Razib says
a form of Islam which requires less marking off from the “kufar,” and implicit dominance of Muslim norms in the public space, can persist and flourish. Shared practices and values, broadly construed, is entirely compatible with starkly contradictory views on the nature of God, or the appropriate manner in which to worship God within religious establishments.
and I agree, though I do disagree with his larger premise in that I believe it’s precisely the multicultural tolerance he derides, and not a generalized “Protestantism”, which is the cultural foundation for America. The latter derives from the former, not the other way around.
Critics of multiculturalism like to mis-represent it as an orthodoxy unto itself, but its actually the absence of one. This is why America can be simultaneously deeply Protestantist and also the greatest Islamic country on Earth.
razib, murtad fitri 4:41 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink |
as someone who is not religious, i don’t have any opinion about whether this is the “greatest islamic country” in the world, though your logic is crisp and compelling. but, would the majority of the world’s 1.5 billion muslims agree with you? i doubt it.
aziz 4:48 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink |
you miss my point – the majority of muslims in the world’s agreement is largely irrelevant to the reality of American multiculturalism which permits Islam to thrive here as nowhere else. That thriving is a fact, not subject to global ummah concensus.
razib, murtad fitri 4:50 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink |
That thriving is a fact, not subject to global ummah concensus.
i hope you’re right on the second, but after my participation on *talk islam* i’m actually more skeptical of that assertion as a matter of fact. honestly.
aziz 5:32 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink |
you’re skeptical of Islam thriving in America?
and your experience at TI has hardly been a negative one overall; sure, you’ve had run-ins with a couple of personalities but you’ve hardly been chased off with a scarlet Kaf. It’s unlike you to draw such broad inferences from such limited data.
razib, murtad fitri 6:44 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink
come now, don’t reword what i just said. i bolded “not subject to global ummah consensus.” i think you might be wrong.
; sure, you’ve had run-ins with a couple of personalities but you’ve hardly been chased off with a scarlet Kaf.
right. i’m talking about the nature of the discussions. or at least the direction it started go in over the year as this site became more popular. most of these discussions i didn’t participate in. the bolded part above, what i saw in the discussions implied to me that american islam isn’t quite that independent. given that the readers of this weblog tend to be more eloquent and overeducated vis-a-vis average, i have no expectation that the sample bias leads me astray.
aziz 6:56 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink
don’t reword what i just said
but – if the fact of Islam’s thriving in America is indeed subject to global ummah concensus (as your skepticism would imply), then logically the thriving itself is subject to the same skepticism. I was just extrapolating the implication.
Buzz 6:58 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink
Weird dynamic that I see is that American converts are often hardliners on regional issues and conservative attitudes while Muslim immigrants, not surprisingly, are sometimes more liberal in their politics and assume a live and let live position.
It is important for Muslim immigrants to assert their freedom and identity but also important for them to preserve what makes America a progressive, liberal and tolerant environment.
I am surprised that you can tolerate much of the discussion razib. I tried to survive on Deans World and could barely last a week. As an atheist, there are so many differences. I salute your broad mind.
razib, murtad fitri 7:13 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink
if the fact of Islam’s thriving in America is indeed subject to global ummah concensus (as your skepticism would imply
you took the wrong implication. first, i don’t know what “thriving” means to you. i assume muslims will remain less than 10% of the population in the united states in my lifetime, but more than 1%. probably in the 2-5% range is likely by 2050. what i mean is that the more i began reading the comments from intelligent muslim TI readers the more clear it seemed to me how important “foreign” entanglements are for american muslims, *both* religious and non-religious (i don’t see the pal-israeli conflict as totally religious, but it is important).
this is not unheard of for an american religion. american catholicism was “foreignized” in the 1840s as irish immigrants and priests basically pushed aside english and french catholics who had dominated the church. the international associations of catholicism were always problematic for catholic politicians down to john kennedy. and american theological ideas were labelled heresies by the vatican in the early 20th century. the catholic church, and american catholics, both changed over time to the point where it was hard to deny that it was indigenized & independent by the 1950s.
razib, murtad fitri 7:21 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink
I am surprised that you can tolerate much of the discussion razib. I tried to survive on Deans World and could barely last a week. As an atheist, there are so many differences. I salute your broad mind.
the theological and philosophical aspect didn’t bother me at all, that’s all abstract. IOW, my discomfort with this weblog’s community has never been a function of the theism. to be concise, it was a general coalescing of a tribalism that i perceived to the point where i started feeling really islamophobic reading what the commenters here said. the more vibrant the commenter community got, the more i felt left out and agitated. by analogy, when i read how jews, especially orthodox ones, talk abut gentiles, i definitely start to get pissed off about their tribalism.
