• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By J.F. Sullivan

While the 9/11 attacks are likely the dominant catalyst, it may be more appropriate to mark the mainstreaming of Islamaphobia with the emergence of Pamela Geller and the Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA) group in 2010.[1]  Their provocative ads, purported to protect Muslim converts to Christianity, read, “Leaving Islam? Fatwa on your head?  Is your family threatening you?”[2] 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q05Y5rlR8FQ

Their campaign was only a small part of what could be viewed as a larger response to the proposed Park 51 complex also known as Cordoba House and the Ground Zero Mosque.  Since this campaign, anti-Islamic actions, ideologies, and orientations—that should be considered Islamaphobic—have become increasingly more common and appear in startlingly diverse places. 

This mainstreaming is less about traditional purveyors of anti-Islamic rhetoric and Qur’an burning ministers, but is instead becoming a regular part of daily community life.  The true mystery is how little pushback there is America against this type of behavior.  So-called Islamic terrorists, extremists, jihadists, and others have long been the subject of anger, hate, and fear but this more recent activity is far less directed at a specific type of extremist, but rather at Islam in general and anyone or anything that seems to suggest something Islamic, no matter how tenuous or ridiculous the connection. 

A good term for this kind of thinking might be “freedom fries ideology” or maybe Voldemortizing.  In mainstreaming, the object of enmity is so scary or distasteful that none may speak its name or have anything to do with anything remotely connected to it.  The rub is that in their fear of the object of derision, they in turn often violate everything they claim to hold dear.

In recent months, an astounding number of Islamaphobic events have occurred with little more than a sotto voce “tsk tsk,” including a situation where a viable candidate for President of the United States (Herman Cain) freely made anti-Islamic comments and took an anti-Islamic position on national television—sadly without any discernible outrage. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsHZ1Z-qG2Y

This activity, combined with a host of other events ranging from numerous anti-Shari’a laws,  protestations against Mosque building,  and general protests of anything Islamic put a surprisingly significant number of our elected (and potentially elected) leaders in an ideological position to demean and discriminate against a segment of American citizens.  The real danger of this type of activity is that it is not directed at faceless “terrorists” in some foreign land, but right here at home with our neighbors and friends.  Teo Sagisman’s excellent essay, “The Day I was Called a ‘Sand Nigger’ by a Tea Party Follower“ is just one example of this.  More recently Whole Foods has come under fire for what some perceive as a pro-Islam position thanks to a supposed Ramadan marketing campaign that coincided with a halal-certified product line.

How this anti-Muslim sentiment has become so seemingly acceptable is largely the result of two elements – Russian Cold War villains and Religio-politics.  The first element is the easiest to understand.  Everyone needs an enemy; heroes can’t be heroic without an enemy of some sort.  For two generations, Russia played the role flawlessly before inconveniently falling.  Since that time, the search for a new Cold War like foe has been a particularly difficult bit of casting. 

Muslims were contenders for the role in the early 1990’s, but they didn’t gain the appropriate notoriety.  With no clear major player to cast, an ensemble of possible threats were assembled—jihadists, gays, liberals, conservatives and the Axis of Evil, to name a few.  Out of this mélange it seemed likely that gays could possibly fill the void left by the Cold War Russians.  After a great first season, gays proved to be far less scary than some had hoped, and the rhetoric which reached a fever pitch in 2004 devolved in something far less monolithic and became, what a majority of people seemed to feel was, mean-spirited.  Thus, a part of this mainstreaming of Islamaphobia may simply be the on-going search for new “Russians.”  However, the second element in this discussion may be far more illuminating. 

Culturally we tend not to tolerate deviance and bad language.  Many public figures can attest that their fall from grace resulted from a romantic indiscretion or public comment that seemed disparaging, marginalizing, anti-Semitic, or racist.  How is it then that Helen Thomas was basically fired for expressing an opinion that some considered anti-Semitic, while Herman Cain is free to state his intention to openly discriminate against Muslims in a nationally televised Republican Primary debate?[3]  NPR’s Juan Williams was held accountable for his anti-Islamic comments, but he simply moved his desk over to Fox News.  The case of anti-Semitic comments may reveal some answers to this issue of mainstream Islamaphobia.  Many of those who hold anti-Islamic ideology are ardent supporters of the nation of Israel, so the contradiction is particularly odd.  If however we re-imagine the debate about Islamaphobia in America in context with a cocktail of Religion, Politics, and Identity it begins to make sense. 

Individually these ingredients are perfectly capable of contributing to disharmony, but when combined and conflated, the composition drastically changes.  There have been growing concerns about the politicization of religion, and more recently the religionization of politics.  The concern arises when religious ideology and political ideology become conflated.  For example, Israel is a nation but it is also a Jewish state.  Therefore, anti-Israeli comments can be construed as anti-Semitic.  In this way, there is no difference between the Israeli national identity and the Jewish religious identity.  So too for perceptions of Islam and politics, which are often conflated by both Americans and Muslims.  Thus religious and political motivations, positions, and ideologies are seen as interchangeable.  With this mode of understanding, a political attack carried out by agents who happen to be Muslims is understood as an attack by Islam.  Conversely, an attack on Taliban political leadership is also an attack on Islam.  This same situation applies to nations like Iran, and potentially the United States as well. 

The perception of America as a Christian nation has been around for some time now, and has itself gone mainstream.  Take for example the recent dust-up over a Hindu statue of Ganesh in an Idaho art exhibit.  Although there is no perceived Hindu threat to America, the statue of Ganesh was seen by some as problematic specifically because it conflicted with the “Christian America narrative” by promoting a religion that was not Christianity. 

The conflation of politics and religion becomes especially flammable when identity is added to the mixture. [4]  As a result, political attacks become religious attacks and religious attacks become political attacks, and thanks to the politics of identity, those attacks become issues with potentially cosmic consequences.  Thus, what might be a simple political conflict escalates into a religious conflict that puts the eternal universe, or at the very least the fate of the free world, at stake. 

