skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Yesterday I discussed two of Bowen's three points, and today I'll finish discussing his final point.
This is the European/American fear of "unending struggle" with Muslims, the notion that Muslims will not adapt, as other immigrants have, but will always have "Islamic political victory as their goal" (par. 18).
In refuting this notion, Bowen goes on to describe how Muslims in Britian, France, and Germany have used each country's legal system to further their own agenda:
from the late 1980s on. That generation began to organize--using the opportunities and political styles characteristic of each host country--to achieve equal social, political, and religious rights.
Bowen acknowledges that this is not always just about gaining civil rights: "In creating sharia councils, British Muslims began to look 'separatist,' and some do call for greater authority for sharia mediation."
Ultimately, Bowen believes this is evidence of assimilation.
"In other words, these Islamic political actors have adapted to national opportunity structures" (italics are Bowen's).
How does Bowen not see how inadequate his argument is? To outline how Muslims use their adopted country's court system to further their own intersts--to work on importing the very practices that clash with their adopted country's values--is precisely what Europeans are afraid of!
It would be nice if Bowen's thinking actually shed some light on this situation, and gave hope for peaceful coexistence. I find his thinking unconvincing.
Actually, for the best evidence of peaceful coexistence, we should study American Muslims, because they are the most affluent and satisfied group of immigrant Muslims anywhere in the world. However, even they have a ways to go. As a group, they seem stand-offish, secretive, and mysterious to most Americans. We see this as their own doing. Yes, still a ways to go.
Last night I read John Bowen's essay, "Nothing to Fear: Misreading Islamic immigration to Europe," in Boston Review, vol. 35 no. 1, the Jan/Feb 2010 issue; pages 27-29. (Unfortunately, the essay is not available online.)
If I were to submit this blog post to Boston Review as a refutation to Bowen's essay, I might titled it "Cause for Concern."
In Bowen's essay, he argues that European and American political analysts are wrong about Islam and Muslims. He defines the points of the American argument as this: "Islamic shock, value conflict, and unending struggle." He warns, "We need to take this argument seriously and understand what is wrong with it. And...it is wrong on every detail that matters."
I don't have a problem with Bowen's definition of the argument, but I do disagree with the way he discounts European and American concerns, which I consider legitimate.
He addresses the first point - Islamic shock to the various European ways of life - by reminding us that European countries perpetrated against one another, "centuries of religious wars, revolutions and counter-revolutions, attacks on Belgian and Italian immigrants to France, and, of course, the events of the early 1940s, in which good French and Dutch people joined good Germans in denouncing and arresting Jews and transporting them to death camps."
None of us - Europeans or Americans - have forgotten these things. I'm not sure what Bowen means to accomplish my mentioning these events - because they do not mean that the culture brought by Muslims to their respective countries cannot "shock" them.
Bowen is well aware of recent steps taken by European countries against Islamic cultural practices: such as France's banning of scarves in public schools in 2004 (and the ongoing effort to ban the burqa and niqab altogether), and Switzerland's banning of building more minarets in November 2009 - not to mention the European Union's perpetual resistance to admitting Turkey into their integrated economic and political group (Turkey formally applied for membership in 1987). Reasons for not admitting Turkey into the E.U. are lack of: "equality between men and women, protection of minorities and freedom of religion"--this is specific E.U. criteria for membership. (As a "by the way," secular Turks themselves fear their religious compatriots since a Sunni Muslim was elected prime minister in 2003.)
Many European countries value their secular culture, and certainly at the top of such a list of countries would be France, with their national motto of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité." How can Bowen, or anyone else, not understand the alarm that many French citizens feel when they see signs of religious devotion (e.g., mosques, hijabs, and burqas) creeping into their society? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that concern and fear legitimizes discrimination or hazing or anything like that. I'm sorry to say that it seems that anyone who is not pro-Muslim Bowen calls "anti-Muslim." I think this is unfair of him. He is trying to shame or stigmatize those (like myself) who are just trying to see the situation clearly.
Bowen says the second point, the "conflict over values, is similarly shaky." He then moves through this list: Islamic intolerance of gays, forced marriages, and the oppression of women.
It surprises me that Bowen tries to cover this point by accusing those who make this argument of "block thinking," in which "the diversity of perspectives within a social group is collapsed into a single caricature." He explains further: "Today, in Europe and elsewhere, there is widespread assumption that all Muslims think one way and all non-Muslims another."
Bowen himself simplifies this circumstance in order to make it seem plausible.
He tries to equate mainstream Muslims with mainstream Americans, citing polls that show "Muslims are more likely...to be opposed to abortion, homosexuality, and suicide," while "A 2009 Pew study reported that...American Protestants and American Muslims disapprove of homosexuality in equal measure--60 percent. The gap is not between Islam and the West, but between more religious and less religious people."