Buzz 7:35 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink
Unfortunate but normal aspect of religious people, right? I know of universalists who think they are the ones with the right solution and everyone else, especially Islam, is somehow deficient.
When you ask them then about what kind of universalist can be so elitist, and follow up on the theological and philosophical problems, they are not all that interested.
Religion is a compulsion for most people, I don’t think that they concern themselves with the broad issues. Mostly identity politics because that is immediate and easy to digest.
So you get people that get all worked up about hijab and their right (or others) to wear or not wear it. But they don’t bother to fast or pray for various personal reasons.
What can you say? Best to ignore that stuff.
aziz 7:38 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink
i thought my meaning of “thriving” was clear by implication from my linked post about AITBMCITW: freedom to practice faith unencumbered by the various sectarian and inter-religious oppressions of the homelands. I dont really see how percentage of population is a relevant metric to “thriving” at all.
as for foreign entanglements, I think you are on the right track to note that these are not necessarily religious in nature (and the IP conflict is essentially a nationalist “manifest destiny” vs a rebellious colony one, with religion only invoked to rally pawns). In fact I think that every single ethnic or religious group youd care to name in America is going to have an undue interest in at least one such entanglement. Thats a general function of America as global melting pot/salad bowl than any inherent predeliction of the ethnic/religious group in question.
razib, murtad fitri 8:20 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink
What can you say? Best to ignore that stuff.
sure. but as a citizen of the united states you can’t, because living as a citizen means you have to engage your fellow citizens, of all persuasions. to give a specific non-muslim example, in the 19th century the public school system had a strong protestant tinge to it. both catholics and jews were marginalized. but because catholics had great numbers they could plausibly set up a alternatives school system. and, like in many european nations they went looking public subsidies for that school system. the majority rejected those subsidies. and jews went along the protestants on this, because they simply had no choice in terms of sectarian schooling (this s before the ~1900 wave of east european jews increased their numbers, though even then jewish schools were rare because very few of the immigrants were very religious orthodox). for jews, the semi-protestant public school system was preferable to the totally catholic school system at the time, and they had to reject the entreaties of their normal catholic allies on this issue. the ideal situation is separation of church and school, and jews were instrumental in this in the 1960s, but that was nearly a century later.
as for identity politics and tribalism, that’s a human universal. but
1) different religions have different “tensions” with the mainstream. that’s where the denomination-sect-cult terminology in sociology comes from. so, reform judaism is more universalist than hasidic judaism operationally.
2) identities intersect and are complex. there was a great deal of concern during the franco-prussian war than catholic german units under the leadership of protestant prussians would refuse to fight the catholic french. they fought well. the german catholics remained catholics, but they were also loyal to the german-nation state.
. In fact I think that every single ethnic or religious group youd care to name in America is going to have an undue interest in at least one such entanglement. Thats a general function of America as global melting pot/salad bowl than any inherent predeliction of the ethnic/religious group in question.
yes, but the extent of entanglements differs. jews for example are obsessed with israel. but there is only one jewish state. how many muslim states are there? similarly, hindu americans are obsessed with pakistan-india. but there’s only india (and nepal). additionally, different movements within a religious grouping have different attitudes toward entanglements. evangelical protestants are really much more tightly focused on christians, and especially evangelical christians, than mainline protestants (who take a more ecumenical, so to speak, attitude toward foreign policy).
aziz 8:40 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink
but there is only one jewish state. how many muslim states are there?
three, by my count – Saudi, Pak and Iran. All of which add up to a fraction of the population of the sole Hindu state.
razib, murtad fitri 8:45 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink
three, by my count – Saudi, Pak and Iran. All of which add up to a fraction of the population of the sole Hindu state.
1) if india is a hindu state, then every muslim majority nation is a “muslim state.”
