The Renaissance scholar

AC Grayling and Adrian Monk disagree as to whether the Renaissance scholar is dead.

Studies in ‘jihadism’

More than six years after 9/11, the study of jihadism is still in its infancy. Why has it taken so long to develop? One reason, of course, is that we started almost from scratch. Another factor is that it takes time for primary sources to emerge. But the most important reason is no doubt that the emotional outrage at al-Qaeda’s violence has prevented us from seeing clearly. Societies touched by terrorism are always the least well placed to understand their enemies. It is only when we see the jihadists not as agents of evil or as religious fanatics, but as humans, that we stand a chance of understanding them.

Source.

Damian Thompson should do a little more research into his anti-Muslim blog posts

In a post on a creationist seminar by a group of Muslims, being held at UCL today, Telegraph journalist and blogger Damian Thompson notes:

One of the main themes of my book Counterknowledge is the spread of Islamic Creationism. Guardian and Independent readers are comfortable with the notion that Creationism is the preserve of swivel-eyed American fundamentalist Christians. They are much less comfortable with the reality that Islam is the main engine of Creationism in the world today.

I completely agree with Thompson in his criticism of Adnan Oktar and his acolytes (‘Harun Yahya’ is a front for several people), and the brand of “Islamic science” they promote. In fact, I will go a step further and say they tap into ‘lowbrow’ anti-Western feelings amongst Muslims, and have a tenuous grasp on histories of science and philosophy to say the least; all this even before we actually look at their struggle to understand the science of evolution.

But what evidence does Thompson’s have to claim “Islam is the main engine of Creationism in the world today”? If he has any I would be interested in reading about it. The truth of the matter is that, much like other forms of ‘religious marketing’, Muslim missionary activities are far behind their Christian counterparts (and this should not be particularly surprising given the relative histories of the two religious groups in the 20th-century). The promotion of creationist propaganda material is not much different.

Ali Eteraz did some digging into Harun Yahya last summer and guess what he discovered? Christian creationist groups are affiliated with the Harun Yahya team and involved in their marketing strategies. Taner Edis, a Turkish scientist who is hardly a fan of Islam with a publication like An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam, notes:

[A] striking aspect of Yahya’s material is how much of it is taken, with minimal changes, from Western creationist literature such as that associated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Since the Quran is not as specific as the Genesis story, Islamic creationists usually allow an old earth, so Yahya discards flood-geology and is noncommittal about the age of the earth. But the rest is there, flavored with quotations from some “Intelligent Design” figures, and all set in a matrix of traditional Islamic apologetics hammering on how obvious it is that there is a designing intelligence behind all the wonders of nature. ICR-style creationism, which we tend to think of as a sectarian, evangelical Protestant peculiarity, turns out to be pre-adapted to an Islamic environment.

Damo should be careful: he is starting to make a habit of spreading counterknowledge when the subject of his discussion happens to be Muslims.

I also wanted to note Thompson’s use of ‘extremist’ to describe the Harun Yahya group. (He uses ‘crazies’ instead of extremist on his own blog which suggests an editorial decision by the Telegraph.) If he is identifying the Harun Yahya creationists as ‘extremist’ then I presume he can point to ‘moderate’ and conservative creationists? Liberal-reformist creationists perhaps? Certainly, based on what little the evidence we have, Adnan Oktar resembles a cult leader — but Thompson doesn’t mention that in his post.

Or is it that this group happens to be Muslim that makes them ‘extremist’ creationists?

It is worth noting should that Thompson’s concern about “British universities are filling up with science and medical students who reject the single most important discovery in biological science” is a real one, as was reported by the Guardian in 2006. However, unlike Thompson, the Guardian report notes that academia finds itself battling not just with Muslim students, but those of Baptist and Pentecostal backgrounds too. In addition, Inayat Bunglawala, about the closest to a “spokesman” for Muslims in Britain we will ever have (thankfully!), has been quite critical of Harun Yahya creationism — so it is not like there is some widespread grassroots movement to take over education of science in Britain by Muslim creationists (and even there was one, it would no doubt have connections with Christian groups!). I do agree that there is a genuine concern about this sort of ‘science’ receiving a positive reception amongst technically-literate Muslims — the sort who have A-Levels, degrees and an amateur interest in science: this says a lot about their ‘illiteracy’ in the humanities.

The religious and ethnic divides of Europe’s Muslims

The contemporary arrival in Europe of different peoples from the developing areas, but most especially from Islamic states, has ignited a number of dire predictions concerning the future of (secular) European political and social systems, ranging from observers such as Omer Taspinar and Daniel Pipes to novelist Jean Raspail to journalist Oriana Fallaci to politicians such as Jean-Marie Le Pen and Jörg Haider.109 In the most extreme versions, European culture and civilization are deemed unable to withstand the onslaught, and European standards of what constitutes civil society will succumb to this “Islamic threat.” To be sure, Muslims currently in Europe have created certain types of social, economic, and even political organizations, but they have not done so in any unified fashion. There has been a notable lack of success in achieving national policy goals sympathetic to Islamic ideals and goals. It is the structure of the religion, and how it is interpreted, practiced, and invoked by its adherents from different Muslim states, which is one of the important reasons Muslims’ political influence through standard democratic channels remains limited. Even as Europe seems to provide some Muslims with the opportunity to create an Islam detached from cultures, ethnicities, and states, that possibility is confounded by the multiple meanings, practices, and claims to spiritual leadership which the decentralized structure of Islam allows.

