I’ve been following MMU Melaka’s Interfaith Talk on and off, and I ran across this article published in their blog. An interesting choice of titles, to say the least, but as a response, it leaves quite a number of burning questions behind, for me at least.
It begins with the question, to quote:
If Islam is the best religion, why are many of the Muslims dishonest, unreliable, and involved in activities such as cheating, bribing, dealing in drugs, etc.?
And the answers are enumerated.
The media maligns Islam
It starts off with a common complaint, the answers to which I found odd: it appears that the ‘Media’ maligns Islam. Not surprisingly, the first salvo claims that the media is in the hands of westerners, who have something against Islam. Well, besides the projection of a siege mentality onto the whole issue, to characterize “westerners” as categorically anti-Islam is quite a generalization to make - and worse, substantiated by nothing but opinion. Hardly inspiring.
Dr Zakir Naik goes on to complain that, whenever a bomb goes off, Muslims come under the spotlight immediately. Well, there is at the very least some empirical basis for this, wouldn’t you say? The Bali bombers were not Buddhist or Jew, and neither were the bombers that blew apart buses and stations in London. Chechen ’separatists’ aren’t Christians or Zorastrians either. So what conclusion should we draw from this? That the likelihood of a suicide bombing being the work of Muslim terrorists is highly likely.
The most interesting comment, however, his comparison of the “newsworthiness” of a 50 year old marrying a 15 year old with her consent, and that of a 50 year old man raping a 6 year old. Dr Zakir does not engage, and does not bring up, the pertinent question of the ethical considerations of marrying a woman below the age of consent, of course. I have my own views on that subject, but the comparison really is a red herring, in my opinion.
Black sheep in every community
There is some kind of admission, at least. What Dr Zakir admits is, I will submit, substantially true of adherents of other religions. What he does complain about is the media’s apparent ‘distortion’ of the facts, making it seem as if only Muslims were afflicted by the common run of vices.
I’m afraid that’s only a perspective; another perspective is that the media finds cases of recalcitrant Muslims newsworthy because it mirrors the genuine shock of the public when it encounters such adherents who proclaim themselves Muslims. But I’m dissembling, here; I’m sure our local dailies print those stories because they are sensational - the reasons why these sort of stories are sensational, I don’t want to speculate.
Muslims best as a whole
It’s interesting to see the benchmarks by which Dr Zakir judges if one community or the other is ‘best’. It appears that a community that consumes the least alcohol is the best, among other things. I suppose that’d be good news for members of the Temperance Society, but hardly a standard by which one judges the moral character of individuals within a community, now is it?
He mentions modesty, also, though I wonder why. I suppose women who don skirts with hemlines about two inches above the knee should be flogged, but questions of comparative standards of morality aside, I do believe there is a substantive difference between enforced modesty and modesty that is a reflection of one’s respect for one’s own body.
Don’t judge a car by its driver
And this is a common plea, among Christians; fancy seeing this here. If a religion cannot be judged by it’s “fruits” amongst its adherents, to use a biblical reference, then how should a religion be judged?
The thing about it is, the argument here calls for a comparison, at the very least, of the system of beliefs held by Muslims and other systems of belief; how else can one judge the worth of a car except by comparison, especially against competing cars? But a religion presupposes a set of ethical standards that are coherent within its own framework.
If you were a relativist and insist that there are correspondences of ethical ‘laws’ between religions (and thereby claim to have the most advanced interpretation of these laws), then you must hold that there is a higher, universal set of values to which all religions subscribe. Better, if yours was an inclusivist religion such as Hinduism, then this poses no problem: a comparison can be made.
(Several steps down that argument, you will have to conclude that your religion is no better than any other religion)
If, however, your religion is exclusivist like Christianity or Islam, then you must hold that your religion holds the complete, unadulterated truth.
But this can only be confirmed and affirmed within the framework of your own system of beliefs, i.e. your own religion. If that is the case, then the affirmation of the superiority of your religion’s “truth” is ultimately circular.
If we cannot have a basis by which to judge the truth of your religion’s teaching except by self-reference, then unless you believe that there are some other substantive ways by which one can judge the value of your religion, there is no value in judging the value of your religion based solely on its tenets.
No, we can only go back to the actions of its adherents.
