Fearing Sharia?
When the Archbishop of Canterbury shocked Brits by saying that Sharia law might be used for Muslims in Great Britain — why not have different laws for different groups in society — a new wave of fear spread that the West would sacrifice its values in the name of either PC multiculturalism or fear of Islamic revenge. The specter of Europeans simply giving in to Islam, with Mosques replacing cathedrals and veils replacing topless beaches is portrayed as the threat of Islam finally doing what it couldn’t do a few centuries ago: conquer Europe. Rather than soldiers, it will be immigrants doing the dirty work. And Europe, already de-Christianized at least in terms of the actual beliefs of the public, will simply give in to avoid violence. Evidence for this view is given in the forms of numerous examples of decisions or statements from European officials, or from controversies like that over Dutch cartoons about Muhammad published a few years ago.
There is a threat of cultural transformation, but I think it’s the Islamic fundamentalists who need to worry. For all the examples given of silly PC decisions, or statements made by clerics or politicians, the reality is that the West has proven over and over that freedom and material prosperity have an allure that cause people to give up their traditions and religious beliefs to partake in the opportunities. Christianity survived enlightenment materialism primarily by moving from being a faith that was supposed to define all aspects of life and politics to one that filled a spiritual niche. In Europe the church going population is down to one in five. In Italy back in the 70s the Catholic population ignored the Church and voted overwhelmingly to legalize abortion. Few people really take their religious principles into the business, political and social world — love your enemy, be kind to those who hurt you, turn the other cheek, the meek will inherit the earth…well, those are fine slogans for Sunday morning, but not in the boardroom or on the campaign trail!
I think western secular materialism will ultimately have a similar effect on Islam. To be sure, Islam is more like Judaism in that it is a praxis oriented rather than faith oriented religion. This suggests that the European countries can and should do everything possible to help Muslims follow the practices and traditions of their faith — allow time for prayer, make Ramadan easier to celebrate as a community, make exceptions to rules that allow the peaceful practice of various rituals. This is done for Jews as well, and shows a respect for another faith that conveys a powerful message. I’m convinced, however, that all of the compromises made for Muslims by the West will be more than offset by compromises made within the Islamic community as a response to being in the modern, secular West. Indeed, despite pockets of fundamentalism, European and American Muslims are the most modern and secular Muslims in the world, and as their population grows, they can have a positive impact on the post-Ottoman cultures that still haven’t emerged from authoritarianism and corruption.
It’s easy to fear something unknown, and immigration — whether Muslims to Europe or Mexicans to the US — always creates a sense of concern as people see the face of the land they know change. Yet over-reacting can help the fundamentalists by making Muslims feel that they are unwelcome and treated as strange and different. Rather than integrate, they will separate, and the extremists will have more luck convincing the youth that they need to reject western ideals. The challenge for Europeans is not to somehow fight against the Islamic influence, but actually accept it and accommodate it as much as possible, trusting in the values of individual freedom, market economies and democracy to convince young Muslims that the old traditions are out of date, and can be joined with western society in the same way the Christian church made its compromises.
Yet, perhaps there is also something the West can learn from the Islamic critique of western thought. We are overly materialist and secular, we seem to distrust any idea of spirit or sentiment. That is a weakness in our culture, it skews us to think that all that matters are observable, measurable entities and hypotheses we can test. The world for us is material and rational, anything else is superstition and fuzzy. Yet ethics, meaning, the reason for existence, and our motivation in life comes as much from the heart as from the head, and there is no rational reason to deny the possibility that nature may be spiritual as well as material. If embracing the West means denying the possibility of having a soul and accepting the mysteries of the ‘other side of reality,’ then Muslims (and Christians) are right to distrust and critique such a move. Perhaps as a way to strengthen the West and make it easier for different faiths to co-exist we need to think critically ourselves about our faith in reason and materialism. Because when you get right down to it, secular faith is still faith.
