I recently read a blog post by Sam Harris, an accomplished writer and one of the leading voices in the school of New Atheism. In his post, he argued the notion of “Islamophobia” is an “intellectual blood libel to protect intrinsically harmful ideas from criticism.” While this is a loaded phrase that may appear untrue at face value, I came to agree with his rather “extreme” ideas.
Harris is highly skeptical of the unwavering dedication to tolerance perpetuated by liberal voices across the country, especially when one realizes the scope of extremism and violence associated with the Islamic faith. He observes, for example, that when “The Book of Mormon” — a highly celebrated musical satirizing the Mormon religion — came out, the LDS church protested the play only by placing advertisements for its religion in the playbill. Evidently, American playwrights felt safe criticizing Mormons, because, in Harris’ words, “Mormons do not dispatch assassins to silence their critics or summon murderous hordes in response to satire.”
One does not need to look far to confirm Harris’ statement. Charlie Hebdo and many other terrorist attacks in recent history have demonstrated that institutions that claim affiliation with Islam (such as al-Qaeda and ISIS) do not tolerate criticism, regardless of whether it comes from Western artists or their own neighbors. And, while it may be distasteful to criticize the religious identity of almost 2 billion people (as opposed to a mere 15 million Mormons), the fact remains that some Muslims support the use of violence against outsiders and dissidents.
In fact, support for violent action among Muslims is hardly a fringe opinion; in regions like Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, roughly 40 percent of the Muslim population believe violence can be a justifiable action. In Nigeria, 20 percent of Muslims regard ISIS in a favorable light. Even though plenty of Muslim-majority countries exist where upwards of 80 or 90 percent of the population oppose the use of violence, one can still estimate support for the extremist movement to be around 20 percent of the global Muslim population, an estimate Harris labeled “conservative” in a recent interview.
Furthermore, a large portion of the Muslim community is vying for geopolitical power on a religious basis. This is a frightening truth we need to recognize, and we can do so without insinuating any religion is “better” than another, or that we are bigoted for calling attention to it. Was Jesus the voice of “Judeophobia”? Were Rousseau and Voltaire the voices of “Christianophobia”? Of course they were. These individuals recognized a truth that has been proven over and over again: theocracies tend toward repression of liberties and violence, regardless of the words that are written in the books or the people who practice the religion peacefully. Why, then, are individuals who make similar arguments today regarded as intolerant racists?
In an essay from 2006, Harris controversially stated that “the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.” While his words can be (and were) misinterpreted, his sentiment remains valid today, even in terms of the political conversation in the United States. Liberals sometimes lash out at those who attach any negative label to the religion of Islam; if certain individuals believe, like Harris, that the worldwide Muslim community should take responsibility for the extremist movement, then they are “Islamophobic” and their opinions are invalid.
Even President Barack Obama has questioned the correlation between the practice of Islam and extremism, stating recently that the Muslim community needs to look closely at how to quell the “twisted notion that somehow [Muslims] can kill innocent people” in a manner justified by religion.
The far right, of course, takes no issue in denouncing the modern negatives of the Islamic faith, and while bombastic fools may hinder the productivity of the conversation, conservatives are not “Islamophobes” for believing the United States should be doing everything in its power to topple liberty-restricting regimes in Africa and the Middle East.
Many Muslims regard their religion as a political guide that holds influence in both public and private spheres. Yet, while we should be respectful of this fact (the United States is still governed by several Christian principles), we must also recognize that religion and geopolitical power cannot be associated in a just, peaceful world, especially when this form of leadership encroaches on sovereignty, safety and freedom. Religion is a central value to billions of people, but it should only be free in practice, not in influence.
Liberal rhetoric is certainly well-intentioned, and political correctness has its time and place, but we must recognize the true magnitude of our unwillingness to directly address the problem. We must recognize that our unwavering dedication to “tolerance” may be enabling exactly the opposite.
Ryan Gorman is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at r.gorman@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 6 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
