Why Can't I Criticize My Religion?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Why Can't I Criticize My Religion?
by Majid Rafizadeh , Gatestone Institute, September 16, 2018
Majid Rafizadeh speaking at the United States Congress, on December 7, 2017. (Image source: Valter Schleder/Wikimedia Commons)
When I received a letter from a Shiite religious preacher from the United Kingdom, it did not surprise me. I receive many similar letters from extremist Muslims all over the world, as well as Western liberals, socialists, and others. Each time, opening these letters, I prepare for criticism of my careful scrutiny of my religion. As expected, the letter began with a familiar suggestion: "Stop criticizing your own religion."
The letter went on to support this instruction with promises of the media and Western progressives favoring me and becoming far more supportive of me, if I were to align my views with their preferred talking points:
"If you stop criticizing Islam, the West will certainly be more welcoming of you, and you will receive more offers and opportunities to further your career."
What is it that I say that rankles the left so much? I refuse to be apologetic for radical Islam in the West. I refuse to gloss over the darkest consequences to which rampant extremism has led. I do not waffle beneath the idea of multiculturalism or tolerance; some things are not meant to be tolerated. The message of the apologists is clear: Get in line. Send out the same messages that others are: about all aspects of Islam being a loving and benevolent religion. Focus on this and sweep the crimes against humanity under the carpet.
I truly wish I could.
Clearly, it is not hard to see why so many of my colleagues have succumbed to this pressure. My path would indeed have been much easier if I had picked up the politicized view and marched forward with the others who have chosen expediency over truth. But I found it impossible to fit in and merge with the mainstream Islamic apologists in the West. The memories of what I have seen, and the atrocities that I know are still being committed, haunt me, and drive me to speak for the voiceless. My purpose has never been to make the West like me or to receive personal benefits from sharing my experiences. My purpose has always been only to stop the torment that my people have endured at the hands of merciless tyrannical Islamist regimes and groups.
I was born and raised in majority-Muslim societies, in the two dominant sects of Islam, Sunni and Shiism, in both the Arab and Persian worlds. The experiences that my family and the people around us went through shaped me in a way that it is inconceivable not to realize how dangerous sharia and Islamist rule can be. As a result, my mission has been to address these underlying problems, explained in my books , in the hope that it might help to usher some reforms from within the religion. Muslims such as Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser and Salim Mansur, to name just a few, have also been advocating reinterpretation.
What the Islamic apologists have to understand is that I, and others like me, are not going to strike a Faustian bargain in order to benefit and fit in with the mainstream. There are some values, such as raising awareness and helping subjugated women who are often effectively enslaved and tortured in many ways under Islamist rule, that are far more important than solely serving one's personal interests.
Another purpose behind these messages is to analyze the words "the West". It seems when people such as the Islamic preacher say that the West will like you and you will benefit more if you do not criticize Islamism, the "West" does not represent all Westerners, but seems mostly to refer to institutions and figures of the political far left. These extremist Muslims may also be referring to organizations or social media outlets that do not report facts but ideology. They appear to address matters as they wish they would be, rather than by looking at evidence. Unfortunately, many of these universities, institutions and outlets happen to be the giant and the dominant ones in the West.
When I first came to the U.S. to teach on a Fulbright scholarship during the Obama administration, it was intriguing to see how many institutions and figures did not like to hear or report any criticism of Islam. This flight seemed to represent a total double standard. While these Westerners appeared totally fine with strongly criticizing religions such as Christianity and Judaism, they did not treat Islam the same. It was a shock to discover, quite quickly, that it was acceptable for them to criticize their own religions, but not all right for me to criticize mine. It was not possible to make sense of it.
In Iran and Syria, where I grew up, one can get arrested, jailed, tortured and even executed for saying anything that may not be positive about the dominant religion of the land, Islam. On the surface, for those who wanted to reform Islam, the only place to do so appeared to be the West. After all, so many political leaders consistently boast about the value of freedom of speech and freedom of press. Where else could a reform of a highly restricted religion occur?