Of course, if the concerns about oil shortages and energy crises are true (see blog entries “Oil Denial” and “Oil Uncertainties,” then all bets are off. We might be done in by our own material excesses.
May 24, 2008 at 6:08 am
The Truth
May 27, 2008 at 12:57 am
I do not believe we can compare Muslims to Christians and conclude they will secularize the way we did in an Enlightenment of their own, because the Judean Christian tradition is incomparable to the Islamic tradition. Even when Christians have attempted to assimilate or eliminate Jews into or from their community and communion for millennia, mostly without offering accommodation up front, such (guilt-ridden, overwhelming) accommodation and downplayed request for assimilation towards Muslims as ‘modern day Jews’ will never bring forward a comparable, genuine wish and attempt to be western in Muslims. Assuming they will historically be unable to withstand the capitalist opportunities and nowadays ‘fat gadgets’. First generation immigrant Muslims into Europe had no incentive to become more traditionalistic. The second generation is more orthodox than their parents ever were, which an anthropologist recently explained as an attempt to distance themselves bóth from their parents ànd from their host country to seek and find identity in their deepest roots, Islamism, missing from both cultures keeping them in nowhere-land. When I drink my beer on a sunny terrace Friday afternoons, I see boys with beards clothed completely in white, hurry to the mosk somewhere nearby, leaving sort of a dissonant on the terrace. A stones throw away from where I have been living for the past 25 years, the murderer of filmmaker Van Gogh was raised. He shot his victim from his bike, in the most traditional Islamic costume he could find, and slit his throat, while praying with him, with a traditional sword. How optimistic can we be?
May 27, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I think we need to be realistic and pragmatic. Globalization is real, Muslims are a part of the European population, and currently there is a cultural divide exacerbated by conflicts in the Mideast. Islam itself contains many possibilities. At one point in history Islam embraced rationalism. It was in the past more tolerant and cosmopolitan than Christianity (the Christian crusaders who took Jerusalem said ‘convert or die,’ while Christians and Jews living in the Muslim world were usually treated well). Given how bloody and lengthy the Christian reformation was (and how battles afterwards continued for centuries), there is reason for pessimism about the near future. And I agree that ‘overwhelming accommodation’ is not the path, nor is there any reason for guilt — the West should be proud of modern western values and not sacrifice them because they might offend others. It’s a tricky path ahead…maybe a generation of tension before one sees real improvements.
May 28, 2008 at 11:41 am
Dear professor Erb, I like your site a lot and it has become part of my favorites list. However, or perhaps just because of that, I disagree with you on more that one matter. Like in this case, I disagree with the implicit choice of the pragmatic option. To me, naive optimism scores higher than realistic pessimism and ‘pragmatic’ adaptation to things that supposedly will never change any more and must be taken in as historical facts. The dissonants can lead us to a second, naively optimistic but still plausible option, that thought and assumptions, ideology in other words, are adapted. Not our native Western ways. We hate theocracy as we disgust political correctness. I admit that my sources have not always been exactly scientific, but I still very much doubt your account of Islamic tolerance or the root cause of responsive crusades. Basically I assume Islam to be a theology of domination and Christianity one of submission. Therefore they will never be reducible to one another in any respect.
May 28, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Muhammad was a radical social reformer, whose main goals were to address extreme maldistribution of wealth in Mecca, and improve the lot of women (his wife was 15 years older than he was, and a successful business woman — rare in Arabia). He said there should be no compulsion in religion, and was close friends with Christians and Jews, working with them. After his death, his successors quickly moved to use his teachings to rationalize conquest, and added the hadiths (supposedly things his companions had seen or heard from Muhammad) which undid some of his more radical reforms, bringing back traditional Arab custom. Some things like the veils for women came completely after Muhammad’s time. Even then, early Islam was far more tolerant than Christianity, and Jews especially thrived. People of the book (related to Abraham — Jews and Christians) were especially accepted, though it took awhile for Muslims to reach a deal with Hindus. As with all religions, the people take it in ways to suit their own power.
