Mixed Thoughts on Muslims

This started on Sunday, when I was snowed in at my boyfriend's across the water and we watched "Mangal Pandey," got to talking about the first War for Indian Independence and later Gandhi's successful nonviolent revolt, and then stayed up half the night discussing religion. He (born and raised in South India) took the position (grossly paraphrased) that Hinduism is superior to Islam because it has successfully absorbed many gods and practices, is tolerant of other faiths, and has shown itself to be capable of changing with the times (at least under duress). In contrast, Islam is rigid, intolerant, and resistant to progress, remaining stuck in feudal society while the rest of the world modernized. He blames the Koran for allowing too much flexibility in interpretation and thus too much power and influence to individual Imams.

I maintained that he was comparing apples and oranges. In my view, Hinduism belongs in the same league as Judaism, with its large number of dietary and other ritualized everyday practices, its wide range of degrees of belief/observance compatible with membership, and especially its acquisition by chance at birth, with a comcomitant complete lack of interest in converting outsiders. Islam is much more appropriately compared to Christianity, and perhaps particularly Catholicism (my own religious background), although any paternalistic and sexually repressive fundamentalist evangelical Protestant sect will serve.

Yesterday my boyfriend followed up our discussion with a link to this column, which basically complains that, unlike the previous waves of Europeans who have become part of the great American melting pot despite historical anti-immigrant hysteria, "the Muslim immigrants of today are showing absolutely no signs of even wanting to integrate." Is this a fair characterization? Surely many Muslims are attempting to do so, although without sacrificing their own religious and cultural practices. And ethnic enclaves are a long-standing tradition in America, tending to last at least as long as the initial wave of first generation elders. Heck, there are still places in Pennsylvania where English is a foreign language, ja?

The writer continues, "Worst of all, some of them are now trying to insist that the host nations adjust to their desires rather than the other way round, the taxi drivers of Minneapolis [who declined to transport passengers carrying alcohol] being a perfect example." But is this any different from Christian pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B? It seems to me that fundamentalists of any faith will have rigid beliefs and practices that are likely to come into conflict with a wider secular or pluralistic society.

Perhaps Muslims on average currently tend more towards paternalistic, fundamentalist beliefs and practices than the world's Christians (or Hindus). But I bet that if you controlled for income and education, these populations would not be significantly different. It's a chicken-and-egg kind of problem, though, I admit. How do you separate religion from cultural practices dictated by other factors including historical political structures?

A letter published in this week's issue of Nature had this to say about the current lack of capacity for science in Islamic countries: "...Paternalistic cultures in the Islamic countries can more reasonably be blamed. Under these cultures, inquiry and freedom of expression are actively discouraged in the home, at school, at work and in response to government policies. The capacity for critical analysis is a fundamental requirement for science, but where it has no chance of developing under lifelong suppression, how can science and research be expected to flourish?"

Islamic societies certainly were not always incompatible with science - during Europe's Dark Age, Muslims preserved a great deal of ancient wisdom and developed important innovations, particularly in mathematics. But the replacement of a more rational school of theology by Sunni orthodoxy in the tenth through thirteenth centuries may have created a cultural climate in which science failed to flourish as before.

Finally (and I think coincidentally), I've been enjoying this book on world myths/religions and their origins, and pondering the debt that Western Civilization owes the great Greek innovations of secular humanism: ethics and law. Was it chance or fate that allowed a bunch of barbarian tribes to build on the achievements of the Greeks and Romans, leading to an avalanche of technological innovations? And if some other civilization had beaten Christian Europe to the punch, would we be sulking in a corner, constructing ideological walls against the foreign powers that threatened our ways of life and thought?