The problem here is that American Muslims are probably more tolerant than all other Muslims, and that in many Muslim countries the penalty for being gay is death. Such is the degree of Islamic intolerance.
But what about the other points that Bowen brings up, forced marriages and the oppression of women? He doesn't address these, but moves on to the final point.
I suppose he is at a loss in how to address these? I would add to the list of conflicting values, freedom of religion and protection of minorities--yes, the very points that Germany says is preventing Turkey's admission to the E.U.
How are these differences in values to be reconciled? In Islamic countries these are not "values," they are Sharia law, and the fear is that if Muslims ever achieved a majority presence--in one of Europe's smaller countries, like the Netherlands--they would pass Sharia legislation. No more weed and prostitution in Amsterdam.
It frustrates me that Bowen tries to convice us that, really, there is no difference between Muslim values and Western values. It's true that not all Muslims are the same, but the truth is that Muslims--as a block--are shifted much more to the right than Westerners are. Their spectrum is narrower than ours. And whereas our spectrum might have 16 colors, theirs might have just 2 to 4.
I will address Bowen's final point tomorrow.
Nossiter, Adam. "Lonely Trek to Radicalism For Nigerian Terror Suspect." New York Times, January 17, 2010.
This is a great background article on Umar Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day Bomber.
His home was Kaduna, Nigeria. Journalist Adam Nossiter quotes a local about the character of the city, that led to a comment about Umar: "Kaduna city has a long history of religious extremism and intolerance. For 30 years there has been violence here...I don't think all his ideas came from Yemen."
What this means is that "extremist" Islam is not limited to "Af-Pak," al-Qaeda, and Yemen. It is much more widespread and pervasive - more mainstream.
This is what scholars and analysts like Irshad Manji, Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Christopher Hitchens (among others) have been telling us for years.
As a matter of fact, Nossiter also wrote an article about ongoing violence in Nigeria between Muslims and Christians. A few days ago there was a flare-up of violence (in which possibly hundreds are dead), but he says it's been happening since 2001.
This brings me back to my ongoing question about the nature of Islam: does it tend towards violence or is it the "religion of peace" that most claim it to be?
Nossiter acknowledges this tension from the outset of his article. (Remember that Umar's father called American officials to warn us that his son might be a threat.) Nossiter describes the tension as, "the struggle between father and son, between piety and radicalism," and "within Islam itself."
One of the things that compelled Umar's father to call him in, was Umar's note that he had found "the real Islam." This "real Islam" made a murderer out of Umar, even though his attempt was unsuccessful.
David Brooks's Friday, January 15 article on Haiti is spot-on. He begins by mentioning an earthquake of the same magnitude in San Francisco:
"On Oct. 17, 1989, a major earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 struck the Bay Area in Northern California. Sixty-three people were killed."
However, this reveals that what happened in Haiti "is not a natural disaster story. This is a poverty story. It’s a story about poorly constructed buildings, bad infrastructure and terrible public services."
The difference in the death tolls is startling. The reason for the difference is sad.
Ultimately, Brooks reasons that a country is the product of its worldview, its own culture, and that all cultures are not equal:
it is time to put the thorny issue of culture at the center of efforts to tackle global poverty. Why is Haiti so poor?....Haiti...suffers from a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences. There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10....We’re all supposed to politely respect each other’s cultures. But some cultures are more progress-resistant than others, and a horrible tragedy was just exacerbated by one of them.
A society that is overwhelmingly "progress-resistant" is not only going to stagnate, to get frozen in history, but suffer consequences periodically, as in the case of this earthquake. It really is better follow standards of construction and prepare for disasters beforehand.
Consider Thomas Jefferson's point of view in this 1799 letter to Elbridge Gerry:
I am for encouraging the progress of science in all it's branches; and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy; for awing the human mind by stories of raw-head & bloody bones to a distrust of its own vision, & to repose implicitly on that of others; to go backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement; to believe that government, religion, morality, & every other science were in the highest perfection in ages of the darkest ignorance, and that nothing can ever be devised more perfect than what was established by our forefathers.
Following Jefferson's grammar can be a bit difficult here, but the not is the important qualifier: he is not for "awing the human mind...to distrust of its own vision," he is not for going "backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement," he does not believe that "government, religion, morality, & every other science were in the highest perfection in ages of the darkest ignorance."
Early Americans like Jefferson - Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine - were followers and promoters of the Enlightenment, and thankfully they founded this country on rational principles that have kept us moving forward. Hopefully we will not give in to the forces of irrationalism.
Primitive and superstitious religions may seem harmless, but Haiti is finding out right now that's not true. Voodoo, which is prevelant in Haiti, Brooks says, "spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile."
I don't think Brooks is shaming Haitians for what happened, so much as he is describing cause and effect. It is the realistic assesment they need (and that we need to hear) so that they can improve their society, make it safer.
There might be those people who want to "defend" the Haitians and question: "But maybe they don't want what you're talking about!"
