The oft-mentioned Bjørn Stærk has attracted the irritation of the folks at Secular Islam, who believe his piece on criticizing religion is part of "a ludicrous pseudo-debate."
Bjørn's piece is straightforward enough, and I don't have much to add to it.
But Irfan Khawaja lumps Bjørn in with Edward Said (of all people), complaining about fallacies involved in Said's arguments and then accuses Bjørn of "bravado, arrogance, ignorance, and illogic." (Don't get me started on the irony that these guys use exactly the same devices as Said used to dismiss Bjørn's opinions).
Khawaja is upset because Bjørn thinks that a discussion on the essence of Islam is useless - anyone who participates can prove whatever they already believe by selecting texts, behaviors, etc. that suit their convictions. Better, says Bjørn, to discuss Islam (or any other religion) as a system of sociology.
Khawaja rejects this premise because Muslims themselves believe Islam has an essence, and also because the behaviors of Muslims would be too varied, and too confusing to begin with:
How on earth can it be easier to generalize across the actions of billions upon billions of people—most of them dead—than it is to grasp the essential claims of the Qur’an, Sunnah, and fiqh? No sociologist or demographer would even pretend to aspire to the first task, but every Muslim on earth is obliged to aspire to the second.
There is no question that every religious person in the world follows what he/she believes is a fundamental essence. But there is plenty of evidence that this essence is elusive to an objective observer. Three points to consider:
1. The diversity of religious communities. Within Christianity, there are deep splits between Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Gnostism, and any number of smaller churches. And within these main groups, there are countless subdivisions that differ markedly from each other. Within Judaism - a much smaller religious community - there are dozens of flavors of haredi communities, several varieties among the modern Orthodox, at least two within the Conservative movement, Reconstructionism, Reform, Humanist, etc. Christians believe that the Resurrection is the pivotal event in their theology; Jews in a special Covenant. But you can count endlessly the number of "essences" that exist within each of these. There will be overlaps but also distinctions of great significance for those who choose one over the other.
2. The need for exegesis in all these religions. If there is a clear essence to be found in the Koran, why is Sunnah and Fiqh necessary supplements? In Judaism, there is the Written Torah, the Oral Torah and Talmud, prophetic writings, other biblical writings, commentary, legal rulings, parables, etc., etc. The Roman Catholic Church - to take one prominent example - has its own Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that only deals with issues of "essence."
3. The evolution of religions over time. This point will surely attract charges of heresy, but there is no escaping the fact that each religion has changed significantly over time, and it's anyone's argument whether the essence has changed as well.
The point is that the struggle to define a religion just happens to resemble the struggle to make sense of life. (This, by the way, is why you don't have to be a naive fool to be religious - the question should be, "which type of struggle is most compatible with my approach to life," rather than "can I believe the theology of one religion or another?")
Each of the Jewish movements believes its version of Judaism is closer to the essence of Judaism than the others, and they'll assemble pretty convincing arguments for their respective claims. Similarly, each Christian denomination believes that if Jesus came back, he'd be one of them. And I have to think that each devout Muslim believes his/her interpretation of Islam is closest to what the Prophet would have chosen.
I don't think Bjørn suggests that religion can't be critically questioned, and I certainly don't think so. But it's telling that both atheist and religious critics of Islam tend toward the same basic argument: there is something wrong with Islam's essence, as if that essence exists outside of the life it's given by Muslims themselves.
Those who think of banning Islam (whatever that actually means) do so because they believe that the essence of Islam through some mysterious mechanism compels some of its followers to blow up school buses, put their women in bhurkas, and neglect their body hygiene. Eliminate Islam, they say, and those very people will start loving children, grant women equal rights, and discover showers and deodorants.
It's telling that every totalitarian, violent regime known to humankind invented its own religion, even it claimed to be atheistic. The Nazis were a cult if there ever was one; Communism was about purist beliefs; etc.
All this raises a question no amount of blog battles will resolve: whether religions are revealed or invented. For a devout Muslim/Jew/Christian, etc., certain theological premises are treated as objective realities. For others, these premises are myths and legends.
Khawaja unwittingly (I think) proves this point when he rants:
Does God exist? “Let’s not look.” Does faith supersede reason? “Let’s change the subject.” Do the demands of the afterlife supersede the requirements of this one? “It’s a matter of perspective.” Are the claims of the Qur’an true? “Depends on how you define ‘truth’.” Does Islam provide a basis for a viable political order? “Sorry, that question is too divisive.” Is there a connection between the precepts of Islam and Islamic terrorism? “Sorry, that question is too essentialist.”
I think these questions are worth asking, and I'd guess they interest Bjørn, too. But you don't have to know that much theology to understand that different people will provide different answers with no hope of a middle ground, for all but one or two of them.
Let's see:
- Does God exist? An atheist will say "no," an agnostic "maybe," and a religious person "I believe so." Nothing to do with looking; simply a matter of personal conviction.
- Does faith supersede reason? Religious people observe that reason has provable limits, and that faith transcends those limits. Atheists will also concede that their ability to reason is limited, but don't believe that faith helps. See above.
- Do the demands of the afterlife supersede the requirements of this one? A question that only makes sense if you believe there is an afterlife, no?
- Are the claims of the Q'uran true? If you believe that the Q'uran, the Torah, the Gospels, the Book of Mormon, etc., are divinely revealed, they must by definition be literally true, by any definition of truth. Where reality and scripture conflict, it is because we are limited in our ability to understand reality. For atheists, these books are written by people in their time and just as limited as any historical work of literature.
- Does Islam provide a basis for a viable political order? OK, that's a more interesting question, and it seems to me that Muslims owe the world an answer. Indications are that yes, Islam does provide as viable a basis as anything else, but not that one automatically follows from the other.
- Is there a connection between the precepts of Islam and Islamic terrorism? This is the crux of the issue that Bjørn and everyone are discussing. But let's be clear that "connection" is a tenuous concept. There is no question that terrorists invoke Islam in their service, nor that at least some of them sincerely believe their actions are justified by their religious belief. But this alone doesn't prove that Islam leads to terrorism. Correlation does not equate to causality - there are other explanations to consider.
Comments