If something like this were attempted in a country where sharia law is enforced, one would face severe consequences for even attempting to criticize the religion. We all assumed that here in the West, it would be safe to question and criticize anything. Instead, so many institutions utilize a far more subtle method of silencing criticism. Some of these methods include labeling anyone who says anything remotely negative about Islam -- even those who offer constructive criticism and the opportunity for reform -- as promoting "Islamophobia."
Please just accept a simple message: If you think criticizing Christianity and Judaism is constructive, and a way to modernize and create reform, then please apply the same rule to Islam.
The more you conceal or disregard constructive criticism of Islam, the harder you are making it for reforms to occur and the easier you are making it for Muslim radicals to prevail. There are currently, around the world, atrocities being committed every moment of every day in the name of Islam; your goal should not be to be politically correct or fiercely protect this religion, but to heal its wounded and offer support to those that want to eliminate the abuses. Glossing over the often unspeakable acts to which sharia can lead will only empower those individuals who have malevolent intentions, while subjugating the most vulnerable to their cruelty.
If, as you claim, your core values are upholding freedom of speech, freedom of press and open discussions about Christianity and Judaism, these values should apply to Islam as well. Support the voices of those who have experienced sharia law first-hand, and call for reform.
The reason I criticize the radical elements of my religion is not because I have hatred in my heart, but because I desire to protect those who have been abused and abandoned by their leaders. With open eyes, I am not willing to hide from the truth, no matter how great the benefit or profit.
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated scholar, businessman, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy.
Tags
Who is online
468 visitors
I just discovered another hero. Now the apologists will attack the source, the author, and me. They will do so without bothering to read what this hero has to say.
Religion doesn't usually tolerate dissent or questioning. But it is quite deserving of criticism and it should be. Fortunately, we are free to do just that in this country, regardless if it's unpopular or not.
Unfortunately, anyone who DOES criticize Islam, even in America, will most likely be called an Islamophobe, possibly threatened and could be listed by the SPLC.
I think an Islamophobe is someone who denigrates the whole religion and, everyone in it but, someone who has really looked at a religion knows that it is certain people and, philosophy's in that religion that actually make it seem evil, in the case of Islam it is the extremists we call terrorists who have made Islam seem evil, they adhere to two thousand year old beliefs that are not only out dated by modern times but, dangerous to the overall life of their religion, no one with any sense would want to belong to a religion that see's its job as enslaving women, mutilating them or, killing people because of their religious differences, sexual orientation or, political beliefs. But, even in this country we have people who do believe such things, they may not be able to act on them because of our laws but, they do believe it.
I think of the young Pakistani/American woman in one of the northern states who decided to run for office this year, in Pakistan if she had tried anything like this she would have been stoned by the religious zealots in her community but, here in our country she can run for office, dress the way she likes to dress and, even own a business all things she would have been denied in Pakistan. She still practices her religion here but, she is free to act in a way that stymie's the two thousand year old restrictions on her.
Even your religion Buzz still has restrictions on what you can and, cannot do but, how many of them do you really practice today? Judaism has many restriction on what you can eat, wear, who you can marry or, even who you can do business with, do you really follow all of them? I can tell you right now you don't.
What this gentleman is saying to his religion is this, yes, you have these old ideas in the writings but, you don't have to follow them, there is another way, a better way, to do things and, to believe, it is the radicals in the religion who want people to toe the line and, to "kill the infidel", these are the people who need to be purged from the religion, just like we have tried to purge the radicals like the KKK from the Christian religion.
LOL. I follow almost NONE of them. I eat pork and lobster, married a Chinese Buddhist, wear whatever I please, do business with anybody I want, even on the Sabbath, etc. (Forgive me, Enoch, for I have sinned.) Only the Chasids and the Haradim still live in the middle ages and they're a pretty small minority of the faith. I have no love for them, for sure, because I despise ALL extremists.
By the way, 2000 years might apply to Christianity, but Islam's only existed for around 1400 years.
That sounds more of a generalization. Context can also be a factor.
"Don't worry about it Homer. 9 out of 10 religions fail in their first year." ---"God" to Homer Simpson, The Simpsons.
