Mayor of Manchester, Burnham: Abedi "not a Muslim"
This old chestnut again. As many of you will know, I am a liberal philosopher, centre left economically, left socially. Most pushback I ever get is when I criticise Islam, and I get it from my fellow liberals. Invariably, though, those criticising my theological attacks on Islam:
- have not read the Qu'ran themselves (I have)
- do not criticise my analagous attacks on Christianity
This, I find interesting, and it says a lot. My conclusion is that Islam, as an ideological system, is inherently violent. But where, with similar accounts of texts in the Bible one can claim it to be merely the inspired word of God, with Islam it is the word of God, as directly dictated to Muhammad through Gabriel. I explain this in "Islam vs Christianity: the core differences". I also explain my whole these in "“True Islam” and violent extremism – redux" - in short, if there is a truer sense of Islam in adhering more closely to what God dictated and to the actions of the prophet Muhammad, then that Islam is a violent one.
My fellow liberals don't like this for any number of reasons, some of which I explore in "(Liberal) Implicit Egotism Fallacy or Bias and Islam (again)".
I do like to see myself, as objectively as possible, as searching for the truth, no matter where it takes me.
I find it interesting when world leaders (Hollande, Cameron, Obama) have said things like:
- “This isn’t the real Islam”;
- “Islam is a religion of peace… They are not Muslims, they are monsters”;
- “This has nothing to do with Islam”.
I find this thoroughly problematic. Andy Burnham, a politician I like, was recently interviewed by LBC:
"The message that I would want to get over - and this is how the vast majority of people feel - this man was a terrorist, not a Muslim.
"He does not represent the Muslim community. We've got to keep that distinction in mind all the time. This was an unspeakable act.
"The worst thing that can happen is that people use this to blame an entire community, the Muslim community.
"In my view, the man who committed this atrocity no more represents the Muslim community than the individual who murdered my friend Jo Cox represents the white, Christian community."
I can't agree, at least not with the initial statement.
Who is Andy Burnham to dictate that a self-professed Muslim is not a Muslim? Does Burnham know Abedi's theological pedigree? His beliefs? Yes, he was a terrorist, but yes, he was also a Muslim. Burnham, like those leaders before, is not the arbiter of labels, is not the arbiter of who gets to qualify as a Muslim or not.
This is tricky ground because these are abstract labels applied to properties that are themselves often abstract concepts. But surely a person themself gets some degree of right to a label if they profess to being that label? Especially if that person is arguably enacting some diktats from the core holy book.
Now, Burnham is right, potentially, in saying that Abedi does not represent the Muslim community, if that is calculated on proportions. He will represent some aspect of the community, some members, some subgroup(s), no doubt, but not everybody, and not over 50%.
So, yes, we do not want to tar a community with the same brush, especially if it harms social cohesion and makes matters worse. But, on the other hand, we don't want to shy away from difficult conversations that may be necessary to finding some solution to these issues.
Islam is having an existential crisis; or, if it's not, it should be.
I give public talks on Islam and violence, and, rather close to the bone, I will be doing so on Tuesday night at the Cheltenham Skeptics in the Pub. The idea of the talk is to question my own talk: should I be giving intellectual ammunition to the Daily Mail and their ilk? Is it damaging to present a case against a theologically peaceful Islam? Or is sidelining truth a very dangerous path to travel down?
I don't offer ny solutions. Indeed, I don't think there realistically is one.