Commentary on Religion and the Unmaking of Prejudice toward Muslims: Evidence from a
Large National Sample by John H. Shaver, Geoffrey Troughton, Chris G. Sibley and Joseph A.
Bulbulia. PLOSone; DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0150209
Acknowledgments
Grateful
thanks to the authors for publishing on PLOSone permitting non-academics access
to academic research.
Summary
In this
paper the authors researched responses to Auckland University’s 2013 New
Zealand Attitudes and Values Study to evaluate anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and
anti-immigrant prejudice. Their findings
indicate that anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiments are conflated, and both have
a higher level of prejudice than that against immigrants. Results also show that in New Zealand’s
peaceful and secular context, higher religious commitment of non-Muslims
correlates with higher levels of tolerance towards Muslims.
While I am unable
to pass judgment on the process, results and conclusions of the paper, there
are factors underlying the article that call into question aspects of the
academic Weltanschauung. These fall into
three categories, pejorative inclination, the understanding of Islam, and
purpose orientation.
Pejorative Inclination
The word
‘prejudice’ reached common currency in the phrase ‘racial prejudice’ which
peaked, according to Google Books’ ngram viewer, around 1970 and has declined
since. I would suggest that one reason
for the decline is that the phrase has been shortened to ‘racism’, causing the
word ‘race’ to reduce in common usage and to be replaced by ‘ethnicity’ because
of derived negativity. ‘Racism’ on the
other hand increased its value as an epithet, becoming an all-purpose slur
against any comment or action that disturbed one’s equanimity. It lost its relevance to race and thus the
significance of its application to matters beyond the control of the
subject. It has been increasingly
applied to religious criticism, almost exclusively that countering Islam, and
by extension, Muslims. While criticism
of religion is ipso facto unrelated to race which makes the word essentially
meaningless, the derogatory nature of the words racism and racist is now used
as a potent weapon against free speech. Ramifications
of this, such as the injustices inflicted on young girls and their parents in the
Rotherham child-exploitation case, can have horrific consequences.
In similar
manner, ‘prejudice’ carries with it connotations of judgments made on
unjustifiable grounds, and its use in this paper follows that meaning. That its meaning is not qualified in any way can
lead to complications. For example, were
a survey of Englishmen to question their attitudes to Germans in 1939, the
responses would likely be highly negative.
Would it have been right to dismiss this as prejudice, given
contemporaneous evidence? It would have
appeared to be highly justifiable in light of subsequent events. This comparison is not made lightly. The Nazi Party’s call for lebensraum to the East has its parallel
in the Muslim migration industry’s push of migrants not to safety but
specifically to the West. And global
domination was a doctrinal imperative for the Third Reich, and will be for Islam
until it is achieved, however long that takes.
The paper
makes comment in three places that the use of the words ‘Muslim’ and ‘Arab’ are
conflated in the minds of New Zealanders, and that “[t]his result is at
striking odds with the known cultural and ethnic diversity of Muslims in this
country.” The implication of this seems
to be that New Zealanders have difficulty in discerning the difference and this
“reflect[s] a lack of knowledge about Islam.”
The authors neglect three salient points.
Firstly
‘Arab’, ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’ are very highly correlated in Western minds,
hardly surprising given that around 90% of Arabs are Muslims. Even those most scant of Islamic knowledge
will be aware that Islam is centred in the Arabic part of the Middle East. Arabic terminology such as jihad, Qur’an, Allahu
akbar, fatwa, hadith, haram, halal, hudud and taharrush gamea have
become well-known thanks to the quirks of Muslims’ ethical codes. Perhaps most importantly, it is largely Arabs,
through Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who are driving the global proselytisation agenda.
Secondly, media focus relevant to Islam is on the Middle
East. It is far less concerned with
events in Aceh, Mindanao or the Maldives because they tend to lead to a new and
relatively prolonged stasis. Not so in
the Middle East where events in Syria and Islamic State occupy minute-by-minute
news coverage of tragedies affecting Muslims in Arab lands. Terrorist acts by
Muslims are daily events and whether they occur in the United States, Europe or
MENA states, they are most likely referred back to Arab causes such as Islamic
State or al Qaeda and their affiliates.