I think you are right on that
Then please don't take this the wrong way, I look at the "major three religions" in the world in the same way, as hypocritical religions, they say one thing and, do another, they claim one thing and, do another. We know from history that Islam was split into three sects by the sons of Muhammad back when they took over after his death, each son had an idea of how the religion founded by their father should be and, I won't say that they were wrong but, IMO, they were mistaken, since that time it has become more radicalized by the zealots who have come in place of them and, has gotten worse since the founding of the new Israel in 1947 because of the way Israel was established, through politics in the West not with any consensus in the Middle East. This in my opinion was a mistake.
The Israeli's haven't taken into consideration, during the time of re-establishing their home state, the reaction of the Palestinian's who lived in what is now Israel, to having their homes taken from them by "some upstart European and, Western Jews" who think they belong, "in our homes". Think how it would be if someone came to you with guns and, said to you Buzz, "Get out, this is my home now", wouldn't you be angry and, ready to fight? Of course you would. This is how I see things in Israel. The Palestinian's who lived there for thousands of years are being told "You don't belong here", when they know that they do. How do they know that? Their ancestors lived there back when the Roman's were there and, before, some of them were and, probably still are of the Jewish faith but, because they are Palestinian they are being pushed out by the Israeli's, yes, the rest are Muslim's but, think of the time span that is involved, many either had to change religion over the 1400 years or, be killed by the people who were there during the Crusades and, before. When the Roman's destroyed the Temple the twelve tribes scattered, that is a fact but, some of them stayed behind, it is in human nature for them to do that so, when you speak of Israeli's fighting Palestinian's and, Palestinian's fighting Israeli's you are describing to me a civil war within Israel based on religious differences, caused by political decisions made in a Western parliament by Westerner's.
To me, it's just a really sad commentary on Amercian culture, when people who are not a licensed Psychologist feel free to diagnosis phobic disorders in online forums. I've never understood that. Even though it still, to this very day, amuses me greatly.
Some would call it an Orwellian attempt to discourage the discussion of certain topics and ideas they find uncomfortable, or disagreeable with their political or religious disposition. Don't they know democracy dies without a vigorous, strong, healthy, free and open debate on all or any topics?
I wonder if people who use that slur, have also ever used these words in conversation. Are there Jewophobes, hinduophobes, Buddhistophobes, Christianophobes? How about Shinto-ophobes? Any of them out there? or Voodoo-ophobes that sure is a lot of O's there (LOL) Does Islam occupy a special place in their heart's elevated above and beyond any form of criticism? How does that work?
In what reality is the criticism of Islam a phobic disorder and criticism of all other religions not?
Christopher Hitchens (when quoting Andrew Cummins) suggested the word was created by fascists.
Me, I don't like fascists or their made-up words very much.
Is this Dragnet scene paganophobic, because as a I pagan, I want to know your medical opinion. Can I sue the producers for a hate crime, as it is not an accurate depiction of pagan attitudes and beliefs?
Where in my comments have I said, "In my medical opinion", I have said "I think", "In my opinion", I have never claimed to be a doctor anywhere on NT's, if you have evidence that I have, then produce it or, STFU about it. Now, if you have a legitimate question about what I posted please present it, otherwise, Blessed Be.
[deleted]
If that's your opinion, if you''re an American, you can be damned sorry what your ancestors did to the Native Americans, and maybe you should give your home to them. However, the BIG difference is that Westerners did NOT live in America for thousands of years, did not build a temple there thousands of years ago. There has ALWAYS been a presence of Jews in Israel. You forget that it was the Arabs that declared war on the Jews when the UN declared partition.
If I owned one I probably would or, what I would do is open it up to them if I had enough land for them to build on it. I have a "blood brother" in the Blackfoot Nation, we have been friends since high school and, he is like a true brother to me so, don't try shaming me on that score, it won't work.
No, they didn't and, I have never said they did, this is however, a deflection of what I said. I never said that the Jews didn't have a historic foothold in Israel but, my family has a historic foothold in Ireland and, Scotland, should I go to those country's and, tell the people there, "get out, this is my home"? No, of course not because, they have as much right, if not more than I do to that land.
The most true statement you have made here, "There have always been a presence of Jews in Israel", since the days of David there have been Jews in Israel, as I stated above, not all the Jews left Israel when the Romans destroyed the Temple, some stayed behind.