I think the current problem really comes from how the Ottoman Empire allowed the ulama (learned clerics) to impose a VERY conservative view of Islam, which said the perfect community should be like Medina in 630. Rationalists like Avicenna and Averroes (who would influence Aquinas immensely) were out, and Islamic rationalism, which argued that the Koran had to be interpreted with reason to fit changing circumstances, was rejected in the Arab Sunni world. This meant the Islamic world stopped progressing, and the Ottoman military dictatorship was stagnant and fell behind Europe by the mid-17th century. Thus Islam did not modernize.
So to me it seems, well, pragmatic, to support Muslim reformers who try to seize about the teachings of the Koran, rejecting the supreme authority placed on the Hadiths by the ulama, and reviving rationalism and some of the currents of pre-Ottoman Islam. (Not to mention the Sufis, who have kind of a new age Islam). It’s difficult, but Islam isn’t going to go away, and is in fact growing fast. What alternative do we have but to be pragmatic? Pessimism may be warranted, but what do we do? (A good book: No God but God, by Reza Aslan, goes into the early history of Islam. Aslan, as a reform minded Muslim, gives that perspective). Of course, we have different experiences — you live close to where Van Gogh’s murderer was raised, I have a good Muslim friend who loves vodka and fine wine!
May 28, 2008 at 7:58 pm
How can Muhammad have been both close friends with Christians and Jews, working with them, and the person behind the dictate that the captured unbelievers’ hands and feet should be chopped off, alternately left and right, or the executioner of whole villages of Jews and artists who didn’t accept his claim to be Allah’s last prophet? This was early Islam and it was intolerant, unless you would become a believer, pay special zakat tax or be decapitated, as prescribed in the Koran. Ultra conservatism was instilled at the time of inception, during his visions apperceptions directly dictated. The ulama’s realize what he ordered. Befehl ist Befehl or as the Turkish Prime Minister put it: There is no moderate Islam.
May 28, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Because he didn’t dictate that at all! He said no compulsion in religion, and even that you should not fight if the other doesn’t want to (Koranic Jihad is much like Christian just war theory in its basics). Usually lines are taken out of context. When the Quarysh (original Meccan rulers) tried to kill Muhammad and his followers, he told his soldiers to “kill the polytheists,” meaning the Quarysh. Many, including extremists, misinterpret this to be all polytheists (something which would contradict no compulsion in religion). Also in those battles some of the Jewish tribes sided with the Quarysh. Contrary to Arab custom, he usually let them leave instead of punishing them. This created discontent since it violated Arab custom (which was to kill and enslave the tribe who betrayed you), so when in an important battle the Banu Qasyr hellped the Quarysh, Muhammad simply left it up to a Hakim (like a judge) to decide. He decided to follow traditional Arab culture. The Banu Qasyr were Jewish, but they were killed. That’s the only case I know of. The fact that he worked with Christians and Jews is undeniable, that’s historical fact. Again, early Islam was far more tolerant than Christianity in the middle ages. Unlike Christianity it wasn’t borne of pacifism. Muhammad was trying to reform a very backwards Arab culture. He consciously integrated Jewish and Christian teachings into his work, I think he wanted to get the ‘best of all worlds.’ The history of Islam is diverse, like any religion it will reflect what its adherents want. There have been spiritual Sufis, rationalists, and there are many modernist thinkers. In the 19th century there started to be diverse views. Islam will evolve, it certainly won’t disappear. And the extremists are the minority. That doesn’t mean they won’t cause massive problems but what alternative do we have? I actually believe western culture is far stronger and more resilient than a lot of people give it credit for. I think radical/extremist Islam is riddled with contradictions and unfeasible aspirations. It can’t defeat the West.
May 29, 2008 at 8:20 am
Obviously I must tripplecheck my sources.
June 21, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Some!!!!