Sciences Participating with Arts & Culture in Education

Islām: Confessions of a Hopeless Outsider

Illustrated by CHELSEA ALSBURY

Muslims are dark-skinned, sword wielding, suicide-bombing, misogynistic, homophobic, oil profiting, overly devout, uber conservative, socially oppressed and Jesus-hating Arabs.​

Even in 2013, this is the picture that some of us in the West might deem an accurate, or partial, representation of a quarter of the world’s population. Although I had hoped our society would have evolved beyond this type of ignorance, a recent wave of islamophobia, or perhaps xenophobia, has convinced me otherwise. It is obvious that, although certain aspects of this description may be representative of certain groups within Islām, it remains obvious that the entire Muslim community does not even closely resemble this caricature. This divide between the concerns we may have about the violence that is committed in the name of Islām and the acceptance of other societies that we hold dear in our country becomes a pressing issue.

We see the Muslims in our country, whether immigrants or born here, as being the more peaceful and moderate practitioners of the religion, while fundamentalist groups in third world countries are viewed as extremist terrorists. As a complete outsider to the entire religion, I can only try to attain a grasp of this entire dilemma that has been plaguing the West since 9/11. Is Islām a violent religion? Is it just culture that makes some Muslims oppressive? Should I respect this religion and be tolerant, or do I speak out about the violence committed in its name? What do we, as outsiders, even know about Islām? I will begin this discussion with a review of contrary positions that we may perhaps hold in this situation: ethical relativism or absolutism.

Ethical relativism holds that what is moral differs from society to society, and so we ought not to judge societies that we do not and cannot understand. This position is attractive in that it seems to promote tolerance and peace amongst all societies. Relativists begin with the observation that societies differ in their customs and etiquette: what is normal varies from society to society. If we view morality as another term for social approval, that is, what is normal in our society is moral, then we can conclude with the view that morality varies from society to society. Morality is thus completely dependent on social approval, and so we should not judge Islām and Muslim countries.

The flip side of this coin is thus to be an absolutist, demanding that every society conform to our way of living because it is the ‘best of all options’. But let’s be honest, no one really wants to think this way; the entire appeal of ethical relativism is that it seems to promote tolerance amongst societies! A vital issue, however, has been overlooked with relativism: what if a particular society’s values state that they must kill or convert all those who do not conform to their own beliefs? What if a society’s policy is to be intolerant? How can we be tolerant of a society that is intolerant?

Unfortunately, this ‘kill the nonbelievers’ attitude is often associated with Islām. This is due, in part, to the ‘sword verses’ that are contained in the Muslim holy book, the Qur'ān. The most notorious of which reads: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful” (Yusuf Ali 9:5). The historical context in which these verses were written reflects a time in which early Muslims under the leadership of the prophet Muhammad were at war with pagan tribes. Not that this justifies violence at that time or today, but it helps us understand why these things were written in the first place.

It also does not help the Muslim cause when we hear TV personalities like Bill Maher saying things like “the Qur’ān is a hate-filled holy book”. Maher, an American comedian and political commentator, elaborates that Western culture “is better” than that of Islamic culture because of our notions of gender equality, freedom of speech, and peace. He alleges Islām is the only religion in the world that will “blow you up over a cartoon”, alluding to a Danish cartoonist who was threatened in 2005 after his controversial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad led to death threats.

You may in fact agree with Maher, but I have one grievance to file: I can’t help my fascination and infatuation with this religion of such rich history and language, and am not just willing to cast it away as being ‘violent’.

Being introduced to the religion in a scholarly environment, Islām, for me, has become an exotic alternative to the usual stories I was presented with. Being educated in a Laval elementary school in which, amongst the all-white student body, you were only accepted if you were Italian, and later attending a high school that only contained a handful of ethnic minorities, did not help me learn about how the other 99% of the world lives and thinks. But life hit me. A rude awakening from the multicultural hodgepodge that is Dawson College and religion courses under theology expert Dr. Boustan Hirji particularly helped me remove the first layer of rose-coloured glasses.

As someone who identifies with no particular religion, discovering the Qur’ān’s beautiful language and rich imagery reminded me of the wondrous Biblical myths (excuse the term) that I often read in my Catholic high school. They are to be explored as works of fiction, read for personal pleasure and insights into humanity. For example, consider some of the graphic creation verses in the Qur’ān: “Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay); then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest firmly fixed; then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature” (23:12-14). Besides containing some anatomical accuracy, these verses contrast the less subtle sentiments expressed in the Qur’ān.

It must also be emphasized that the violent ‘sword verses’ of the Qur'ān can be rebutted by some of the more peaceful verses; just like the Bible has its crazy, violent moments, only to later advocate doing unto others as you would have done to you.”

Many in the Muslim community will cite verses of peace to argue that Islām is fundamentally peaceful, such as “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256) and “But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you)” (16:82). Both of these verses deny rigid dogma in religion and elevate thought above violence or power. Moreover, Canadian reform-minded Muslim Irshad Manji, who holds controversially subjective views about Islām, often observes that the Qur’ān has three times as many verses encouraging Muslims to “think and reflect and analyze” than verses that tell Muslims what is “absolutely right and wrong”.

My mind is in utter turmoil: collisions between the world of Islām and the reality that exists today bombard me every day. Ethical relativism and absolutism clash to create the most awful mental contradictions.

There is thus a divide between the ‘two Islāms’ that I have experienced throughout my life. There is the theoretical Islām, which I have been taught in an academic setting, and which, I hold, has the core beliefs to be peaceful and progressive. On the other hand, there is also the Islām as it is manifested today, the one which condemns homosexuality, oppresses women in some countries, and slaughters thousands in the name of God. The theoretical Islām may essentially be seen as construction of my own mind, in a desperate attempt to reconcile the collision between relativism and absolutism.

On the other hand, it seems to me that Islām is a religion of interpretation and circumstance. Any nutjob may find the motivation he needs to further his political or psychological needs and see it as a justification for a suicide bombing; however this does not put the entire religion at fault. It should not be a filmmaker’s fault that some disturbed teenagers took his horror film as a call to murder, nor a singer’s fault that their suggestive lyrics led children into ‘lives of promiscuity’. I give responsibility for the interpretation of art to the consumer of it, and not the creator of it. For religion, as a spiritual art, may be placed in a myriad of different contexts depending on who claims leadership over it.

More than ever in our society, there seems to be a lack of accountability for the individual. We may find certain books or people to blame for certain events, but all I see in terrorism is the lust for political power and control over other peoples. At the same time, the widespread and institutionalized oppression that is occurring within many Islāmic countries cannot be denied. The fact is that almost all Muslims seem to be interpreting some things that I cannot help but disagree with; in fact, my interpretation of the Qur’ān does not prohibit homosexuality (only the act of sodomy), discourage critical thinking, nor degrade women.

But what say can I have? I am just an outsider. An eighteen year old Italian-Canadian student trying to come to grips with all the viewpoints being thrown my way. I want to be tolerant, but not of intolerance. I want to be politically correct, but blunt at the same time. I am in no way an expert in this subject; the important thing is simply to prompt this discussion and analysis. To at least ensure people are thinking about how they truly feel about the world’s fastest growing religion.