 

 In Terror in the Mind of God, Mark Juergensmeyer identifies this type of conflict a “Cosmic War.”  With this much at stake, it begs the question, what are you authorized to do to prevail in a conflict with potentially cosmic consequences?  If the answer is, “whatever you have to do,” then it authorizes any number of positions or activities that may have been unacceptable under any other circumstances.  As a result, perceived discriminatory positions or even hate-speech may be deemed acceptable in a fight for a Christian nation that is under attack by the forces of evil. Likewise, public figures cease to be common political entities and take on the role of “defenders of the faithful.”  And, if politics and religion have already been conflated, one who defends a political position is likewise defending a religious position.  Through this conflated lens, American patriotism can be identified as a Christian virtue just as preceived disloyalty to country can be viewed as un-Christian. 

Taken in this context, with the stakes amplified by identity, we can see why anti-Islamic rhetoric is allowed to continue and confrontations over mosques, Shari’a law, Ramadan, and halal-certified food become far more commonplace than anyone might expect.  After all, expressing too much outrage could have a host of negative consequences, not the least of which might be the association with and support of terrorists and terrorist ideology – “you are either with us or you are with the terrorists!”

The only way to remedy the mainstreaming of Islamaphobia is to make it as intolerable to American culture as any other form of inequality.  Unfortunately, this can only be accomplished through a combination of knowledge and applied critical thinking, both of which seem to be in increasingly short supply of late.

 

---

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By J.F. Sullivan

This has been an odd year for history, politics and religion.  While Sarah Palin has provided the media and the rest of the country with many gems, the recent spate of mangled metaphors has illuminated what appears to be something of trend, if not a new strategy when history and religion are combined.

The development of alphabetic literacy (writing with vowels) by the ancient Greeks allowed speech to be directly represented.  As a result, reality could be recorded, communicated and preserved in this new form.  While originally intended to aid in memory and recall, it instead helped to create a repository (books and scrolls) where information could be stored, not only preserving it, but eventually creating a collection that exceeded anyone’s ability to memorize.  By writing something down, it indeed preserved it, but it also allowed the possibility for comparison, which helped to create the concept of history as fact. 

In the time before written history, myth was the dominant form of storage for information about history and culture – however, it was never understood as unassailable fact or even fact at all.  Myth was neither true nor untrue, it was a story about something important, but its value was not in establishing truth or fact, but rather to convey information in a story.  Once history is written down then an historical story becomes fixed and is now comparable.  Thus, one can compare any new history to any previous history allowing for the possibility of true and untrue histories, which is why many understand myths as stories that are untrue.  While this is ultimately an incorrect way to understand myth, it does highlight a particular orientation toward the veracity of history vis-à-vis myth as well as the general orientation toward the truth value of stories.

Sacred texts, stories, and histories are often seen as true in the same factual way that history is perceived.  The combination of these fact-based perceptions of historical and religious stories takes on an added difficulty when the factual truth becomes the standard by which stories are judged.  In this way, written mythic stories, be they historical or religious, are seen either as provable by fact or proof of fact.  This is the same orientation that has scientists and others scouring the Near East and the Mediterranean in search of archaeological proof of biblical history, or why Plato’s Timaeus and Critias has resulted in millions of dollars being spent in search of Atlantis.  In the first case facts (history, archaeology etc.) can verify biblical stories, and in the second, Plato is the factual source from which historical and archaeological research is conducted.  This combination of history, religion, and fact is a relatively modern phenomenon and may be fueling current political discourse, especially in the case of individuals and groups operating with both religious and political agendas.

Recently we have been hit with a long stream of metaphors which, when taken together, seem to suggest an orientation toward facts and history that could have serious ramifications.  Let’s start with the Tea Party.  Their name is a reference to the Revolutionary War era Boston Tea Party, this metaphor combines the mythic history of the United States along with a protest about taxes.  While the purpose of the modern Tea Party may be perfectly valid, the metaphor unfortunately is not.  One of the primary complaints that inspired the Boston Tea Party was taxation without representation, which is very different from not liking the representation or the policies created by the representatives.  Another aspect of the original Tea Party protest was also against a veritable monopoly on tea importation by the British East India Company – equally bizarre, given the traditional big business orientation of some in this group and especially among their Republican allies (this was a very large feature of last week’s New Hampshire Republican debate).  While some might argue the ultimate intentions of many within this group, the problem that I am highlighting is the seemingly incorrect invocation of the Boston Tea Party history/legend and what this example illuminates for the larger discussion of history and fact.

The next example is Sarah Palin’s famous “blood libel” comment to describe her being criticized for previously seeming to advocate armed violence in the wake of the Gabriel Gifford’s shooting in Arizona.  Palin’s comments understandably caused an uproar, especially given that “blood libel” has a long history that most often refers to false accusation toward Jews for perpetrating alleged violence against children and Christians, which in turn resulted in much actual violence against Jews.  By invoking the “blood libel” story, rather than simply saying the connection between her rhetoric and the violent event was false or unrelated, Palin chose to use a term that had an existing history associated with it—that did not speak to the situation in which it was now being used.  So what does it mean that Palin and the Tea Party have misused historical/religious stories and data, especially when the daylight between stories about American national history and American Christian sacred history seems so dim?

A recent issue in Idaho may help to put these two previous invocations in context.  In this story, a small Idaho town displayed a travelling art show in which a statue of the Hindu deity Ganesh was featured along with many other non-Hindu statues and other works of art.  The inclusion and display of the Ganesh statue was protested by representatives of the Kootenai County Constitution Party, who argued that presenting and dedicating a statue of a Hindu “demon” was tantamount to idol worship. 

Two elements of this story highlight the most troubling aspects of the trend I want to explore, which results from a bizarre combination of revisionism and ignorance.  In this case, the reader is greeted by a strange contradiction in which a Constitution Party, who on their website

declare[s] the platform of the Constitution Party to be predicated on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights.

At first glance it seems odd that a group which takes the constitution so seriously would seemingly ignore the first amendment.  However, their action makes more sense when you scroll down the page and discover that they also assert that

“This great nation [America] was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” and “the goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations,” in which, “the U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law.”

