Podcast Summary
Understanding the complexities of religion and politics: Religion doesn't cause violence in a simplistic way, and it's crucial to understand the nuances of religion and politics.
Learning from this conversation between Sam Harris and Shadi Hamid on the Making Sense podcast is the complexity of the relationship between religion and violence. Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at Brookings and contributing writer for The Atlantic, emphasizes that religion does not cause violence in a simplistic way. He shares his personal background and how the events of 9/11 and the Iraq war influenced his career focusing on Islamist movements and the role of Islam in politics. Hamid considers himself a Muslim and a liberal on the left, and he has written extensively on the topic. In their discussion, they agree that sincere religious belief and behavior are linked, but they may disagree on other aspects of the issue. Hamid's book "Islamic Exceptionalism" offers a nuanced perspective on the struggle over Islam and its impact on the world. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of understanding the complexities of religion and politics, rather than making simplistic assumptions.
The Role of Religion in Islamic World: Religion significantly shapes motivations and actions of individuals and groups within the Islamic world, including extremist organizations and mainstream movements. Understanding its role is crucial for making sense of Middle Eastern politics.
Religion plays a significant role in the motivations and actions of individuals and groups within the Islamic world, including extremist organizations like the Islamic State and mainstream movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not a new or absurd concept, but a deeply held belief that shapes people's decisions and desires, including the desire for eternal salvation. It is important to recognize this and engage with it in a nuanced and thoughtful way, rather than dismissing it as irrational or irrelevant. This is especially important for those who study or engage with the Middle East, as understanding the role of religion in shaping political dynamics is crucial for making sense of complex and often contentious issues. It is also important to recognize that this is not a novel observation, but one that has been made by scholars and observers for decades. However, there is still a discomfort with discussing religion in academic and public discourse, leading to a lack of understanding and mischaracterizations. It is essential to bring religion back into the conversation in a thoughtful and nuanced way, while also being mindful of the potential misuse of such arguments.
Understanding religious motivations in conflict: Empathy and acknowledgement of sincere beliefs are crucial to understanding religious motivations in conflict. The divide isn't between reason and unreason, but recognizing that rational priorities can be otherworldly. Effort to empathize and understand unique religious perspectives is essential.
Understanding the role of religion in motivating actions of people, particularly in the context of conflict, requires empathy and acknowledgement of the sincerity of beliefs. Secular academics, journalists, and others may struggle to relate due to their lack of immersion in religious communities and the assumption that all motivations are economic or political. However, if paradise exists in the religious belief, striving to reach it is a rational priority. The divide isn't between reason and unreason, but rather the recognition that rational priorities can be otherworldly. To truly understand the complexities of religious motivations, particularly in the context of Islam, it's essential for those from secular backgrounds to make an extra effort to empathize and understand the unique perspectives of religious communities. Furthermore, the distinction between religion and politics may not be as clear-cut as we often assume, and recognizing the intertwined nature of the two can provide valuable insights.
Understanding the complex relationship between religion and politics in the Middle East: The Muslim Brotherhood's worldview blends religious and political motivations, and some individuals are willing to die for their deeply held beliefs, but not all groups with strong beliefs in death seek it actively.
Understanding the motivations of individuals in religious and political contexts, particularly in the Middle East, can be complex and requires empathy and open-mindedness. The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, may not easily distinguish between religious and political motivations, as the two are deeply intertwined in their worldview. This is a concept that many in the Western world may find difficult to grasp due to our post-enlightenment society's separation of religion and politics. One aspect of this worldview that may be particularly challenging for outsiders to understand is the willingness to die for one's beliefs. While it may be easy for us to assume that such a willingness is apocryphal or a result of brainwashing, it is a sincere belief in paradise that drives some individuals to embrace death. However, it's important to note that not all religious or political groups with a strong belief in death have a primary objective of actively seeking it. The distinction between being willing to die and actively trying to die is significant.
The Muslim Brotherhood's political and religious goals during the 2013 Egyptian coup: The Muslim Brotherhood sought to reinstate their elected president and give their actions religious significance during the 2013 Egyptian coup, highlighting the intertwining nature of their political and religious motivations.
During the 2013 Egyptian coup, the Muslim Brotherhood's primary objective was to reinstate Mohammed Morsi as the elected president and put pressure on the military government through protests and sit-ins. This political goal intertwined with their religious beliefs, as they sought to make their actions grander and give their lives a narrative arc. While there is a distinction between the Muslim Brotherhood and extremist groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS, some academics, including anthropologist Scott Atran, have doubted the significance of religious belief in jihadist terrorism. However, it's hard to believe that these scholars truly believe that no one has ever carried out a suicide attack with the expectation of reaching paradise, as some have suggested. Instead, it may be a provocative way to dismiss opposing viewpoints. Ultimately, understanding the political and religious motivations of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood is crucial to making sense of their actions and the complex dynamics of the Middle East.
