Obama the Muslim
We hear much in the news about the relationship between Islam and the liberal state, or the secular state, or even just the plain old nation-state. Everyone from academics to media pundits to legal analysts opine endlessly on the topic. I even spoke at a conference on the topic, the subject of an earlier entry, having been asked to do so by Professor Andrew March of Yale, a friend of the blog ("fob"). There is good reason for this, there is a great deal of philosophical, legal and ethical work to consider in order to make a plausible claim that Islam can be harmonized with that particular political theory, and some of that worthy discussion has appeared here and elsewhere. And serious question can be raised on the commitment of a vast number of Muslims to liberalism, something I have also discussed here, as frankly as I know how.
But there is a danger as well, a self-congratulatory tone to some of this that can be disturbing, and I say this now as an American, not a Muslim. (Not much to be self-congratulatory about if you're a Muslim who also believes in liberalism in terms of success on the ground.) Witness the recent case of Barack Hussein Obama being subject, we are told, to "vicious" rumors that he is (horror of all horrors) a Muslim! Who swears on the Qur'an! And doesn't recite the Pledge of Allegiance!
Of course he's not Muslim, but that's not really the point, the point is more how seriously the press takes all of this, and how even he responds to it. It is reported as something akin to the false rumors of John McCain engaging in adultery and adopting an illegitimate child and having a drug user wife. Obama of course denies the charges and declares himself "victimized" by all of this.
I'm sorry, but excuse me? Calling someone a Muslim is the same as calling them an adulterer with kids on the side whose wife is too addled on drugs to notice? You're "victimized" when people say this about you? At least when it's an accusation of homosexuality, people add the Seinfeldean "not that there's anything wrong with it". We don't even get that. There IS something wrong with it, apparently.
Worst of all, can Brian Williams who posited the question please explain to us the connection between the first two rumors and the third, other than that some idiot put them all out on the blogosphere? Muslim (understand), reads the Qur'an (logically follows, we Muslims do), and doesn't recite the Pledge of Allegiance? (whoa). Did you get us mixed up with the Jehovah's Witnesses (who have a faith based reason for doing this)? Or did I just hear a vicious slander legitimized by a respected NBC anchor suggesting in a debate on national television before the three top presidential candidates on the democratic ticket that somehow many millions of Muslims in the United States don't recite the pledge of allegiance due I suppose to some sort of deep, internal hatred of the United States, without objections by a one of them? (Let's try this one "there are rumors, that you are a Mexican, that you speak Spanish, and that you keep your car raised on bricks in the backyard and play loud music all hours of the night that nobody can understand and keep calling all your neighbors gringos." Pass without comment? I certainly hope not.) I should note that I've heard some really really conservative Muslims raise a faith based objection to the Pledge, that only God and no nation deserves this respect of standing and reciting, but most US Muslims grew up as I did I think, and recited the Pledge as I did, and know it as well as anyone else. Certainly to associate a refusal of that sort with Islam is to suggest disloyalty, not a particular interpretation of shari'a that is in the US context quite a minority.
I'm not the political philosopher, others are and may comment, but I always thought that the POINT of liberalism was not to bring religion into the public sphere because religious differences are so deeply held and so stark that to force legislation, or decision of legislators, or any matters of state concern on the basis of them will only lead to irreducible and irreconcilable conflict and that therefore a different discourse is needed, one based on public reason, and shared ideals that are broader than any one religion's paradigm. That's the Reader's Digest version, but the point is, does anyone see anything like that? And I'm not referring to the supposedly evil "Christian right" that doesn't accept these premises, I'm talking about competition in a Democratic primary.
I remain an Obama man, for a variety of reasons, but I do have to say, again as an American, that this is rather disconcerting and calls into some question at least issues concerning law, religion and the state that Americans smugly claim to have mastered. Apparently, it is not to clear. Apparently, it is quite important in the US not to be a member of certain religions, and to so belong to them creates an ipso facto suspicion of disloyalty, as being among a class that disdains our flag and our freedoms. And I wonder how seriously the commitment to liberalism stands given this.
Aren't we ultimately suggesting that the justice, the public reason, the broad social bonds and pan religious forms of public cooperation that are supposed to bring us together as a nation are in fact based on religious criteria? That one must belong to these religions in order to so understand justice, and if one does not, then one simply cannot lead the nation because he or she does not understand public American values? Isn't that really the implication of the rumors, the commentary thereon and the responses thereto? "Judeochristian" says it all--you're a Jew or a Christian, or you don't share our values.
I'm happy we're all talking about Islam and liberalism, but I'm wondering, maybe we in America, on the left and the right, need a refresher course here at home.
HAH
But there is a danger as well, a self-congratulatory tone to some of this that can be disturbing, and I say this now as an American, not a Muslim. (Not much to be self-congratulatory about if you're a Muslim who also believes in liberalism in terms of success on the ground.) Witness the recent case of Barack Hussein Obama being subject, we are told, to "vicious" rumors that he is (horror of all horrors) a Muslim! Who swears on the Qur'an! And doesn't recite the Pledge of Allegiance!
Of course he's not Muslim, but that's not really the point, the point is more how seriously the press takes all of this, and how even he responds to it. It is reported as something akin to the false rumors of John McCain engaging in adultery and adopting an illegitimate child and having a drug user wife. Obama of course denies the charges and declares himself "victimized" by all of this.
I'm sorry, but excuse me? Calling someone a Muslim is the same as calling them an adulterer with kids on the side whose wife is too addled on drugs to notice? You're "victimized" when people say this about you? At least when it's an accusation of homosexuality, people add the Seinfeldean "not that there's anything wrong with it". We don't even get that. There IS something wrong with it, apparently.