And herein lays the problem.  This group’s particular interpretation of history and religion are not borne out by data, and seem to represent a preferred historical story rather than an evidentiary-based one.  This is absolutely their inalienable right to believe, but it poses some significant challenges.  Once written history becomes factual, the possibility exists that history can be manipulated and distorted by altering the facts and the data from which the supposed factual history was derived.  It is in the midst of that potential manipulation, combined with the blending of national history and sacred history that creates a hazardous relationship.  If facts are the standard by which history (and by extension religion) is authorized, then a misrepresentation of the facts or a complete re-write would seem to be highly problematic.

We have spent years going through numerous challenges to the Darwinian Theory, because of its apparent conflict with religious teaching, which then resulted in the scientific-sounding intelligent design theory as an alternative to evolution.  However, I think this latest trend is a bit different.  What the Constitution Party’s platform and reimagining of the founding fathers’ orientation and intention offers is not an alternative interpretation of history, but a rewriting of history that is based, not on new data or alternative theories, but rather on a preference for an unsubstantiated national history that fits a religio-political agenda. 

Some may see this as a small group with fringy ideas, but their activities are eerily in line with those in Texas who successfully passed their own revisionist curriculum that, according to the NYT’s James McKinley, stresses

the superiority of American capitalism, question[s] the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and present[s] Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

This orientation toward the founding fathers and constitutional mythology was also expressed in more politically correct language by Tim Pawlenty in the New Hampshire Republican debate.

Another recent example of this phenomenon is Sarah Palin’s now infamous mangling of the Paul Revere Story.  Even Fox News’ Chris Wallace, who has been known to be partisan on many occasions, called Palin on the flub, but much to the dismay of everyone, she not only didn’t cop to the mistake but proceeded to spin the story so that her version was actually spot on (according to her).  While this may have appeared no more than political weaseling and/or an inability to admit to any errors, what happened next was even more interesting. 

Palin supporters, undeterred by facts or accepted legends, attempted to literally rewrite Wikipedia so as to match Palin’s story.  This tactic is far more than spin or fervent support of a celebrity and represents a trend we should all be watchful for.  Most historians, along with most scientists, recognize that their theories or interpretations are only as good as their data, and I would hope most would be willing to revisit their ideas and theories in light of new data.  Because history is based on available data, it is always an interpretation, but that does not mean it is subject to what we might call ‘imagineering.’ What this trend suggests is that rather than adjusting ideas and theories based on data, some individuals (or groups) in conflict with existing historical data simply rewrite history to suit their needs. 

When this type of revisionism involves both national and religious history, the trend becomes particularly troubling.  After all, if a group can be a Constitution Party and effectively ignore aspects of the very document that they believe is foundational to their organization simply by altering history for their own ideological ends what then becomes of religious history if similar groups see the national mission as a religious and political hybrid that is open to the same revisionism?  Unfortunately that question has already been answered by the Conservative Bible Project which is rewriting the bible without all of the “liberal” and “left-wing” language.

The real danger that comes from this trend is not that it is occurring, but that the combination of ignorance and a lack of critical thinking skills could result in the very data changes that many of these groups are seeking.  If the textbooks, history and religion all change then there will be little defense for actual data.  As it stands, this is already beginning to happen, not just from the alarming number of people who seem perfectly happy to change facts regarding established history or science, but they do so from a continued lack of basic knowledge about history or religion.  Case in point, Steve Anthony, from the same city group in Idaho who approved the display of Ganesh admitted, “I’ll be quite honest with you, some people didn’t know it was part of the Hindu culture.” (Cole Heath, KREM.com)  While this is not a surprising occurrence, it does add to the difficulty.  If the dissemination of fabricated data and revisionist history becomes the norm and no one is able to refute it, then the revision becomes the real and history and religion can be changed.  The end result is that someone else’s god can be turned into a demon violating the Christian biblical foundation of America and a dyed-in-the-wool enlightenment deist (like Jefferson) becomes the equivalent of protestant evangelical Christian.  It also poses a serious challenge to learning if facts become malleable and educational training and development is not dependent upon facts, but rather on the religio-political orientation of the school board, state or nation in which one is educated. 

Post Script: A recent report in the journal, Media Psychology appears to confirm some of the concerns raised in this article.  Through “media priming” viewers, readers or listeners may be emotionally and behaviorally influenced by exposure to media –http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/13/6851542-watching-jersey-shore-might-make-you-dumber-study-suggests) – thus, the impact of exposure to unsubstantiated claims and unsupported history may prime people for more of the same, and potentially result in an inability to distinguish between the two.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By J.F. Sullivan

Edward Said

That Edward Said’s book Orientalism is a classic is not in dispute.  That it is still relevant today is also clear; this 1978 text and its subsequent editions have been used by countless classrooms and is a required book in no less than (but possibly more than) three courses this semester at Georgia State University alone.  Its continued relevance is a testament to the degree with which the conversation about Orientalism rages on.  Regardless of anyone’s particular feelings about the book or its arguments, it has to be credited (at least in part) with a profound shift in the academic and public discussions about colonialism, imperialism, and the value of the emic (insider) perspective.  It is difficult to say how much of the book’s value lies in the text itself or what has been done with it by others.  While I think Said correctly identified the problem of Orientalism and its relationship to discourses of power, namely the collective (and potentially domineering) imagination vis-à-vis the Orient, its peoples and its relative value; after more than 25 years since its initial publication, it is now questionable whether his identification of the problem of Orientalism has inspired many beneficial results.

Indeed it is possible that the after effects and unintended consequences that came in the wake of Said’s book may have done more to negatively impact perceptions of the Orient (specifically the Middle East) than it was intended to help.  Anyone even superficially examining the rhetoric as well as the images or representations of Muslims, Arabs, Middle Easterners etc. in America today, may see no real signs of any enlightened thinking or greater understanding of the peoples or cultures of the so-called orient, even this many years after Said’s treatise.

Astonishingly, the wake of Said’s Orientalism may have led to the hindrance of a key element of cultural understanding which might have proved helpful in abating some of the oppositional rhetoric and cultural conflict which has fueled negative sentiments between both the Middle East and the “West” but also may have mitigated some of the rhetoric and actual violence perpetrated on, and following, the events of 9/11.

The Guardian’s Jonathan Jones, in an intriguing opinion piece written in response to criticism of an exhibition held at London’s Tate Britain Art Gallery entitled The Lure of the East: British Orientalist Painting, criticized Said and his treatise, along with the damage he believes was done to the western appreciation and understanding of the Middle East, thus producing some of the rampant Islamaphobia going on in the West.

