In Response to Steve Zara

Steve Zara has posted a very well thought out blog post here:

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/194719.html

Part of that was directed at me specifically, and part of it is using my post on Geert Wilders (see the post below) as a point of departure for commentary on 'cultureism'. So I shall take as my point of departure the comments that were directed at me and then comment more generally on the themes about which Steve writes. The comment directed at me is reposted below:

To deal directly with the topic of Al's post: Is Fitna bigoted? On balance, I
would say it is. It shows a selection of sutras (sic) from the Koran against a
background of atrocities and oppression. This simplistic message is clearly
intended to indicate group blame, and to create an impression about Muslims in
general. It does not show the truth: that everyone interprets and selects even
from doctrine that is supposed to be perfect and complete. It uses a common
political strategy: throw in enough guilt by association to encourage fear and
prejudice, but back off just enough to give plausible deniability.

I take away something very different from Fitna. It is a selection of Suras no doubt, but they are suras dealing with violence and the Kuffar (a derogatory term used by Muslims to refer to non believers) and violence that has been perpetrated by Muslims which would be ideologically linked to the Qur'an in general and possibly these suras in specific. Is this simplistic? No I don't feel it is, it is drawing a line of filiation from the canonical texts of Islam to the violence perpetrated by Muslims (in fact the perpetrators themselves state what their motivation is openly, and Wilders is a bigot for reading it back to them?). Is this unfair? No, it is a reality as we see a disproportionate amount of religiously driven violence being perpetrated by Muslims. To make the connection more apparent, Steve has said that verses of the Qur'an are taken piecemeal by Muslims, and this is no doubt true. But as we see the preeminence of verses espousing violence, bigotry and hate makes it more likely that one of these cherry-picked verses will be unpleasant, as a matter of probability. Add to this the principle of naskh (abrogation, which states that if two verses are contradictory, the one last revealed abrogates the former, and the later revelations are the more violent and intolerant verses) and we see that many more of the nice verses are excised away, leaving a greater portion of the relevant revelation violent and unpleasant. Furthermore, if you ask just about any Muslim on the planet if the Qur'an is the inerrant word of Allah in its entirety, he or she would say yes. The inescapable logical conclusion is that they must place equal weight on the verses that are unpleasant as the ones that have some valuable moral lesson. And if they don't, certainly their local imam would call them to account for this blasphemy.

It may create a view of Muslims in general, but that is unavoidable in any discussion of Islam and its canonical texts. But thinking about people in terms of groups isn't always a bad thing. For instance if I could demonstrate with certainty that 80% of Romanian immigrants will commit a crime, but I couldn't tell which ones specifically, wouldn't it be prudent to restrict immigration from Romania, or at least more intensely screen Romanians entering my country (a hypothetical country)? Wouldn't it be a dereliction of duty for a leader to let political correctness endanger lives?

There is a difference between enjoying having a cultural history, even a
cultural identity, and trying to claim privilege because of that identity. That
works for both those in the culture and those outside it. People in cultures
based on religion or race sometimes call for special respect for those cultures
because religion involves deep personal feelings, and race can be a source of
prejudice.

It is worth noting that not all cultures are equal. In our liberal western states there is a belief that all cultures have something to add, and, as a corollary, are thus equal. This is patently false, not all cultures are equal when we consider human rights, women's rights, honesty, etc... More specifically when we discuss a culture claiming superiority, Islam is a case and point example. Islam thrusts itself upon the world claiming superiority and dominance (and encourages violence to achieve these ends). Islam is a perfect example of religious arrogance. Why is saying this wrong? The textual evidence is manifest, the statements of prominent Muslims stating this are manifest, so why do we pretend it isn't the case?

I used to think culture different from race. It is, but not as much as I
thought. I thought that you were born into race, but could escape from culture.
How naïve I was. This means that racial and cultural prejudice have the same
basis - fear and hatred of differences based on accident of birth.

This is a very nice notion, pleasant and warm and fuzzy in all the right places, but it doesn't change the fact that not all cultures are equal, nor should all be given respect simply for existing. But leaving culture aside, I specifically cited a religion, Islam. Islam is an ideology and regardless of how or where one was born, it remains a chosen ideology. People should not be judged based on some facet of their being over which they have no control (race, gender, etc...) yet the fundamental basis of any just society is the principle that people will be held accountable for their choices. Islam (despite its fatalistic nature) is a chosen ideology. The many unpleasant things that seem to be attendant are also chosen. Any person professing Islam does so through a choice, even if this choice is influenced in some way. People can and should be held to account for their choices. If you choose to espouse Islamic and Shariah supremacism you should be closely monitored, if you choose to act on this you should be prosecuted. I suspect Steve and I don't differ much here.

The initial point was about Geert Wilders and his right to say what he pleases about Islam. Furthermore I protested that the British government was caving into threats of violence from a group of intolerant bigots. Instead of telling the Muslim community that violence will not be tolerated as a response to criticism, the British government has chosen to suppress criticism by refusing travel to a man who has said nothing untrue. The truth always hurts the most it seems. Wilders has the right to say these things, however we feel. The scary thing for me about his prosecution is that it is supported by almost every Muslim to comment publicly, and by no coincidence in Shariah criticism of Muhammad or the word of Allah is a blasphemy worthy of death. And thus Muslims have called for Wilders' death and he now lives under guard. Others such as Theo Van Gogh were not so lucky, his criticism of Islam so enraged Muslims that one slashed Van Gogh's throat and stuck a knife in his chest warning other critics of Islam to shut up. Can one really say their is no connection between rising Muslim populations, insitutionalized Islamic intolerance and violence, and a rise in violence perpetrated by Muslims for crimes that are not crimes save in Islam? Is it any wonder that Islam is doctrinely anti-Jewish and anti-semitic incidents in European countries with large Muslim populations are on the rise? Is it any coincidence that Islam is institutionally misogynistic, and Muslim communities in France are shown to have far higher instances of domestic abuse directed at women? The 57 member OIC has made it a point to attempt to suppress criticism of Islam at the UN level, and it seems to be working. Only one group seems to be after this, only one group is threatening its critics with war, death, and oppression 'the group that shall not be named'.

In a civilized society each adult has the responsibility to look at the
situation they are in, and consider any privileges that they may have because of
their birth, and also to help deal with the flaws in their culture. Ignorance of
human rights is not an excuse for avoiding this, any more than ignorance of the
law of the land is an excuse to avoid prosecution. We have a duty to research
our responsibilities. But, that responsibility is a personal one. It should not
mean that group punishment, or even group hatred, is ever right even if some in
a culture threaten us all.

I can agree to a large extent with this statement, however some issues arise. If we object to policies centered on certain groups, does this mean that affirmative action programs should end? Governments the world over have used racial preference to attempt to redress past wrongs, would it be wrong of them to use group preference to prevent future wrongs? Is it wrong for Israel to gerrymander demographics through special marriage laws for people who marry a foreign Arab, but right for the United States to give preference to African American applicants to universities? Group based preferential treatment is either wrong or its not, we cannot logically pick and choose here. People tend not to think of the repercussions of certain ideas or policies. I once followed a discussion between Norman Finkelstein (a flagrantly anti-Zionist American writer and failed academic) and a detractor on the topic of Bernie Madoff and Jewish charities. Finkelstein said "I don't support ethnic based charities". I thought to myself; "I doubt he will be out picketing The United Negro College Fund".