The New York Times reports on the activities of more moderate Muslim leaders in America — men who grew up in America, converted to Islam, and studied overseas.
[Imam Zaid Shakir] said he still hoped that one day the United States would be a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law, “not by violent means, but by persuasion.”
“Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country,” he said. “I think it would help people, and if I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be a Muslim. Because Islam helped me as a person, and it’s helped a lot of people in my community.”
So, this convert to Islam is so happy with his religion that he would like everyone to convert to Islam — he’d like to help others become Muslims too and, someday, he hopes that America will become a “Muslim Nation.” This should be familiar territory to Christians who also would like to convert everyone to Christianity and many of whom see America as a “Christian Nation. Image if he had said:
“Every Christian who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Christian country,” he said. “I think it would help people, and if I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be a Christian. Because Christianity helped me as a person, and it’s helped a lot of people in my community.”
Such consistency is beyond the intellectual and moral skills of some, though. Take the reactions at Jihad Watch, where Shakir is labeled moderate with scare quotes: these are what the New Duranty Times thinks of as “moderates.”
Robert at Jihad Watch seems to consider the above quote to be a sign that Shakir isn’t really a “moderate” but, in fact, is an extremist. Would he use the same language to describe Christians who would like to see people convert to Christianity and who want America to be a Christian Nation? It’s possible, but I doubt it. The same reaction can be found at Little Green Footballs — better known as Little Green Fascists for the authoritarian and racist mindset so common there.
A pamphlet which Shakir wrote in 1992 is getting a lot of attention from critics. This pamphlet warned Muslims not to be “co-opted by American politics.” Shakir further wrote, “Islam presents an absolutist political agenda, or one which doesn’t lend itself to compromise, nor to coalition building.”
That's unquestionably disturbing, but as an atheist I'm frankly not as shocked by it as Christians at Jihad Watch and LGF seem to be. Why? Because I see the same attitude expressed by Christians here in America and Jews in Israel all the time. What Shakir is expressing here is bad, but it's not uniquely bad — it's a basic, undeniable, and inextricable part of just about any religion.
Let's face facts: when you believe that God has issues certain commands for how people are to run their lives, what incentives do you have for compromising on political measures touching on relevant issues? None. In fact, you have the strongest possible incentives to reject compromise: you'd be breaking God's commands and violating God's will. This is not unique to Islam — we can find much the same in religions around the world, but especially monotheistic faiths like Christianity and Judaism.
Obviously this sort of uncompromising absolutism is not unique to religion, either — secular ideologies can acquire absolutist characteristics as well. The tendency towards uncompromising absolutism originates in us human beings, but it is nevertheless stronger in religion because the conditions for it — like the presence of a deity which must be obeyed no matter what — are better.
There are good reasons for being critical of Shakir — of what he believes, what he argues for, and what he represents. Those reasons also apply to many other figures in Christianity and Judaism, however, so criticism of Shakir must be accompanied by a more general criticism of that attitude no matter where it is found, as well as specific criticism of those Christian and Jewish leaders who also manifest it.
A failure to carry out that criticism represents a double-standard — it means that, at the very least, the person is not acting according to principle. We should question, then, what their real motivations are. They aren't being critical merely because of the obvious problems with the statements in question, so what else is playing a role here? The people at Jihad Watch and LGF must have other reasons for their unprincipled attacks on Shakir.
More About Islam:
America is NOT a Muslim nation. It was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophies, not the twisted adoption of both, with an added touch of Middle Eastern barbarism that makes up Islam. Don’t even TRY to equate their attempt to convert the world to their twisted version of worship to the traditional Judeo-Christian values of the United States of America!
The Vatican City was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophies. America was founded on the principles of the enlightenment.
I didn’t say it was.
No, it wasn’t. America is only a “Christian” nation insofar as the majority is and has been Christian.
Oh, right. The United States of America has never tried to invade other nations to “convert” people to its way of life.
Of course the main difference is that Christians don’t believe you should be killed, subjegated or taxed if you don’t submit to their religion. Not to mention getting beheaded, blown up or executed.
Some Christians do indeed believe that you should be executed for offenses like blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, etc. Many Muslims don’t believe the things you list.
It must be exhausting being an athiest. Always having to fight against this God you say doesn’t exist. Seems to me you waste a lot of time beating against the air that way. Oh yeah The Holy Spirit, that does mean wind, doesn’t it? Yeah so I guess you are beating against the air. Good luck with that.
I’m curious: what is it about you that prevents you from being able to recognize the simple, commonsensical distinction between disagreeing with or critiquing the claims of religious theists and “fighting” against some alleged “God”? Atheists certainly do a fair amount of the former, but I’m concerned that you would be able to confuse this for the latter.
To be frank, critiquing religious theism can be a little like beating one’s head against a brink wall. This is due to some believers having such a hard time understanding basic logic.
Well, much of what religious believers claim does sometimes seem like little more than hot air… so I guess the analogy may be apt.
One more thing I’m curious about: why weren’t you able to write a comment that was actually relevant to this blog post, or find some other blog post where this would have been relevant? Or maybe post in the forum?