Today the West is bleakly incurious about the history of Islam, its art, peoples and learning.  There’s a blank wall of terror.  This wall has been strengthened by Said’s book because it closes down a crucial way for cultures to encounter one another: it closes down romanticism.

Jones’ observation is a simple but potent one.  As he continues,

Europeans and Americans in the 19th century knew more about the cultures of the Middle East than we do now.  They read the Tales of the 1001 Arabian Nights and dreamt of the Alhambra.  Was this just a complacent Imperialist celebration of power, based on the contrast between nostalgia for the great Oriental past and contempt for the Arab present?  No, I think there was real curiosity and admiration.  But where has it gone?

What Jones points out is that in the attempt to respond to the Orientalism that Said illuminated, we may have thrown the baby out with the bath water.  While Jones treats Said more harshly than I think he deserves, the point is well taken.  Does romanticism play a role in cultural understanding which helps to alleviate phobias and stereotypes?  I would argue that it does.

Romanticism is not history and was never intended to be taken literally or understood to be historically accurate.  What it does do is inspire.  Many who would go on to become some of the greatest of Orientalist scholars were raised on a diet of travel writing, art, and fantastic and exotic stories about the oriental world (again primarily the Middle East). This was not a new phenomenon however.  The same fantasies that inspired scholars to seek the orient were not dissimilar from the attitudes and fantasies about the Greeks that inspired scholars and philosophers to study ancient Greek culture and also pursue its treasures both literal and figurative.  This manner of inspiration continues to this day.

Many modern martial artists and Asian Studies aficionados acquired their first flash of inspiration from Bruce Lee, Saturday morning kung fu theatre, and stories of ninjas and samurai.  Not an insignificant number of archaeologists under the age of 45 may have received their first push toward their discipline of study from Indiana Jones.  In the same way, many modern day Islamacists and Middle Eastern Studies scholars (myself, and Said by his own admission included) were inspired by the art and stories collected and created by those who would now be caught in Said’s Orientalist net.

The same holds true for the general public.  Just as romantic art and stories inspired scholars to begin the study of people and places, so were everyday travelers and armchair students.  Romantic ideas inspired travel along with a desire for history, stories, and art related to these exotic and inspirational places.  Fascination often leads to interest which can also lead to a fundamental form of knowledge and appreciation (even if it is not entirely accurate).  The missing ingredient that prevents romanticism from turning into the kind of Orientalism that bothered Said is ethical responsibility.  It is incumbent upon the scholar or the lay student to understand that romantic portrayals are not history or anthropology.  Romanticism creates the fantasy and the air of specialness which is then tempered by actual knowledge.

In his article, Jones mentions Jean-Leon Gerome’s The Snake Charmer (which was also used as the cover for the paperback version of Said’s book).  This work is a hodge-podge of Middle Eastern and Asian elements – faux Arabic script, carpets, representative figures from across the Islamic world, diverse representative styles of dress and ornamentation, which incorporate all the elements of a classic Orientalist work.  Were this image to be viewed historically or culturally it would appear disconnected, misrepresentative and potentially offensive.  But, if the image is seen as a romantic portrayal of a collage of inspirational elements, then we can feel free to revel in its wonder and bask in its fantasy.  It may not be a true and correct picture, and it should not be considered as such, but if it does its job, it would inspire someone long enough to seek out a true and correct picture which could even instill the desire to impart understanding and appreciation to others.  Indiana Jones does not represent real archaeology any more than House resembles a real doctor or Starsky and Hutch real cops, but the inspiration of these fictions might lead to real practitioners who retain the sense of excitement needed to love their work and the ethical responsibility needed to do it well.  In the end, I think Jones is correct to indicate that we lose something when we lose romanticism.

In truth, if we seek information or knowledge about someone, someplace, or something, without having an inherent appreciation for it, aren’t we more likely to miss its key aspects or nuances in favor of a preconceived opinion (especially if that opinion is already negative)?  No one ever set off on a dangerous journey of discovery to seek something that they believed was devoid of value or specialness.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By J.F. Sullivan

In light of the recent Religion Nerd articles by Hussein Rashid, Tobias Wright and James Dennis LoRusso, a discussion about identity and the potential problems of identity might shed some light on many of the vexing problems and questions facing modern society – especially with regard to religion.  

The first of the Ten Commandments reads:  “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.”  A colleague recently used this commandment to emphasize I, and problematize and explain the Buddhist concepts of impermanence and ‘no-self’.  For this discussion, it will be more informative to look at the first two words in this commandment; I Am.

Originating in the Hebrew Bible, the Ten Commandments were later adopted by the other scriptural monotheists of the Abrahamic traditions: Christianity and Islam.  I Am, more than simply a concept of self, imparts a sense of identity.  The concept of identity for the Hebrews, early Christians, or Muslims may have been more community oriented, with God being the primary holder of individualistic identity, but in the modern post-Enlightenment world, identity has become multiple and individual.  Where the “problem” of identity comes into play is not only its multiplicity, but its rigidity and exclusivity.  To complicate matters, each identity possesses a series of positions that the adopter must likewise subscribe to.  

Let’s look at a statement that many believe to be true: America is a Christian nation.  Embedded in this statement are two forms of identity that one could adopt, American and Christian.  If we imagine these identities as rigid and exclusive, we can already see trouble brewing.  If I am a Christian, it stands to reason, that I cannot be a Muslim or Buddhist or Wiccan.  Similarly, if I am American, I can’t also be Iraqi, Chinese or Canadian.  Already two problems should be clear.  On the one hand, if I hold these identities and I feel threatened, then I need to defend them – possibly to the death.  On the other hand, they may not be as rigid as the first appear.  In fact, I can be both Iraqi and American, and herein lays the next problem.  Can I hold multiple identities that may end up conflicting with each other?