Really? Who was it that invaded their land and, said it wasn't their land anymore? Kind of makes you think of what happened when the whites came to America. No attempt at any kind of negotiation with the Palestinians who lived there, no talking with them to see if the European Jews could create settlements on unused land, yes, it would have taken time but, look at the results from not negotiating a settlement plan, almost seventy years of war. I can't remember a time when Israel was at peace, which is sad, IMO. Who is to blame for this? The Arabs who were defending the Palestinians? The European Jews who came over after insisting to the U.N. that they had a right to their own state? The U.N. who didn't take it into account that the Palestinians might not only have an owners right to the land but, a religious right to the land just as the European Jews were claiming? I think they all have a claim to blame here, no one tried negotiating anything until after the fighting broke out.
I think you need to read a little more history of the situation, Galen. When the surrounding Arab armies were going to strike they told the Arabs who were there to flee to not get hurt, and they would be able to return to their homes after the armies had pushed the Jews into the sea. Looks like it didn't work out for them. Most of the Arabs fled, they weren't thrown out.
Were you aware that the Rothschildes BOUGHT a lot of the land from absentee landlords BEFORE Partition for the purpose of establishing Kibbutzim? As well, the whole area was extremely desolate, swamps and wasteland before, and it was the Jews, not the Arabs, that made it blossom, and many of the Arabs who were there at Partition had come there from the surrounding countries to work on the farms that were owned by Jews. Even Arafat was not a "Palestinian", but was an Egyptian.
I expanded the key phrase in your history of the time, I will put it here for you as well, "and, they would be able to RETURN TO THEIR HOMES". It wasn't the European Jews homes, it was the homes of the people who lived there, the ones who had been there for generations, farms and, homes handed down from father to son for generations since before the time of Jesus in some cases, which means they lived there when there was an Israel.
They were asked to leave so that there wouldn't be collateral damage to civilians in the fight. Seems like common sense to me but, hey, I'm just a Pagan with no dog in the fight, looking at the forest instead of the trees.
Yes, another western influence in something that should have been decided by the people that were there.
So, as I said, there were already Jews there.
Of course he was, most of the Arab's at the time were Nomads, going to different places in the Middle East working were they could to make a living. The Palestinians were more permanent, they, as I've said, lived in Palestine, (Israel) since it was Israel, it was, as you should know, the Roman's who named the area Palestine, the Jews who lived there at the time continued to call their area Israel, when the Temple was destroyed the whole area became known as Palestine until the Crusades and, the Crusaders called it Israel while the Arabs continued to call it Palestine, by the way, that would also be the Jews that still lived in the area who referred to it as Palestine as well. The history of the area did not just begin in 1947 you know.
One of the hallmarks of Islam is that it cannot be questioned. This is far more serious (death in some cultures) in Islam than the other Abrahamic religions (which are not all that keen on questioning the faith either).
A big supporter of the talking "sky fairy" theory are you?
I truly have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Well, they are all revealed faiths. I phrased it that way because I know you are an atheist. As an Atheist who, or what revealed the faiths to the faithful?
The word 'revealed' is leading. In my analysis religions are all man-made. They are founded in stories not unlike the Iliad & the Odyssey or the Epic of Gilgamesh that evolve over time and often end up in books that are deemed holy.
But this is the obvious answer. I suspect there is much more to your question - hinged on the word 'revealed'.
You would be correct. It was to get this specific response from you
If you believe that statement, there can be no connection between the "faiths". Meaning there is no such concept as an Abrahamic religious tradition. And claiming that is, is only an endorsement of Islamic beliefs. Those beliefs kill Jews and Christian who reject the claims of Mohammad, of a shared concept of god.
Of course there can be a connection. You simply follow what the book(s) say. One need not believe a book divine to read and understand its claims.
In Harry Potter we know that Voldemort inadvertently housed one of his horcruxes in Harry Potter. Do I believe this? Well, no, this is a fictional story. But can I speak of the facts of the story as established by the author? Certainly.
Now on a different track, lets look at history:
Are you suggesting that historically Judaism, Christianity and Islam do NOT have the Pentateuch in common?
That response is really pathetic. Harry "f**" Potter? (LOL)
If in 633 years someone publishes a continuation of the Harry Potter series of books the estate of J. K. Rowling will sue to stop publication.