2) there are plenty of countries in the islamic world which have islam as the state religion or official religion, and, provide subsidies to islam in particular. i got curious and started counting it once, but got depressed and gave up. for example, malaysia is not saudi arabia, but it does give preference to islam over the other religions in a variety of ways.
aziz 10:29 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink
well, fair enough on #1 – though India still has the upper hand if you tally all muslim majority nations. But ok you really meant point 2 in terms of an “islamic state”. Still, i find the counting of “religion-X states” to be irrelevant, whether X = jew or muslim or Jedi. The point is, I agree the extent of entanglements differ but thats just a function of relative population. The bottom line though is that American muslims are just like everyone else – they tend to be invested in the foreign policy affecting their home nations. And my point is that those allegiances to the motherland are almost entirely driven by nationalism and culture rather than strict religious identity. I dont see a connection that is particular to Islam here.
razib, murtad fitri 8:24 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink |
also, the more diverse a population you have, the more foreign entanglements you have. the irish and the germans were not particular enthusiastic about world war 1, for example.
shams 11:09 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink |
These Culture Wars, which saw the…
You see, my habbibi….I object to this term.
There is no “Culture War” in America…..there is evolution of culture Event, like an ice age or the Extinction Event at the K-T Boundary.
Here’s a good comment from First Things….
Let me repeat….there is no culture war…..there is only an evolutionary event
Conservative efforts to “take back teh culture” are as useful as battling glacial flow with pitchforks and torches.
shams 11:27 pm on November 1, 2009 Permalink |
also too, the situation razib so painstakingly describes simply doesn’t exist in contemporary America.
Traditional white protestant conservative culture with informed America’s birth is completely disenfranchised from the bearers of contemporary culture. Science, academe, music, the arts, the traditional media…..there are the authorities of culture.
The coherent conservative culture razib speaks so elegantly and wistfully of is long gone….it is a zombie culture no longer relevent to the heart and soul of America.
shams 7:42 am on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
One thing more….if you want to talk about “War”, razib, call it what it is.
A class war, not a culture war. Older, poorer, more rural, less educated, and much much whiter. The party of WEC.
Sully’s reader sums it.
The soi disant intelligentsia uses “Culture War” as a misdirect, a slight of hand to distract to distract from the fact that conservatism has no strategy to offer against cultural and demographic evolution.
Rush and Beck are just cheerleaders for us-vs-them…..and for the lowest passions of the WEC base….homophobia, racism, and chattel slavery of women and children.
Buzz 8:16 am on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
McPolitics.
shams 1:35 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
lol @ buzz.
razib himself used to say that culture doesn’t society as much as society shapes culture according to the needs of the people.
WEC culture simply doesn’t fulfill the needs of a multi-cultural, urbanized, multi-colored, multi-gendered society….21st century America.
Let me repeat……there is no “Culture War” in America.
It is impossible to “fight a war” against evolution.
Buzz 4:37 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
Semantics. You could say the Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghani are NOT fighting a war, just securing the peace…or evolving the political structure…or coevolving a more mutually frindly environment for peace. All sounds a bit ghoulish.
The battle between right and left in this country is quite severe right now and the ideology is quite distinctly split and mututally incompatible. Money and lies and distortions and force are being used to dictate the course of American culture and politics.
The weapons may be photoshop instead of glocks and u-hauls full of fertilizer, but it still looks like a battle to me.
Why frame it otherwise? What is the benefit of that perspective?
shams 5:41 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
it is not a “culture war”.
that is an evo-culture event, cotemporary culture has disenfranchised the right…. the left owns media, academe, science, the arts…all the bearers of culture.
The “war” you are talking about……is a Class War, and a Race War.
Not a culture war.
shams 5:46 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink
NO. The right cant shape culture……they have already lost control. They have a zombie WEC culture which is irrelevent to the current contemporary American culture which is multi-ethnic, multi-colored, multi-gendered and multi-aged…..pluralist.
shams 1:36 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
Culture doesn’t SHAPE society as much as society shapes culture according to its needs.
shams 7:23 pm on November 2, 2009 Permalink |
America is no longer “deeply protestant”.
When it was, it would have been a horrible place to be a muslim, and it WAS a horrible place to be black, red, brown, or female.
WEC is now 20% of the electorate.
Inshallah their numbers will only decrease.