Before we attempt to answer that question, let’s go back to the original statement America is a Christian Nation.  As I mentioned earlier, it is not only the identity that is at stake and at issue, but also the positions that those identities include.  If I am identifying as “American” I will need to stake out a position on all sorts of issues which may or may not include discussions about the intent of the Founders, what the role of America is in the world (do we export democracy, morals, values or religion), and how we run our government (taxation, socialism, education, laws).  From here we see how many issues arise simply by saying I am American.  Likewise, a declaration of I am Christian, brings a completely different set of potential identity-based problems.  First off, there is no one Christianity, but Christianities, which may pose internal problems, but let’s stick with Christian as a general term for now.  As a Christian, I will likely need to take a position on many things including homosexuality, abortion, and evolution, as well as theological issues like salvation, sin, and morality.  Just from pondering the aspects of these two identities, we might find ourselves in the middle of almost every major news story currently happening in the world.

As I mentioned in the beginning, there is another aspect of this problem, rigidity and exclusivity.  Externally we can clearly see the potential issues.  If I identify as Christian, I have to defend any threat to my Christianity (or any threat to the positions that I associate with my Christianity).  Thus, if I perceive anything pro-Muslim or pro-Hindu or pro-Wicca, I am likely to have a problem.  Therefore, how I understand my identity as a Christian informs my understanding that halal soup is somehow in support of Islam, which I have created my opponent.  Thus, if I have adopted the America is a Christian Nation statement then I likely want America to be infused with Christian values and laws and probably would not mind the Ten Commandments being firmly established in our legal system (and possibly chiseled in stone outside of the courthouse).  So, it stands to reason, if I want a nation based on Islamic values, I would also want shari’ah law as the legal foundation.  Armed with that view of the world and that concept of identity, the Campbell’s Soup issue makes perfect sense.  At the same time, the situation also occurs with “American” identity, which is why anything Islamic near ground zero, and really anything Islamic anywhere in America is seen as a problem.  From there it is easy to see how conflicting identities can cause major problems, but they can also cause internal problems as well.  If I hold multiple identities, what if they begin to conflict with each other?  What if my Christian identity begins to conflict with my American identity?  I may believe that America is subject to punishment because of its tolerance of gays (in conflict with my understanding of the Christian position on homosexuality).  This could then manifest in my explanation for Katrina or in my decision to picket the funerals of fallen soldiers who are defending that tolerance.  What if I am gay, but also a Christian and a Republican?  What if I am a Politician, but also a Capitalist and an Atheist?

Take any category of identity: Christian, Muslim, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, Capitalist, Homosexual, Heterosexual, Priest, Congregant, Male, Female, Black, White, Rich, Poor, Freedom Fighter, Terrorist.  If you can imagine all of the potential positions that each of these identities come with and then imagine the external and internal conflicts that could arise from being on either side of these dichotomies (or even worse, in between any of them), you should be able to see the underlying root issue of 90-95% of the articles on Religion Nerd and in the mainstream media.  Thus, whether I feel I have to “bacon” a mosque, burn a Qur’an, speak out against Yoga, build a creation museum, blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, or fly a plane in the World Trade Center, I am always acting from a basic conflict or defense of identity.

The problem of identity is a powerful concern that must be recognized before it can even begin to be addressed.  Until we can understand the role that identity plays in many of our conflicts, we will likely be unable to address the root cause.  This may be at the heart of the Israel/Palestine debate – traditional negotiations are likely to be ineffective if they continue to broker a land deal and don’t address the issues of conflicting identities with cosmic consequences.

To begin to see the impact of identity, it might be worthwhile to revisit, halal soup, grilled cheesus, just war and the tea party and see how much influence identity categories play in both large and small conflicts just in the last few weeks on Religion Nerd.  And, while changing this way of understanding identity may take several lifetimes to reverse, there is no time like the present to start.

Recommended reading: 

• Post-ethnic America by David Hollinger
• Multiculturalism by Charles Taylor

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By J.F. Sullivan

From the post-9/11 fear of Islamic terrorists to the most recent flap over the Cordoba House and the proposed Qur’an burning event, there is a growing trend that has conflated almost anything Islamic or Arabic, religious or cultural, into a single negatively perceived monolith.  It is against this backdrop that Emory University’s Michael C. Carlos Museum opens a dual exhibition; Traces of the Calligrapher: Islamic Calligraphy in Practice, c. 1600–1900 and Writing the Word of God: Calligraphy and the Qur’an.  These exhibitions, while meritorious in their own regard as collections of material with broad religious, historical, and cultural value, remind us that the perception of Islam, and the Arabic language in particular, were not always tinged with shades of terrorism and intolerance.  Indeed the Arabic language was for a time, according to Maria Rosa Menocal, the lingua franca as far as the eye could see and beyond.     

Rayhani Script

The exhibitions feature collections of tools and materials used to produce the storied Arabic calligraphy designs, along with the ultimate expression of piety: manuscripts of the Qur’an.  The very existence of this exhibition and the culture it alludes to opens a window onto a culture that developed over many centuries and transformed the arts and culture of several regions on multiple continents.    

Calligraphy Exercises

The Arabic language began humbly on the Arabian Peninsula and grew in prominence thanks to Islam and a thriving poetic tradition.  As the language of the Qur’an, and thus the language in which God imparted the Qur’an to the Prophet Muhammad, the Arabic language received an elevated status in addition to being the language of a growing and expanding empire.  The Arabic language and its relationship to both the Qur’an and Islamicate civilization had numerous cultural side effects.  The status of Arabic as the language of the Qur’an gave the language a special relationship to God, and as such, the actual reproduction of the script became important as well.  Dr. Gordon Newby, Emory’s Professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies, notes, “For Muslims, the writing of God’s words, the Qur’an, is an act of worship in which devotion and beauty join in praise of God.  In many biographies of Muslims, the number of Qur’an copies they made or had made are listed among their life’s accomplishments.”     

More than simply scribes, calligraphers of Arabic trained endlessly to develop their skill in producing the script, and in some cases even developing different styles of Arabic calligraphy.        

The elevated status of Arabic combined with the prohibition against depicting humans led to the production of Arabic script as an art form.  These calligraphic art forms went on to adorn numerous buildings and mosques throughout Islamdom as well as countless other artisanal products (textiles, handcrafts, house wares, jewelry and more).  Inevitably, with the elevation of the Arabic language as art form came the elevation of the tools used to create that art form.  Thus the pens, penknives, maktas, inkwells, scissors, shakers and burnishers each became art forms in themselves.       

