.

Of course not all Muslims take such unsupportable views, but I wish a few more of those that don't would stand up and say so. It looks as though the authoritarian stance taken by not only teachers of Islam but also followers has something to do with this. Organised religion tends to be authoritarian. The Pope still tries it on from time to time, for example. But in the Christian West the church lost its hold over what people think and do at the time of the Enlightenment. Today most Christians embrace Enlightenment values, not least the freedom to think, and to say, and to write and publish what you believe. They also take the view, by and large, that this is a good thing because it provides an environment in which people can grow to their full potential, and in which something closer to the truth emerges through the discussion and criticism of the various views that people hold. If I cannot defend my views in a reasonable way when under rational criticism, there is at least something missing from my understanding of my own position. It is also rather likely that there is something wrong with the views themselves.

Religious leaders usually don't like educated people criticising or questioning them. On a trivial and local level I have personal experience of this. When I was a clergyman in Northampton I offered a course, an introduction to thinking theologically and realistically (I thought such a thing was possible!) in my own parish. The Vicar of the parish thought the material was good and suggested I open it to all the local churches. So I publicised it to the other clergy, so they could alert their people. Apart from in my own parish, there were no takers. I happened to meet one of the senior local clergy in the street and I asked him why he thought this was so. His reply was that it was because he hadn't told his congregation about it. He did not want them to be theologically educated, he said, because if they were they might start to question him, and that would never do. When the first session was held, in which I opened up some areas for discussion, someone objected and said she'd not be coming again because I was not telling her what to think. No indeed, I wanted her to be able to think for herself, something our predecessors had fought for and given their lives for, but which she was too frightened to do, so cowed was she by successive authoritarian clergy.

But in general, the hold that the church has over the minds of even its adherents, is greatly weakened today, thanks to education, and encouragement to learn, and to think for oneself, and to question things that do not appear to be true. Islam never had its own Enlightenment. The Golden Age in which great Islamic scholars both preserved and advanced knowledge in astronomy, philosophy and mathematics is long past. Just learn to recite the Koran, in a language you may well not understand, and settle for that, seems to be the way. Some think that women should not be educated at all. I guess that's for much the same reason as the Northampton clergy did not publicise my course - it would lead to them questioning the unfounded assumptions of the men, and that would never do.

But none of the above is the primary cause of my worry about Islam. Just recently there has been a terrible, but similar, event in both Islamic Pakistan and Christian America. In both places there has been an assassination attempt on an prominent elected official. In Tuscon, Arizona, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire on Representative Gabrielle Giffords, seriously wounding her and killing several other people. At least, he has been indicted for the crime, and was apprended at the scene trying to reload his gun. In Pakistan Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was assassinated, confessedly by one of his own bodyguards. In both cases, this is not only murder, but also an attack on democracy itself.

In the Arizona case, there has been a lot of heart-searching, and some wild accusations, from both sides of the political divide. No-one approves of murdering members of the body politic no matter how much their views differ from one's own. The assumption at present is that the assassin is in some way mentally ill. In Pakistan too thousands mourned Governor Taseer. But, and it is an enormous but, in Pakistan some religious leaders have praised the governor's killer. (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12116764) Why? Because he was a liberal, a man who believed and said that Pakistan's blasphemy law is draconian and needs to be changed. Malik Mumtaz Hussein Qadri confessed to the murder and people gave him garlands. One religious leader said "No Muslim should attend the funeral or even try to pray for Salman Taseer or even express any kind of regret or sympathy over the incident". Some people supported Governor Taseer because he spoke up for minority rights. Other supported his murderer simply for religious reasons. The New York Times reported that the assassin "was showered by hundreds of supporters with rose petals and garlands. Moderate religious leaders refused to condemn the assassination, and some hard-line religious leaders appeared obliquely to condone the attack". (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/world/asia/06pakistan.html)

The difference is clear, and I don't think it is prejudice. In America those for and against Mrs Giffords' policies were equally horrified at the assassination attempt. Everyone sees and condemns it as an attack on democracy itself. In Pakistan while that view was also found, so was a vocal element, encouraged by some religious leaders, that supported the assassin for purely religious reasons. Christianity is not without its kooks and an insane fringe who will stoop to the murder of their opponents. They are a tiny minority condemned by almost all. In Islamic Pakistan those who support murder on religious grounds are at the very least a significant minority, maybe much more, and too large a proportion of more reasonable voices are intimidated into silence. That fundamental factor, a religious authoritarianism that is closely related to Fascism and is all too frequently found in Islam, is the source of my deep unease with Islam. I don't think it is prejudice. And it is opposed to all the human values I believe in. If a British Muslim leader would condemn such views and support Governor Taseer and human, Enlightenment, values I would be delighted. So far I have heard no such comment.

As everyone knows, my position is that religion is at best a mistake, one powered by deep emotional factors. But at least some adherents of religion retain human decency and value humanity itself. Others do not, and the sad fact is that Islam gives the impression of having the largest contingent of those whose fervour not only overcomes all reason but all human feeling as well.