The European states with large Muslim populations do exercise a modicum of care in their foreign policies towards Turkey, Algeria, and the other regions of the world from which their Muslim immigrants have come. They do not, however, allow it to determine their foreign policy, and they need not: Muslim opinion about “homeland” politics is, as we have shown, divided. Britain went to war in Iraq in 2003 despite its Muslim community; France did not, partly due to its earlier ties with Iraq and to the Muslim populations in France, but also due to its belief that war was not the way to resolve the Saddam question. Germany’s refusal to go to war in 2003 had more to do with the German population’s references than with those of its (largely disenfranchised) Muslim community. When considerations of power and threat come into play, the views of a divided, strategically weak community are not generally considered.

[…]Without attempting a thorough analysis of Europe’s relations with the Islamic states, a topic far beyond the confines and purposes of this
article, it should be noted that the European states have not made any effort to accommodate or accept the more extreme Islamist goals of certain international movements which claim Islam as the basis for their ideology and goals (e.g. al-Qa’ida), and therefore our primary point remains valid. Muslims also have other disadvantages to organizing: Islam cannot claim to be a “natural” resident and institution of Western and Central Europe; Muslims therefore face a substantial hurdle to attaining acceptance and legitimacy. Many Muslims arrived as guest workers, whom most in Europe (at least originally) thought would return to their countries of origin. Further, Muslims have often faced strident racism; their homes have been fire-bombed, individuals have been drowned in rivers by Neo-Nazis, and occasionally brutally murdered.110 Such factors obviously create barriers to organization. Yet the characteristics of the immigrants—the fact that they are immigrants from different countries practicing a decentralized religion with very different traditions—works against the creation of a unified Islamic movement in any Western European country.

The above can be contrasted to the rantings of pundits like The Failed Disc Jockey. Of course, unlike other ‘academic’ reports, such a measured report will not get front page coverage. This says a lot about how the news agenda is linked to certain political (and commercial) interests in our societies.

Related:
Free(d) speech
Sleep walking into class segregation

Newsnight versus Policy Exchange

There is a a lot blogtivity regarding Newsnight’s investigation into the much publicised Policy Exchange report on extremist literature being sold inside British mosques. Briefly, Newsnight claimed that some of the evidence used or gathered by Policy Exchange was fabricated or of dubious origin, a claim Policy Exchange denies or deems irrelevant.

Dr. Gabriele Marranci (an anthropologist specialising in Muslim communities) had a post back in October when the report was first released questioning the methodology and approach of the report’s authors. This prompted a response from the report’s main author, Dr. Denis MacEoin (himself a specialist in Arab and Persian literature) [1, 2]. Another academic blogger at Remarks and culture had similar criticisms. Ministry of Truth, Obsolete [1, 2] and Brian Whitaker contribute with some analysis of their own. MacEoin’s own political viewpoints are noted by Garry Smith (1, 2), and a quick search of his name tells you a lot. (Indigo Jo, a keen reader of letters to the editor in newspapers, has come across MacEoin before.) Of course, MacEoin’s political viewpoints do not, in and of themselves discount, the findings of the report; but they provide context especially when the method and evidence is found to be suspect.

The general view from these and other bloggers seems to be that what is under question is not the availablity of ‘extremist literature’ at mosques which Policy Exchange researchers probably did find, but the presentation of the report as a rigorous academic exercise by the major media outlets in Britain. In other words, this Newsnight story is really about the standards (and perceptions) of journalism in Britain, which have taken something of a battering in the last few years, and not really about Muslims (although the Muslim institutions wrongfully implicated in the report have every right to feel aggrieved).

Interestingly, Dean Godson, the man wheeled out by the Policy Exchange to defend the report on Newsnight, was fired from the Telegraph back in 2004 when Conrad Black (now a convicted criminal) sold the paper to the Barclay brothers:

The Barclays[, says Martin Newland, then editor of the Telegraph,] have not laid down a clear political line. “There are occasional conversations. I might call about something. Normal, friendly conversations…” Nonetheless, the comment page has seen some of the biggest changes during the interregnum. “I soon came to recognise we were speaking a language on geopolitical events and even domestic events that was dictated too much from across the Atlantic. It’s OK to be pro-Israel, but not to be unbelievably pro-Likud Israel, it’s OK to be pro-American but not look as if you’re taking instructions from Washington. Dean Godson and Barbara Amiel were key departures.”

Spinwatch did an investigation into Godson’s ideological roots in September this year, which is very informative and provides a lot of context.

And, of course, Labour are seeking to profit from the suspicions cast over Policy Exchange, given the think-tank is linked to the Tory Party.