The exhibitions Traces of the Calligrapher: Islamic Calligraphy in Practice, c. 1600–1900 and Writing the Word of God: Calligraphy and the Qur’an both illustrate the beauty of the skill and production of Arabic calligraphy.  They should also serve as a reminder that for a time the Arabic language was considered the language of poetry as well as the language of God – so much so that some groups of Christian Visigoths in Medieval Iberia (later called Mozarabs) abandoned their Latin language in favor of Arabic for its sheer eloquence and versatility in communicating the poetic imagination.     

As these exhibitions show, Arabic is not the language of terror as some might conclude from modern media depictions and fearful misperceptions, rather it is one of the few cosmopolitan languages of art, poetry, piety and culture that, like Greek and Latin, once spanned the length of much of the known world.       

The exhibitions Traces of the Calligrapher: Islamic Calligraphy in Practice, c. 1600–1900 and Writing the Word of God: Calligraphy and the Qur’an are on view at the Michael C. Carlos Museum (http://www.carlos.emory.edu/) from August 28 through December 5, 2010

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By J.F. Sullivan

Jesus used to be a co-pilot, but now he’s riding shotgun.  On Tuesday, July 6^th, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed the controversial “gun-in-church” bill into law. 

Of course the first reaction to this new law for many is a sharp intake of breath—guns in church, mon dieu!  Reactions to this law are obviously polarized, receiving a big hurray from the pro-gun folks and a dejected sigh from gun control proponents.  The law has also been the target of jokes pondering the need for and use of guns in church.  On a more serious note, Sarah Posner and Julie Ingersoll wrote a great piece on guns and God for Religion Dispatches, and already, an Atlanta minister is taking Louisiana’s lead and challenging Georgia’s own ban on guns in church.   (See article links below)

Church

While others can ponder the social and theological implications of the law, there is a religio-political aspect of this law that seems to have been overlooked—holy ground. The concept of the church functioning as holy ground or sanctuary has been around for as long as the concept of sacred space.  Temples and the like have always been the one safe refuge from the trials and tribulations of the outside world, and in some cases, the long arm of the law.  Churches, temples, mosques and other sanctuaries have, since time immemorial, been places in which fighting is forbidden; where the laws of whatever higher power resides within always trump the laws of humanity. It is likely that this commonly understood theme of holy ground is at the heart of most people’s surprise at Louisiana’s new law.

Synagogue

No one could possibly need a gun in church because no one would dare attack a church; it’s sacred ground.  This is one of the reasons why most of the nation was so shocked by the 2008 church shooting in Tennessee.  It is also likely that the Tennessee incident and others like it prompted Louisiana to consider this bill the first place (the bill also allows for churches to hire armed off-duty police to provide security for worshippers).  The status of church as holy ground or sanctuary seems to be eroding at a rapid pace.  Already, a church’s ability to provide sanctuary has been impacted by national security interests in the case of suspected terrorism or extremism.  It may also be that church sanctuary for illegal immigrants is also in jeopardy since immigration control’s takeover by Homeland Security in 2008.  With this new Louisiana law, the special status of holy places and the concept of holy ground would appear to suffer further erosion.  With Louisiana’s gun-in-church law, the laws of humanity now supersede the laws of the higher power.  What is really interesting about this new law, however, is the way that it appears to remove the perceived special status from Louisiana’s churches. 

Mosque

Most concealed-carry laws permit licensed gun owners to carry their weapons into many places where firearms are not typically needed; supermarkets, bookstores, ice cream shops etc.  You’re probably about as likely to need a weapon at 31 Flavors as you would at the local house of worship.  In truth, if you can carry a weapon into all of those other places, why not church?  With this law, church becomes no different than anywhere else.  While it is likely that the sponsors of this bill weren’t considering the demotion of church as holy ground or sanctuary when they presented and passed it, the law does seem to have that result.  In effect, this law makes clear that the safety of worshippers is not guaranteed by grace alone, nor is the status of a holy place sufficient to prevent attack.   

What does this law say about the perception of the strength of the higher power of any given religion if it is insufficient to protect its own worshippers inside of its own house of worship?  It is likely this side of the issue never occurred to this law’s supporters, and that this law was much more of a flexing of constitutional rights than anything else.  Social conservatives, pro-gun groups and many evangelical Christian groups have been closely aligned with the Republican Party and other conservative political groups in recent years.  Indeed this law seems to further blur the lines between religion and politics—especially given the outpouring of support for the law by religious groups themselves.  It does seem that this law is not so much a response to a need for additional firepower in churches, but rather as a way to push a pro-gun political agenda.  It also begs the question; if there is no need for a gun in church and it is only an issue because some want to press their right to keep and bear arms, doesn’t that elevate the gun to a status that puts it on par with church in importance?  It remains to be seen if this law ends up being more symbolic than practical or if it indeed has the effect of lessening the status of church as holy ground and sanctuary.  When considering the gun-in-church law and others that may come after it, it might be more helpful to remember and consider a simple axiom; just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should. 

Sources:

• Jindal signs bill into law – http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/07/gov_bobby_jindal_signs_bills_a.html
• Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/07/bobby-jindal-signs-guns-i_n_638047.html
• Religion Dispatches article by Posner and Ingersoll: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/2910/gun_ownership%3A_%E2%80%98an_obligation_to_god%E2%80%99/
• Georgia Minister challenges Georgia gun laws http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/09/jonathan-wilkins-baptist-_n_641531.html

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

 By J.F. Sullivan

On Monday, June 14^th, lightning struck and burned a 62-foot statue of Jesus in Monroe, Ohio.  The statue was nicknamed “Touchdown Jesus” because of its raised arms.

So is the lightning-wielding Olympian God Zeus finally getting some payback after the destruction of his own statue by Christians in the fifth century BCE?  Or, is this a statement from some other  god—unhappy with monotheistic dominance?  Perhaps the trinity isn’t as all-for-one and one-for-all as we were led to believe.  Has anyone questioned the spiritus sancti?  Suspicions are rising as apparently, this is not the first time a statue of Jesus has fallen victim to lightning.  According to the Washington Post’s Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn,

In 2008, lightning singed the fingers and eyebrows of Christ the Redeemer, the 130-foot Jesus statue that stands over Rio de Janeiro. In 2007, a bolt blasted the 33-foot Jesus statue at Mother Cabrini Shrine in Golden, Colo. One of Jesus’s arms fell off.