But if such people listen to what Haitians have been saying (by reading the news), such people will hear them angry and disappointed by their lack of disaster services, the Haitians do not enjoy the suffering and death they're experiencing now.
Brooks's criticism may sound harsh, but I believe it's needed. Ignoring flawed thinking for the sake of politeness or to spare hurt feelings is not as important as saving lives. And as impolite as it is, it's important to admit that some worldviews just don't work that well.
There is little controversial about the disasterous earthquake in Haiti so far. The devastation is awful. Many are saying that 100,000 people or more might be dead. This estimation could be premature, only time will tell.
However - maybe I shouldn't be surprised - but Pat Robertson said that the earthquake happened because Haitians made a deal with the devil.
Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, uh, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said we will serve you if you’ll get us free from the French. True story, and so the Devil said OK it’s a deal.
Ha ha, where does he get this stuff? How does he know this? Was he there when the deal went down? What book did he read it in?
Haiti came to be from a slave revolt against the French in 1804. The Seattle Times provides a good thumbnail history of the country.
Unfortunately, Pat Robertson represents a certain group, a subset of Christians (and probably others), who tend to blame people when misfortune befalls them. Somehow they have sinned against God and God punishes them for it. The strange thing is - according to Robertson's thinking - that many Haitian people today are being punished for a deal they never personally made or are probably aware of.
Of course, I don't believe such a deal is possible. How do you make a deal with an imaginary being? Why, supposedly, are people held accountable for such a deal - more than 200 years later - who have no knowledge of such a deal?
Such are the results of superstitious and non-rational thinking.
I think Andrew Sullivan got Christopher Hitchens wrong in a recent interview by Michael Totten.
Sullivan accuses Hitchens of wanting to gratuitously invade Iran. Hitchens anticipated this during the interview and explains himself:
They'll say I'm asking for war, but I'll say no. I'm not. I'm recognizing that someone is looking for war. We should be firm enough to say "Alright." We didn't look for it. We've tried everything short of war for a long time. Everything. We went to the International Atomic Energy Authority and found them cheating everywhere. Their signature on the Nonproliferation Treaty is worthless. We have the names of members of the Iranian government who are wanted for sending assassins to Europe and Argentina. We know what they've been doing to subvert Lebanon, to make trouble in Iraq.
The important thing to pay attention to here is attitude. I think Hitchens' explanation here proves he does not have an attitude of superiority or authoritarianism - an attitude of unaccountability, really. He demonstrates awareness and concern for Iran's violations of multiple international agreements.
I believe Sullivan gets another point wrong. He rhetorically questions: "does Hitchens really believe that the US invading a Muslim country for the third time in a decade would help us drain the swamps of anti-American hatred?" His point being that (I paraphrase Sullivan here) global Muslim opinion is the critical factor in the war with Islamist terror.
Certainly we want to do everything we can to reduce anti-American feelings - but I don't think this is "the critical factor" in our struggle against Islamists. Ultimately, we have to do the right thing - as long as it is within our ability. Interventions are not chosen willy-nilly or without consideration to our own interests, and that's as it should be, because our resources, while large, are still limited, and we're feeling our limitations acutely these days.
Let me clarify: anti-Americanism is a factor in our struggle, but it is not the most important factor. Hitchens is considering the humanitarian factor: the egregious violations of Iranians human rights: "the Iranian Revolutionary Guards...go out into the street and rape and blind and kill young Iranians," they are "stoning women and blinding girls. They rape boys in jail."
I don't think Hitchens has the arrogant attitude Andrew Sullivan accuses him of having.
A piece of news brings up a puzzling issue for me I've mentioned before on my blog. Many times I hear that "Islam is a religion of peace," but so often I read about violence done by the hands of Muslims.
Consider this news from Malaysia: "four churches were firebombed early Friday, escalating a dispute over whether Christians here can use the word 'Allah' as their translation for 'God'."
James Hookway reports this in his Wall Street Journal article "Churches Attacked as Tensions Rise in Malaysia."
"Many Malaysian Muslims say the term Allah is exclusive to their faith."
"'For non-Muslims to use this word is an unnecessary provocation,' said Faisal Aziz, president of the National Union of Malaysian Muslim Students."
According to the article, Malaysia actually had to resort to a court decision to allow Catholics to use the term 'Allah' for the word God. Certainly disagreement is permitted in this world, but it is generally regarded as not legitimate to resort to violence as a means of persuading someone, or a group of people, to your point of view. And since we hear so much that "Islam is a religion of peace," I would think that Muslims especially would eschew violence.
Something else puzzles me, too. I usually hear from Muslims that Allah and God are the same; that there's no difference between them. Two words for the same concept. The God of Abraham is the same for Jews, Christians and Muslims. I actually disagree with this, and it seems that I am in agreement with Malaysian Muslims on this point - just not on the right to use violence to disagree.