Worst of all, can Brian Williams who posited the question please explain to us the connection between the first two rumors and the third, other than that some idiot put them all out on the blogosphere? Muslim (understand), reads the Qur'an (logically follows, we Muslims do), and doesn't recite the Pledge of Allegiance? (whoa). Did you get us mixed up with the Jehovah's Witnesses (who have a faith based reason for doing this)? Or did I just hear a vicious slander legitimized by a respected NBC anchor suggesting in a debate on national television before the three top presidential candidates on the democratic ticket that somehow many millions of Muslims in the United States don't recite the pledge of allegiance due I suppose to some sort of deep, internal hatred of the United States, without objections by a one of them? (Let's try this one "there are rumors, that you are a Mexican, that you speak Spanish, and that you keep your car raised on bricks in the backyard and play loud music all hours of the night that nobody can understand and keep calling all your neighbors gringos." Pass without comment? I certainly hope not.) I should note that I've heard some really really conservative Muslims raise a faith based objection to the Pledge, that only God and no nation deserves this respect of standing and reciting, but most US Muslims grew up as I did I think, and recited the Pledge as I did, and know it as well as anyone else. Certainly to associate a refusal of that sort with Islam is to suggest disloyalty, not a particular interpretation of shari'a that is in the US context quite a minority.
I'm not the political philosopher, others are and may comment, but I always thought that the POINT of liberalism was not to bring religion into the public sphere because religious differences are so deeply held and so stark that to force legislation, or decision of legislators, or any matters of state concern on the basis of them will only lead to irreducible and irreconcilable conflict and that therefore a different discourse is needed, one based on public reason, and shared ideals that are broader than any one religion's paradigm. That's the Reader's Digest version, but the point is, does anyone see anything like that? And I'm not referring to the supposedly evil "Christian right" that doesn't accept these premises, I'm talking about competition in a Democratic primary.
I remain an Obama man, for a variety of reasons, but I do have to say, again as an American, that this is rather disconcerting and calls into some question at least issues concerning law, religion and the state that Americans smugly claim to have mastered. Apparently, it is not to clear. Apparently, it is quite important in the US not to be a member of certain religions, and to so belong to them creates an ipso facto suspicion of disloyalty, as being among a class that disdains our flag and our freedoms. And I wonder how seriously the commitment to liberalism stands given this.
Aren't we ultimately suggesting that the justice, the public reason, the broad social bonds and pan religious forms of public cooperation that are supposed to bring us together as a nation are in fact based on religious criteria? That one must belong to these religions in order to so understand justice, and if one does not, then one simply cannot lead the nation because he or she does not understand public American values? Isn't that really the implication of the rumors, the commentary thereon and the responses thereto? "Judeochristian" says it all--you're a Jew or a Christian, or you don't share our values.
I'm happy we're all talking about Islam and liberalism, but I'm wondering, maybe we in America, on the left and the right, need a refresher course here at home.
HAH
I wonder whether the pledge of allegiance thing is related to Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, the NBA player who raised a stink back in 1996 by refusing to stand for the national anthem before games?
According to the wikipedia page for Abdul-Rauf, he claimed that standing for the anthem would violate his beliefs because of the U.S.'s "history of tyranny".
Reply to this
I think you have a point, though it is notable that the main Muslim player in the game at the time, Hakeem Olajuwan, a practicing Muslim, criticized that decision and said he found nothing un-Islamic about this. I'm the last person in the world who would suggest that Islam's problem is purely a public relations issue (clearly, there is more happening than just bad press), but at the same time, if the media were to really legitimize this stereotype on the basis of this one person, that's hard to justify. Especially since he doesn't seem particularly concerned about developing any form of shari'a reasoning to reach this conclusion, beyond "America is tyrranical, therefore I do not stand for its anthem." You could be an atheist Marxist and say the same thing.
Reply to this
Unfortunately, Haider, this isn't something new to American politics or even limited to the Muslim faith. Of course, recent popular opinion makes the Muslim faith question even more relevant, but Mitt Romney (a Mormon) has endured absolutely ridiculous questions about his faith's impact on his ability to lead. Including a serious pundit question on whether or not he would seek to overturn the Supreme Court ban on polygamy! Where did that come from? Nothing in the former governor's record even hinted at that kind of intent, but it was deemed a "relevant" question by the modern media.
Historically, anyone not falling in the WASP (white, anglo-saxon, protestant) category has faced this. Look at the opposition that John F. Kennedy faced from both parties for simply being a Catholic. People were worried he'd give up US Sovereignty to the Pope! I can't even begin to imagine what the political reasoning behind that argument was.
It's a sad truth, but a truth nonetheless, that our political system latches onto indicators of personal faith and twists them to fit political goals. There are signs that this can be overcome. Bob Jones III, president of the very conservatively religious Bob Jones University, came out in support of Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee, despite the fact that Bob Jones University quite frankly views Mormonism as a cult, not a religion. If such a bedrock of the Bible Belt can learn to look past personal faith for political qualifications, and challenge the rest of the Bible Belt and the "Christian Right" at the same time, then maybe there's hope that someone out there will wake up and realize that the real question isn't whether Obama is a Muslim or not but rather whether he'd be a good President or not.
Then again, maybe I'll find a check for a million bucks in the mailbox when I get home. Probably about the same odds.
Reply to this
You are right. But the left usually pretends not to care about such things, and to claim it's really a far right Christian thing that only theocrats believe. My only point is that this is hardly true.
Reply to this