Apparently Jesus is not the only target. Meacham and Quinn also report that saints, angels and the Virgin Mary have all fallen victim to lightning strikes.  Clearly something, or perhaps someone, is out to get the Christians.  It is even possible that America is to blame, since our own Lady Liberty has been struck several times herself.

Is the joke over?  Has this gone far enough?  Natural disasters and events like lightning occur all the time, but in recent years, groups and individuals of various religious traditions have been quick to blame natural disasters upon divine retribution for misbehavior and general decadence.  At last count the gays were winning hands down as the go-to cause for the world’s natural disasters.  The Aceh province tidal wave, Katrina, the Haiti earthquake, and even the Iceland volcano have all been blamed on various targets of God’s retributive justice. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8u-_kKxBWU

!

So what about ‘Touchdown Jesus’?  The pundits are conspicuously silent about this event. 

Apparently no one wants to read anything into it, but why not?  Worldwide roughly 10,000 people are killed each year by lightning; this seems a significant enough figure to warrant some blame flinging.  After all, if earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, and volcanoes all get to be blamed on the actions of different groups or nations, why not lightning?  Do we really want to piss lightning off by not blaming someone for it?

What happens when we give supernatural import to natural events?  Are these different religious interpretations geared for the faithful?  I would say no.  It is no coincidence that the accused culprits are the latest target of those pointing the finger.  Now, thanks to said disaster, the individual or group can wag their finger and say “SEE!!” 

Unfortunately, this natural disaster blame game may be just another chapter in the ongoing trend of public religious individuals and institutions exchanging theological discussions for political discussions.  And as we have seen in recent years, the game of politics is not known for fairness, truth, accuracy, logic, or depth.  Therefore public political blaming by religious individuals and groups should be treated with the same skepticism and scrutiny as the politician who absolutely swears they “didn’t do it” or that email I just received from an exiled Nigerian Finance Minister.  While religious interpretation of life and the universe is an essential part of any religious institution, by substituting theological concerns for political concerns, theodicy is simply reduced to idiocy.

While it’s likely that the Monroe, Ohio Jesus statue was struck because it was a fiberglass cast built around a metal skeleton, it is far more interesting to imagine some divine retribution from the former king of the Gods.  So as long as we’re making things up and no one has yet come forward to assign religiously significant blame… I blame Zeus! 

• Read Jon Meacham’s and Sally Quinn’ s  article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505135.html?wprss=rss_religion
• Video of the “Touch Down Jesus” after it was struck:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDya5ObTFtI

  

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By:  J.F. Sullivan

When Religion Nerd suggested a possible follow up article to FatwaPhobia   (http://wp.me/pTCyD-eW ) focusing on the reactive viral phenomenon “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” I was not feeling particularly motivated.  This idea about drawing Muhammad in an effort to protest Comedy Central’s decision to censor that episode of South Park felt a bit strange to me.  While I agree that Islam should be subject to both the same satire, as well as critical scholarship as every other religious tradition, it felt like something different to go out and intentionally attack the prohibition about depicting Muhammad.  After all, the issue was not ultimately with Islam, it was about freedom of expression and censorship.  The issue in that case was not that a radical Islamist group threatened the creators of South Park; it was that Comedy Central caved-in to it.  In the end, “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” seemed like something both retaliatory and anti-Islamic vs. solidarity in opposition to censorship.

The creators of “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” have since discontinued the call after the movement went from a Facebook gag to a viral phenomenon. (See LA Times article below) What is intriguing is how rapidly the idea spread and inevitably got out of control.  Whether intentional or not, “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” plugged into an already existing anti-Muslim sensibility in America that has been smoldering after its initial wave following 9/11.  Even though we have mostly moved on from the initial shock of the attacks, the anti-Muslim sentiment has fallen in with the same “we’re losing the country” mentality that led to the Arizona anti-immigration laws. The issue at the heart of these challenges is identity.  For many people, America is a heterosexual, white Christian male.  When that image begins to change, people begin to react in opposition to that change, while others embrace it.  An additional difficulty arises when those who support the changes tend to also not resemble the dominant image while many that resist the change do.  The result is an increasingly polarized conflict that is drawn along many of the same lines of identity: ethnic, racial, religious, economic, cultural.

Two additional events this week have shown the light on this growing anti-Muslim sensibility and its roots in identity conflict.  The first was the plan to build a mosque and Islamic center in the area around Ground Zero.  Obviously this met with some significant public opposition, encapsulated by this quote,

This is an insult,’ said one of the more than 150 people at the meeting. ‘This is demeaning. This is humiliating that you would build a shrine to the very ideology that inspired the attacks on 9/11. (See Ray Sanchez article below)

The second development was the deployment of New York Bus ads from Pamela Geller and the Stop the Islamization of America Group (http://sioaonline.com/). 

What is happening amidst all of this is a growing reaction to diversity and religious pluralism.  Fueled by continual fear from 9/11 and coupled with the changing face of America, there are those who are not responding well.  In this way, anything that is seen to support the continued diversity and pluralism of America is suspect.  We now have an African-American president that is suspected of being a Muslim and a socialist, as well as a foreigner.  The entire birther movement seems to be rooted in the fear that the President is a foreigner.  This nascent xenophobia is fueled by reports about changing demographics, the most frightening being the suggestion that by 2050, most of the world will be Muslim.  To get a sense of how significant this concern is, take a look at the following video clip. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

This is not just an American problem, it is happening all over Europe as mostly homogeneous populations interact with growing immigrant populations and the institutions and cultural differences that come with them.  Look no further than France’s burqa disputes and Switzerland’s minaret legislation for evidence.  Indeed the entire Danish cartoon and Theo Van Gogh incidents that inspired the recent South Park debacle likely originated as a reaction to Muslim immigration into Europe.

