Islam

This is a topic that would in many cases get me in a lot of trouble. Fortunately, no one reads this thing so I am safe. At any rate, why am I entering into a discussion about Islam? Moreover, what is that discussion? The discussion is about the compatibility of Islam as a religion and the liberal societies of Europe, the US, Canada, etc. This is not a new subject and one that cannot be addressed completely here (or a book, for that matter) but it is a discussion that should be occurring. I bring it up now because of a few things I came across in the news today. One is the announcement by a Danish court to dismiss a lawsuit by Islamic groups and scholars against the newspaper that published the now infamous cartoons of the Prophet. They were not pleased by the decision, needless to say. There is also the issue of the Muslim Mufti in Australia who opined recently that perhaps the sexual harassment women face would not occur if they dressed properly or stayed at home (his fellow imams are calling for him to step down because of this). And the last point may be the minor blip of a story that seems to be festering below the surface in the UK- the issue of fully veiled Muslim women. Together they give me a good reason to wander down this difficult path.

Many people, often thoughtful ones, even liberal ones, have been forced to ask themselves if there is something inherent in Islam that makes it incompatible with the liberal freedoms espoused in many Western states (e.g. free speech, freedom of expression, etc.). Many Muslims have asked this as well (such as the former Dutch MP who co-wrote the film that got Theo Van Gogh killed). But let's go with free speech since that seems to be a big problem (the man who killed Van Gogh said he did not think he should live in a country with freedom of speech). There is nothing inherent in Islam that says one cannot espouse their thoughts. But the history of free speech in Europe comes directly out of an anti-clerical, anti-religious tradition. The dominance of religion (Christianity) was seen by many Europeans as a hindrance to their freedom and many of them are happy to see its role in society greatly diminished (my views on that can be seen in an earlier post- Jesus Camp). Islam specifically forbids criticism of the Prophet and considers production of his image to be sacrilegious. So while Islam is not incompatible with free speech it is incompatible with those acts of speech that might criticise the religion itself. This is a serious problem.

Many in the West (rightly) view religion to be no more than a philosophy and body of thought on what is right and wrong that also prescribes and proscribes certain behaviours. So like any body of thought that seeks to tell people how to act it ought to be open to critical investigation, which includes humorous criticism. This very fact is what led to the now infamous cartoons. This tendency in and of itself is pretty bad but coupled with the tacit acceptance of violence in the 'defense of Islam' by many Islamic scholars makes this a serious problem. I often criticise, lampoon, and maybe even offend very devout Christians but few of them are likely to kill me over it (unless I stand up for a woman's choice) and I generally don't feel threatened by them. But discussing Islam requires some fancy footwork at times. This problem, however, has only recently come up. The far larger problem that has preoccupied many a Westerner is the place of women in Islamic societies, which seems to get to the very heart of our cherished liberal freedoms (not to mention lengthy history with feminism).

Not many people could argue that the lot of women in Muslim countries is anything but shit. If they are not covered head to toe in black burlap in the desert sun, they are hidden away in their darkened homes forbidden to answer the door. But any careful study of Muslim countries would also reveal a lot of variations in the condition of women. In Saudi Arabia they are pretty much at the bottom of the heap but in neighbouring, and equally devout, Iran women have a lot more freedom. Not only can they drive cars but they can and do sit in parliament. In the language of comparative politics, Islam can't be the causal variable then. The cultural practices of these countries are probably more likely the problem. Such is also likely the case for the more abhorrent practices attributed to Islam like genital mutilation. But barring minor deviations and the rare abhorrent mutilation, Islam does put men in a higher position than women. The point I want to note about that is so does Christianity (Promise Keepers, anyone?).

This point should not, however, distract us from the very real problem of a growing clash, particularly in Europe, between the Muslim immigrants and locals (I don't by Huntington's Clash of Civlization thesis BS, mind you). Much of the anger that is currently espoused in religious rhetoric by Muslims likely stems from their real outcast status in their adopted societies. Muslims in France, the Netherlands, and elsewhere are often poorer, unemployed, and far less integrated into society than other immigrant groups. Their greater integration and upward social mobility in the US may explain the less outright clash (though the administration's treatment of Muslims as people might cause all sorts of other problems). It becomes easy to explode about a little cartoon when you feel like society already shits on you. The problem is a failure to integrate immigrants into society.

Here's the rub, though. Jack Straw, the former Foreign Minister for the UK, recently noted that he feels uncomfortable talking with his constituents when they wear the full hijab (head to toe covering that has many names) that hides one's face. The issue is similar to the ban on headscarves in France. It is an outward symbol of one's separateness. In some cases women want to wear the headscarf as a symbol of their belonging to another group, to Islam. How do you integrate people who wish to be separate? What do you do with a group of people that desires to be clothed head to toe and then says that the bare flesh of the young woman next to her makes her uncomfortable? Those arguing for the consociational democracy and pillared society of the tolerant Netherlands might note that it hasn't quite worked well there either.

As I've said before, liberal values are quite open and tolerant but they don't fit well with bodies of thought (be they religions or philosophical beliefs) that are more coherent and specific about what is right and wrong. To some extent this element of liberal values needs to be accepted by all who wish to live in our societies. It should probably be clarified for those of us already here too. The man who killed Van Gogh was an anomaly but when people start to believe that free speech should be banned then they are likely a lost cause. Better to let them live where free speech is banned.