Muslims do not follow the Torah, Jews do. Jews do not follow the Christian bible, Christians do, they also have incorporated the entire old testament into their faith. Neither Christians or Jews follow the Quran, which picks and choses a few idea from both faiths. Muslims do that. I don't believe I have to explain that.
Let's try secular reality why don't we? all the "holy books" you mentioned but, one, have various authors. In the Jewish tradition, they are spread over centuries. Christian over 50 years or so of writing were accepted at the council of Nicaea, and again various authors, nothing codified until 325 AD.
Centuries (610 AD) later after the compilation of the other text a single dude who had some contact with the various religious traditions borrowed some to give a new faith more "gravitas" it is called plagiarism, plain and simple. Only a poorly informed person could believe otherwise. In this new revelation (or edition in your view), these beliefs were instructions to murder and subjugate the previous already establish faiths. Claims where made, that those faiths were really corruptions of the new faith, that had in fact, existed from the beginning of time. All of their prophets were in reality Muslim prophets who taught Islam. Adam, the first man,(in the Jewish tradition) is said to have been a Muslim.
Please, how stupid can someone be to believe that total nonsense?
The new author further denigrates the previous faiths, again and again, he suggests Jew were transformed into pigs and apes. Quran 5:59-60. That denigration is later expanded to all non-muslims. Non-Muslims are categorized as ritually unclean or subhuman (najis) for theocratic Muslims. That is why they are prohibited from entering Mecca. As referenced by Quran 9;28
Mohammad contradicts history, and Christian beliefs, with his claim Jesus did not die on the cross. quran 4:157
Tacitus Annals (15:44)
There are somewhere around 2,500 years separating Abraham and Mohammad, and by your comment, you are endorsing the idea that he, Mohammad, somehow, without the talking "sky fairy" being involved, actually knew what a man separated by 2,500 years in history believed. How do you explain that?
It is very difficult to take your comment seriously. You do nothing but support the worst sort dogma. Do you have any understanding of Islamic beliefs? Is that what atheism has become? a progressive faith following unsupported dogma for ideological reasons that I suspect has to do with their war on Christian beliefs and Jews beliefs while supporting Islamic beliefs.
I am now inclined to think you do not intend thoughtful discussion. Let's see how this plays out.
Strawman. Right off the bat even. I never claimed that Muslims follow the Torah, nor did I claim that Jews follow the Christian bible, nor that Jews or Christians follow the Qur'an.
Clearly you are trying to pick a fight. I do not know why, but you started with a strawman and snark. Not a good sign.
True. Quite a few authors over many centuries. Lot's of oral communication, various languages, cultures, etc. We agree on this point. How it is relevant remains to be seen.
Largely I agree with this. Are you trying to rebut my comment or simply offering your views? I ask because you seem to be arguing that the Qur'an is religious nonsense invented by Muhammad. Well, yeah. So how does this rebut the fact that Islam embraces the Pentateuch?
Not sure it is stupidity. I suspect it has quite a bit more to do with indoctrination and the human desire to believe that which one wishes were true. But given the world has about 1.8 billion Muslims it is silly to argue that this is simply a function of stupidity.
I cannot explain your latest strawman (above) since it is your invention - maybe you should explain it. I made no claims about Mohammad knowing the mind of Abraham (assuming Abraham even existed). Surely you can read my original comment and see that I noted that Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the Pentateuch in common. You should stick with what I have posited. Inventing new claims and attributing them to me is slimy. Why do that?
Dogma? What dogma? Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the Pentateuch in common. Where is the dogma in that historical observation?
So basically you have composed a post of strawman allegations while refusing to address what I actually wrote. Lots of animosity that seems to come from nowhere. Regardless, you have failed to show where my statement is wrong: Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the Pentateuch in common.
And judging from what you just wrote it is clear you have no rebuttal - at least not one that is intellectually honest.
Nice to see a "healthy" debate caused by my posting an article by a Muslim reformer. Well, one good thing, I haven't been called an Islamophobe by anyone yet for posting it.
[Removed]
Buzz just so you know it was an attempted joke that I guess didn't go over well, no offense was meant.