The significance of soccer team affiliation in jihadism is oversimplified: Religious motivations and ideology play a crucial role in shaping actions of individuals and groups in conflict and war, and dismissing their significance can lead to misunderstandings and fuel conflict.
The sociologist Scott Atran's theory that soccer team affiliation is a better predictor of joining a jihadist cell than religious beliefs is oversimplified and disregards the significance of religious motivations in jihadism. While social connections and reputation among peers are important factors, they do not fully explain the phenomenon. It's crucial to acknowledge the role of religious ideology in shaping the actions of individuals and groups, particularly in the context of conflict and war. The unwillingness to recognize difference and the desire to downplay the relevance of religion in understanding complex issues can lead to misunderstandings and even fuel conflict, as seen in the case of Islam and the rise of Trump. It's essential to engage in open and empathetic dialogue about universal values and differences, rather than dismissing opposing views as bigotry or intolerance.
Shading the Truth in Discussions about Islam and Terrorism: Avoiding the truth or shading it in discussions about Islam and terrorism can hinder productive dialogue and understanding, perpetuating the cycle of violence and misunderstanding.
There is a conscious effort by some individuals and organizations to obfuscate the connection between specific ideas, doctrines, and behaviors within Islam and the resulting harm inflicted upon Muslims themselves, particularly in the context of terrorism. This dishonesty or shading of the truth is not always deliberate, but it can stem from confirmation bias or fear of perpetuating Islamophobia. The speaker acknowledges the importance of charity and understanding in civil conversations, but emphasizes the need for honesty and faithfulness to findings, even if they are uncomfortable or personally challenging. The speaker's criticism is not rooted in a belief that these individuals are intentionally lying, but rather in their consistent pattern of shading the truth or avoiding the issue altogether. This phenomenon can contribute to a lack of productive dialogue and understanding, perpetuating the cycle of violence and misunderstanding.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's contrasting responses to Orlando massacre: Political correctness and dishonesty from the left can hinder open dialogue about jihadism and Islamism, making it crucial to find a middle ground for reducing fear and addressing ongoing challenges of terrorism and extremism.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton's response to the Orlando massacre was criticized for focusing on gun laws and warning against Islamophobia, while Donald Trump's candid rhetoric about Islamic extremism resonated with some voters. This highlights the political correctness that has made honest conversations about jihadism and Islamism difficult, leading to a potential pendulum swing towards dishonesty from the left. The Southern Poverty Law Center's labeling of critics as anti-Muslim extremists only adds to the problem. Finding a middle ground between political correctness and problematic approaches is crucial for reducing fear and encouraging open dialogue about these complex issues. The conversation is necessary as terrorism and extremism are ongoing challenges that require ongoing dialogue.
Islam's resistance to secularization: Islam's history and theology make it resistant to separating religious and secular law, challenging the notion of a linear progression towards liberal democracy in Islam
According to Shadi Hamid, Islam is exceptional in its relationship to law, politics, and governance, making it resistant to secularization. He argues that this resistance has important implications for understanding the role of Sharia law in Western societies and the trajectory of Islam's development. Unlike Christianity, which has a clear distinction between ecclesiastical and civil law, Islam has proven to be resistant to this separation. This resistance is rooted in Islamic history and theology, with the Quran and Hadith providing comprehensive guidance on both religious and secular matters. As a result, the hope for a linear progression towards liberal democracy in Islam, as seen in Christianity's history, may not be realistic. Instead, a more nuanced and contextually aware approach is necessary to understand the role of Islam in contemporary politics.
The Quran as God's speech in Islam: Muslims believe every word and letter of the Quran is directly from God, giving it timeless relevance and political implications. Unlike Christianity, the Quran is considered God's actual speech.
The Quran, being considered the actual speech of God in Islam, holds significant political implications. Unlike other religious texts, Muslims believe every word and letter of the Quran is directly from God, making it not just inspired or protected by Him, but His speech in the literal sense. This belief is central to the religion and gives the Quran's edicts a timeless relevance. As the Prophet Muhammad was both a religious figure and a political leader during the early Islamic era, the Quran naturally addresses issues of governance and law. This can present challenges in modern politics, as the Quran's edicts, being divinely revealed, may not always align with contemporary political norms. This belief sets Islam apart from other religions, particularly Christianity, where the Bible is considered the word of God but not His actual speech. Understanding this difference is crucial for interfaith dialogue and fostering mutual respect and understanding.