Judge Islam by its best follower
And in this Dr Zakir refers to prophet Muhammad. I flirted with saying a few things, but given how people have been condemned, have had bounties placed on their heads, have been subject to threats of murder, decapitation and the like, I think it’ll be more…pragmatic to pass over this in silence.
I found the whole article funny, because it sounded more like marketting than actually discussing issues, a short piece prepared in haste. I hope this isn’t how all the articles on the Interfaith Talk blog turn out.
Comments (6)
That’s because we’re all too human
Which is the very thing Dr Zakir ignores, then admits, then goes off the reservation.
Anyways, I’m not satisfied with my post; as I was writing it, I was toying with the idea that there might be a general objection behind my other objections.
Might take some looking into.
you know its very hard to come to a consensus regarding comparative religion and interfaith discussions, especially not when we’re not able to realign our definitions of what exactly is interfaith to allow reasonable discussion in the first place.
Truth be told, it isn’t very difficult; the problem, from what I can recall, rests with monotheistic religions which insist on some form of exclusivity. These religions include judaism, christianity and islam - as far as any agreements are concerned, they only arise as far as moral laws are concerned, but superficially, I think.
I suppose the task of a pluralistic conception of religion requires one to find commonalities, if not in the expression of the divine, at least in the agreement of human ends. Exclusivist religions make this particularly hard when they agree with abstract conceptions of human ends, but disagree on the antecedents to these conceptions.
For example, you and I could agree that humanity’s end (and “end” not as in “end of life”, but as in “ultimate purpose”; religions are necessarily teleological) lies in communion with Supreme Being. But if you were Jew and I were Christian, we’d both disagree on what or who this “Supreme Being” is - a Christian, for example, conceives of God as triune, which has a direct implication on, really, what “communion with Supreme Being” means.
But consider the alternatives; a pluralistic conception of religion is anathema to religions which consider themselves to have the “fullness of revelation”. This includes both Christianity and Islam, as examples. To submit to a pluralistic conception of religion (and therefore adopt an inclusivist vision) which treats of revelation as the property of all religions is to admit that one doesn’t have the fullness of revelation…
…things fall apart from there. I guess it’s why I have a bit more sympathy for these religions against humanists with an agnostic bent; these religions can’t admit anything more inclusivist.
Any religion in it’s pure sense is good, and preaches tolerance.
Islam seems to have been corrupted by manipulative forces not unlike those of a cult. Muslims seem very insecure. If not, why are they always so quick to defend themselves (YET, do nothing when their more fanatical Muslim brothers maim, kill, destroy and hate). If not, why do they FORCE people into converting to Islam, or preventing them by misusing the law from leaving Islam?
They say the media thinks Muslims are terrorists. But the problem is with themselves. Every time there is a terrorist act in the name of Islam, they say nothing. When a “fatwa” is issued (by humans, not God) to KILL someone, they say nothing. When an Islamic country declares war and terrorism on others, they say nothing.
The thing is, I wonder if this is a recent development, this general sense of insecurity. I don’t think the Ottoman turks or the Moors were any less confident of their religion or their place in the world.
Perhaps it’s a matter of empowerment: what changes Muslims feel the have the power to effect. Christianity, for example, has been dealt the same emasculation the modern age heralds, but has had about 300 years to deal with the changes; where there weren’t widespread massacres, opponents of the Church fought with Reason and logic.
What’s different is that the Muslim world (if such a monolithic entity exists) has been thrust face-first into the Industrial age without so much as a by-your-leave. Maybe therein lies the root of the problem?
As for problems inherent in the religion of Islam, I think the same can be said for Judaism and Old Testament Christianity, but then again, I believe that’s a function of the times in which these religions first took root and flourished. I’ve sometimes said, in previous posts, how this opinion should offend Muslims, and I’ve apologized before. However, I don’t think Muslims see what’s so offensive about what I’ve said.
The truth is, if you’re willing to accept that much of the tenets of the Muslim faith arose in the cauldron of war and conflict during prophet Muhammad’s time, and therefore believe that such tenets would look very different in our modern age, then Muslims will have to accept that the “truth” are not “truths” with capital “T’s” - they are not timeless. And if not timeless, and subject to revision, then these tenets fail as the final arbiter of what they prescribe - in law, morality and practice.
I’ll have to point out, though, that it is a weakness that almost all religions face. I’m not sure about religions with a more mystical bent, like Hinduism, for example.