Thirdly, the authors’ comment on Muslim diversity in this
country reflects the great efforts Muslim groups go to to dissociate themselves
from events overseas. There is irony in
this. One of the more prolific sources
of Muslim press releases is Manukau’s Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at which goes to
great lengths to profile itself, on behalf of Islam, as a peaceful organisation
dedicated to community service. The
trouble is that it cannot represent Islam since Islam regards the Ahmadiyya
sect as heretical. At around one per
cent of the global Muslim population, their media presence in New Zealand
outweighs their reality. With European
Muslim terrorism gaining a disproportionate amount of media attention, the Federation of Islamic Associations of
New Zealand can be guaranteed to produce press releases dissociating ‘true’ Islam
from the protagonists’ actions. Its former
president Dr Anwar Ghani was recognised for his activities as one of the
world’s 500 most influential Muslims by Jordan’s Royal Islamic Strategic
Centre, which, despite his Indian origin, does nothing to resolve Arab/Muslim
conflation for New Zealanders.
In sum, then, I suggest that Arab/Muslim conflation is
well-founded but has almost nothing to do with Muslims in New Zealand and
almost everything to do with the violent actions of Muslims, by their own
lights acting in the name of Islam, in the predominantly Arab Middle East. That the slur of ‘racism’ can be applied to
‘anti-Arab’ with relative cogency and cannot be applied to ‘anti-Muslim’
without sounding irrational, serves a very useful purpose for those who wish to
supress opinions critical of Islam.
Understanding Islam
The paper’s reference to “lack of knowledge about Islam” goes deeper than imputing provinciality
onto the country’s citizens. It implies
that the authors accept, prima facie, New Zealanders’ opinions on Muslims derived from the Attitudes and Values Study,
without taking into account Islam and its imperatives. I accept that this goes beyond the purview of the paper, but the paper’s tenor gives voice to an idée fixe that pervades media and seemingly academia – do not
disseminate knowledge or criticism of Islam’s fundamental doctrines. The received wisdom of public commentary from
government, diplomacy, academia, public media, the education system, prominent
persons, and the Muslim community itself is that Islam is a religion like any
other. Its intentions are integrative,
peaceful, and communitarian. Evidence or
activity to the contrary, and any denial of the validity of this process, is
blamed on the conduct, ignorance or the religious perversion of others.
Those who read newspapers or watch overseas news sources are
clearly perplexed.1. They are
faced with conflicting narratives but no way of resolving them. Eruptions in the Muslim world seemingly occur
ex nihilo, so it is hardly surprising
that a coherent account cannot be drawn using the Attitudes and Values Study. Those who do have an understanding of the
relationship Muslims have with their religion have no way of imparting their
knowledge, and on the basis of this paper at least, academia seems to have no
interest in conveying it either.
There is a further perspective implicit in the paper but
beyond its scope, that of morality. It
is not moral to be against religion or
its followers. We should accept
another’s beliefs without question because it is personal. This is fairly
recent given Christianity’s history, a product both of moral relativism and of
the reduced certainty of Christianity brought about in part by cultural
repudiation from the far Left.
It now goes beyond civilised politeness and mutual respect,
since the lessons from overseas are that the consequences for non-Muslims,
ex-Muslims and ‘moderate’ Muslims engaging in discourse about Islam can be
fatal. This results in a fear of criticising Islam because of the likelihood of receiving vigorous
disapprobation or violent repercussions - let’s call it ‘Islamophobia’.
But it is quite wrong to dismiss
criticism of Islam as morally wrong if the West’s evolution of moral behaviour
is pitted against Islam’s inflexible rule-bound 7th century moral
code based on one man’s writings, sayings and behaviour. The resulting differences are far too great
to detail here. Consider two things, the
West’s superior civilisational standards over the Muslim world’s when comparing
country by country over a score of indices2, and the extraordinary
compulsion of people from the Middle East and North African states to migrate
to what is sold as the Promised Land on Earth, with expectations of education,
jobs, housing and welfare.3 It’s
no contest. No wonder Muslims do not want
criticism of their religion – it will be seen to have failed as the perfect
political and social system, culture and religion it purports to be.