Lack of critical analysis of the Quran due to religious sensitivities: Belief in Quran as literal word of God hinders scholarly exploration and analysis using modern tools and methods, potentially leading to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
The academic analysis and critical engagement with the text of the Quran, similar to what has been done with the Bible for centuries, has been largely absent due to religious and cultural sensitivities. The New Testament, in contrast, has undergone extensive critical analysis as most Christians agree that most of it was written by humans. However, in the Islamic context, the belief that the Quran is the literal word of God makes critical analysis a sensitive and potentially divisive issue. This has led to a lack of scholarly exploration and analysis of the Quran using modern tools and methods. An example of this is the discovery of a mistranslation in the Quran regarding the concept of virgins in paradise, which was originally believed to mean "white raisins" instead of "virgins." This discovery, made by a scholar working under a pseudonym, highlights the risks and challenges associated with critically engaging with the Islamic holy text.
Muslims generally view the Quran as God's literal speech but interpret it flexibly: Muslims respect the complexity and richness of Islamic scholarship, but reject literalist interpretations that justify harmful practices.
While there are debates and disagreements within Islamic scholarship regarding the interpretation of the Quran, the idea that the text is immutable and unchanging, leading to literalist readings and potential justifications for outdated or harmful practices, is not the primary issue among the vast majority of Muslims. Instead, Muslims generally view the Quran as God's literal speech but do not necessarily interpret it literally. They acknowledge the importance of interpretation and the complexity of the text, and there is a rich and diverse academic literature on interpreting the Quran. Furthermore, the context of the revelation and the changing social norms should be considered when interpreting the text. However, the availability of the straightforward, literal interpretation makes it an asymmetric battlefield, and the challenge lies in successfully reconstructing and challenging offensive elements within the tradition while respecting the complexity and richness of Islamic scholarship.
Understanding the complexities of interpreting religious texts: Religious texts are open to interpretation, and promoting understanding and respect for diverse perspectives is essential to overcoming potential conflicts and social issues.
The interpretation of religious texts, such as the Quran, can be complex and subjective, with different perspectives leading to varying understandings of God's intentions. The speaker in this discussion acknowledges that they are not in a position to issue religious rulings, or fatwas, and that the nature of justice and the relationship between the created and uncreated Quran are complex issues. While some interpretations may be uncomfortable or seem unjust, others may see these interpretations as ethical or wise. However, the speaker also expresses concern about the potential for sectarianism and the social and civilizational problems that can arise from fundamentalist interpretations of religious texts. Ultimately, the speaker advocates for interfaith dialogue and moderation as a means of overcoming these challenges. It's important to remember that religious texts are open to interpretation, and the goal should be to find common ground and promote understanding and respect for diverse perspectives.
Islam's Relevance in the Modern World: Muslims prioritize human flourishing and adapt their faith to modern secular values, allowing Islam to remain relevant and leading to concepts like Islamic democracy, socialism, and finance. Islam's flexibility is a strength, not a weakness.
Most religious people, including Muslims, prioritize human flourishing in this world over otherworldly beliefs, and they adapt their faith to accommodate modern secular values. This pragmatism and flexibility have allowed Islam to remain relevant and resonant in the modern world, leading to concepts like Islamic democracy, socialism, and finance. The speaker argues that Islam's ability to incorporate secular ideas is not a sign of weakness but rather a strength, and the speaker expresses skepticism towards the idea that secularism will ultimately triumph over religion. While the speaker sees democracy as a desirable outcome, they do not view it as an intrinsic good, acknowledging that it may not be suitable for every society at every stage of development.
The importance of open dialogue for moral, scientific, and cultural progress: Secularism, prioritizing open dialogue and freedom of thought, is crucial for intellectual and ethical growth. Suppression of unpopular opinions hinders progress and impedes human conversation.
The open exchange of ideas and freedom of thought are essential for moral, scientific, and cultural progress. According to the speaker, secularism, which prioritizes these values, is at odds with dogmatism, unreason, denial of science, and superstition. The suppression of unpopular or new opinions can create a barrier to human conversation and hinder our ability to move forward. While the speaker acknowledges that their personal views may not be widely accepted, they emphasize the importance of maintaining open dialogue to encourage intellectual and ethical growth. This perspective is fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society and is crucial for advancing knowledge and moral values.
