Islam, Jihad and the American Presence

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Medusa

I need to expose my ignorance here.

I was listening to NPR this morning where one of their reporters had gone and interviewed a shopkeeper in Pakistan. The shop keeper talked about how he had been intimidated by funamentalist extremists in the marketplace and about how many of the shopkeepers had been closed down for various reasons.
This lead to a discussion of the assasination of Pakistani Governor Salman Taseer and how the man who had confessed to killing him was being heralded as a hero by "many young lawyers who had showered him with rose petals" in the courtroom. The man apparently shot him because he felt that Governor Salman had committed blasphemy against Islam.

I read up a little on the blasphemy laws because I am pretty ignorant about Jihad, Islam, and the religious environment in Pakistan. Needless to say, I have a few questions and would love to hear what other folks have to say.

There were a couple of interviews from folks in Pakistan about how the America consistently blasphemes Islam and shows no respect. There was also a lot of discussion about how the American presence had actually fueled an uptick in Jihad extremism, etc.

I'm curious. With the current religious environment in Pakistan, can we draw a parallel between religious extremism there and the current political and religious environment here? Can we view the assassination on Governor Taseer as a manifestation of the 'religious environment' or should we view this in the same way we viewed the killings in Arizona, as an insulated incident?

Thoughts?

Can a parallel be drawn? Yes. Is there moral equivalency? Not in the least bit. I think what is useful here is to decide on what principle causes you to object to religious extremism and theocratic leanings. The reason I say this is because I find an inconsistency, particularly with my fellow Leftists--if a white American Christian claims that women should dress modestly and any assaults that happen to her if she fails to do so are, in whole or part, her fault we on the Left would rightly condemn him as a misogynistic apologist for patriarchy. Let the same sentiment flow from the mouth or pen of an imam in Tehran or Karachi and the Left will fall over themselves attempting to 'understand' them or will turn their backs on women in the Arab and Muslim world in the name of anti-imperialism.

I think that there is a higher reason to oppose religious fundamentalism and theocracy; both are in direct contradiction to freedom and equality. So to me, the fire-breathing Southern Baptist preacher who exhorts women to be submissive to their husbands is in the same bed as the fire-breathing Sunni imam who preaches the same thing. Both are opposed to the equality of women and both are opposed to freedom of conscience, action and intellect.

I think that we in the West and particularly those on the Left who give ANY credence to the idea that we should be 'respectful' of religion such that we do not speak, paint, write or any other way produce something that some religious sectarian might find blasphemous are wrong, full-stop. It is important to note here that I'm not saying we should go out of our way to insult or piss off religious sectarians. I'm merely saying that if someone writes, say, an honest and unflattering portrayal of the LDS church and paints Joseph Smith as the consummate con artist that he was and then some arm or representative of that church tries to silence that author, I will stand with the author. She is my sister and we are comrades in the cause of freedom. If someone writes a fictional novel with an unflattering portrayal of the prophet Mohammed and then a death sentence is declared on him (and here I'm talking about the Rushdie affair) then I stand with the author. He is my brother and we are comrades in the cause of freedom.

If someone is offended by my characterization of the Abrahamic god as an invisible sky-daddy friend, that is regrettable and certainly not my intention but I refuse to concede my right to say it. I think blasphemy laws are abominable and inherently unjust laws. This holds true regardless of geography or political system. It is simply wrong to coerce belief or non-belief. Now, that latter bit does not mean I think the state should give ANY credence to religious belief--the state should always take the null hypothesis that absent any compelling empirical evidence as a matter of law the state should treat all religious beliefs as equally improbable and proceed on as if they are all untrue. This means that if some compelling evidence of harm cannot be presented and the only real justification for some behavior being proscribed is that it is offensive to some god or another, then there should be no law to discourage or criminalize that behavior. That includes blasphemy laws. There is no compelling reason to have them that does NOT take into account how some god might feel about the matter.

As far as your last question, it would be a terrible mistake to view the killing in Pakistan or the one in Arizona as isolated incidents--they aren't. They are part of a pattern of incidents. I'm not saying that they are planned or directed by some overarching conspiracy. Rather, I'm saying that if you have a legal and social environment in which it is considered acceptable to use violence to make your religious point, one should not be the least surprised when some young man takes it upon himself to do violence in the name and service of his god. Likewise, if you have an political and social environment where it is considered in-bounds to use violent rhetoric and talk about 'taking out' or using 'Second amendment remedies' or boast that if ballots don't work bullets will, then one should not be surprised when some young man takes it upon himself to eliminate any members of the political opposition that might be within range of his firearm.


Cheers
Aj