One final point.
Given that Islam has failed in every country in which it is involved4,
it should not come as a surprise that one study5 concluded that it
is predominantly European states plus Singapore and New Zealand which most
closely reflect Islamic doctrines, not Muslim-majority states. In a just world, then, Muslims will comply
with New Zealand’s mores. But that won’t
happen because Muslims expect New Zealand to comply with Islam. This is a paradox that Muslims need to sort
out, not New Zealanders.
Purpose Orientation
It is not possible for me to attribute an ethical imperative
to the paper, yet it carries the tacit moralising tone I describe in Pejorative Inclination above.
It contributes to a collective world view that anti-Muslim prejudice is
a temporary condition that will be ameliorated by moral pressure alone, and
that Muslim immigration is to be welcomed, it is beneficial for New Zealand,
and we have nothing to fear. This is axiomatic
of New Zealand exceptionalism.
Ordinary low-income New Zealanders, the Left’s natural
electorate, will not gain from this, finding their wages depressed, their
housing costs rising, and social and judicial services stressed due to
immigrant pressure. Increases in taxi
drivers and short-order chefs will be no compensation. Businesses will gain, with reduced labour
costs and a greater talent pool. It supports a world-view that will appeal to
exporters working under religious auspices assisting import/export
industries. Were New Zealand to continue
to follow the European diversity model the same results will occur here – a sharp
rise in support for the only political parties that offer to solve the problems
perceived to beset the majority of voters, those on the Right. Notwithstanding Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom being described, like
many others of like mind, as centrist, the far- to extreme-Right parties will
certainly gain a fillip. As someone
whose politics are most
closely associated with Fabian socialism, this upsets me every bit as much as
does the rise of extremism that inevitably follows Islam.
Support for a borderless world, unrestrained migration flows,
and fragmentation of identity is now a far- to extreme-Left preoccupation. Left-wing influence is controlling academic
discourse. For the United States, “it
used to be two to one Left to Right, now it’s between five and ten to one, Left
to Right, everybody’s increasingly polarised”7 For American psychologists, a survey reported
that the Left to Right ratio reaches 36:1, presidential preference 76:1, and politically
orientated policy items 314:1. “An academic field that leans left (or right)
can still function, as long as ideological claims or politically motivated
research is sure to be challenged. But when a field goes from leaning left
to being entirely on the left, the normal safeguards of peer review and
institutionalised disconfirmation break down. Research on politically
controversial topics becomes unreliable because politically favoured
conclusions receive less-than-normal scrutiny while politically incorrect
findings must scale mountains of motivated and hostile reasoning from reviewers
and editors.”8
The paper’s introduction states that explaining anti-Muslim
prejudice is important. But treating it
in isolation as the paper does, with no reference to causes and no mention of
how in almost every country in the world Islam, unlike any other religion, causes
friction, means the paper’s conclusions add nothing to the debate. This small, peaceable, religiously diverse country
where pragmatism and egalitarian values are highly esteemed, with little
history of religious conflict and its socially progressive and tolerant society,
is not immune to ideologies with global hegemonic aspirations. The Avondale Mosque incident6 was
not an exception, it was a harbinger.
The problem is Islam.
When New Zealanders begin to understand just why this is the case, as
Europeans are beginning to do so now, it will be too late. Why would anyone knowingly support activities
which will inevitably lead to the rise of the extreme Right?
Plus others on GDP, gender gap, gender
inequality, FGM rates, life satisfaction, journalist safety and press freedom,
democracy index, fragile state index, Christian persecution, corruption,
competitiveness, best place to be born, women’s progress, peace index, slavery,
well-being etc., etc.
3.
Dominion
Post 17 October 2015
BBC Documentaries Great Expectations – Migrants in Germany 8 October 2015
BBC Documentaries Great Expectations – Migrants in Germany 8 October 2015
4.
Huntington,
Samuel: The Clash of Civilisations?
Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993. “Islam has
bloody borders and bloody innards
7.
Jonathan
Haidt, professor of Ethical
Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, interviewed by Sam Harris, http://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/250955856-samharrisorg-evolving-minds-a-conversation-with-jonathan-haidt.mp3
No comments:
Post a Comment