Diversity and pluralism are a fact.  And as Europe and America continue to attract immigrants, the issues raised by changing population demographics are not going to change.  What we can change is how we respond to these new developments.  The current way of coexisting, tolerance and multiculturalism, may no longer be effective.  Recognizing difference and tolerating those unlike you works as long as the tolerant group remains in the majority, once that starts to change, friction and factionalism is often the result.  What we may need to do then is seek out a new way to engage diversity and pluralism that doesn’t threaten identity or status and allows for a looser way of coexisting that does not require clearly defined lines of identity that split us along ethno-racial, religious, cultural and economic lines and offers a more cosmopolitan approach.  If indeed the world is changing and all of our identity lines are moving and becoming less and less stable, now is the time to start revising our thinking about identity, history, culture, religion, and society and seeing if we can do more than simply tolerate diversity and pluralism and start appreciating and even participating in line-crossing and identity breaking activities that will allow us to thrive as a global society. 

Further Reading

• LA Times article – Creators of ‘Everybody Draw Muhammad Day’ Drop Gag After Everybody Gets Angry :  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/creators-of-everybody-draw-muhammad-day-abandon-effort-after-it-becomes-controversial.html
• Ray Sanchez article: http://abcnews.go.com/US/bus-ads-offer-protection-muslims-leaving-islam/US/mosque-plan-clears-hurdle-protests/story?id=10747570]
• Pamela Geller’s ‘Leaving Islam?’ Bus Ads Cause Controversy  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/26/pamela-gellers-leaving-is_n_591112.html
• Stop Islamization of America Website – http://sioaonline.com/

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

 By:  J.F. Sullivan

By now most followers of religion and popular culture are familiar with the recent flap over depictions of Muhammad in the Comedy Central animated show, South Park.  Show creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone were specifically taking on the Muhammad topic to combat their contention that every other religious figure has been satirized, but not Islam’s prophet.  The understandable controversy that erupted took on an interesting pallor as the intense response to the idea not only confirmed their very thesis, but plugged into a tradition of fear-based decision making that I’m calling fatwaPhobia.  FatwaPhobia occurs when decisions are made to limit or prohibit discussion of Islam or the prophet for fear of reprisals.

Theo Van Gogh

No one likes their religion being skewered, so some response is always expected, but groups within Islam seem to present their tradition as a special case, not only for their intense reaction to any negativity surrounding their religion, but the consistent appeal to violent response.  The group, Revolution Muslim (www.revolutionmuslim.com), posted a warning on their website cautioning Parker and Stone that their actions could result in their suffering similar consequences to Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered following the release of his film Submission which was critical of Islam.  While Revolution Muslim claimed to simply be warning the show makers of potential dangers, the issue highlights not only a concern for violence in reaction to perceived slights against Islam, but a larger concern about what this call for special unassailable status demands.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Recently there have been a string of threats (with negative results) stemming from perceived blasphemous or unflattering treatment or depictions of Islam or the prophet.  South Park is only the most recent example, but besides the Van Gogh murder, there were riots and continued difficulties stemming from Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad and death threats to other film makers who have produced films that some Islamist groups have considered unacceptable.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the screenwriter for Van Gogh and a critic of Islam, has been living under protection since her colleague’s murder.  Ali’s situation is reminiscent of perhaps the first incident of this deadly form of criticism; Salman Rushdie, whose book the Satanic Verses earned him a death threat from the Iranian government and sent him into hiding for several years.

Comedy Central chose to bleep and edit the South Park cartoon rather than risk potential consequences.  This move seems a bit odd considering the lambasting every other religion has received at the hands of Parker and Stone.  And, while this is just a cartoon, it does highlight an ongoing problem with criticism or even simply a critical and considerate eye toward discussing Islam. 

A similar instance of fatwaPhobia may be occurring within the academy.  In addition to the prohibition of Muhammad’s or God’s depiction, it is also the Qur’an’s status as the literal word of God.  Thus, any source-critical or historical-critical approach to studying Islam or the Qur’an (the same methods used to study every other religion) come with potential dangers for scholars.  To a degree, putting the Qur’an into a historical context and suggesting the possible influences of other philosophical schools or ideas extant in the Arabian Peninsula, as influential in its thought, could be seen as blasphemous.  As such, scholars seem to be much more hesitant to apply the same critical lens to Islam that informs the study of every other religious tradition.  As a result, many studies of Islam begin in 570 CE with the birth of the Prophet or more likely 622 CE, the beginning of the Muslim Calendar.  Along the way, very little, if any, attention is given to disagreement or conflict in the Qur’an, the hadith, or differing schools of thought within Islam beyond Sunni, Shia or Sufi.  The history or formation of Islam is often gestured to, rather than discussed and no significant exploration of the thoughts and practices existing in the region seem to relate to the development of the tradition. 

For Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the solution lies in “scrutinizing Islam and criticizing it in the same way that we criticize Christianity, Judaism and other ideologies and other religions.”*   As scholars, we want to be respectful of the religions we study, but does that require that we abandon the scholar’s critical gaze for fear of offense or a fatwa?  If we are only allowed or allow ourselves to study a religion within the parameters of what the practitioners of that tradition would find agreeable then we run the risk of making any study of that tradition irrelevant and little more than theology.  Every other major tradition has been subject to similar scrutiny and other, more fringe traditions have been severely deconstructed by the academy.  Islam should not be different.  To paraphrase Princeton scholar Jeffrey Stout, “religion does not get a free pass.”  Our Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish students have all had to bracket their beliefs when studying their traditions in an academic setting, but many Muslims students do not have the same experience.  If fatwaPhobia and special sensitivity are at work, then our study of Islam can drift dangerously close to apologetics, a trend that is not in service of students, history, or the academy.  If we consistently censor ourselves out of fear of offense or threat of offense then aren’t we actually supporting and condoning an image and belief in Islam as a violent and intolerant religion in the same way that the media tends to do?  A critical approach to Islam both by the academy and social critics actually makes the tradition more real and allows for equal treatment of the vibrancy and beauty of the tradition while also considering its development and role as a sociopolitical as well as religious entity.  The critical lens then can help turn Islam into “another” rather than “The Other,” a shift that benefits everyone, and will likely reduce potentially blasphemous treatment in the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh4mi2Ea_7o

CNN coverage of the South Park/Revolution Muslim controversy (10:57 min)

*courtesy of CNN, original post by Octavia Nasr.