Message to Richard Dawkins: 'Islam is not a race' is a cop out

[cbayer]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/20/islam-race-richard-dawkins

A focus on the academic distinction between religion and race is often used as a fig leaf for prejudice and outright bigotry

Nesrine Malik
theguardian.com, Friday 20 September 2013 07.57 ED


'[Richard] Dawkins himself dedicated a large part of his riposte to a dissection of whether race is a biological or social construct.' Photograph: Murdo Macleod

Of late, a new variation of the old chestnut "I'm not racist but …" has emerged. It goes: "I've got nothing against Muslims, it's Islam I hate". Otherwise known as the "Islam is not a race" argument.

After I wrote about Richard Dawkins's snide attack on the supposed dearth of Muslim scientific and cultural achievement, some critics hit back along these lines. It is acceptable to criticise and belittle Islam because it is a religion, not an ethnic grouping – and therefore fair game.

Technically, they are right – Islam is not a race. But too often, those who deploy the argument, are borrowing from the Bill Clinton school of sophistry: "I did not have racist relations with that religion".

Dawkins himself dedicated a large part of his riposte to a dissection of whether race is a biological or social construct. The argument over Islam and race was a "simple semantic disagreement", he said, before proceeding to define race according to the dictionary.

more at link

[ZombieHorde]

1. If Muslim is a race, then Republican is a race.

Insulting Republicans is racist.

[cbayer]

2. Her point is that people use the term Muslim to describe a "race",

and this race can be distinguished by certain physical characteristics.

One would not be able to pick out a republican in a security line at an airport, but people are picked out all the time because the "look" Muslim.

So I don't think the comparison is valid.

[skepticscott]

4. Ignorant people describe "Muslims" as a race

Dawkins isn't responsible for their ignorance and misconception, now is he?

[ZombieHorde]

6. They are not picked out because they look like Muslims.

They are picked out because they look like potential terrorists in the eyes of the TSA. The TSA is not concerned about people loving Muhammad or reading the Koran, they are concerned about violence. That is the motivating factor. For many people, Muslim and terrorist are close to the same thing, and the words are used pretty much interchangeably. No doubt, there is racial profiling going on, and this is an act of injustice, but the racial profiling is based around terrorism. In eyes of bigots, terrorists look like people from the Middle East.

"this race can be distinguished by certain physical characteristics."

I think the fact that so many Sikhs have been targeted as potential terrorists disproves this point.

[cbayer]

7. Well, the author is a Muslim and she has been the target of what

she perceives as racism based on how she looks.

The fact that americans don't know the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh would make the point that this is essentially racism, imo.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Or it would make the point that they don't know the difference in style of turban

between the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent.

[cbayer]

10. But the fact that they generalize both to Muslim is a form of bigotry.

It's an assumption based on knowledge of only a subset.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. Why single out Muslims? There's plenty of awful people in every religion.

There are plenty of awful atheists, too. You don't get to denigrate a whole group of people just because you're not singling out a particular race. It's not cool and it's just plain wrong.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. She wrongly assumes this is about prejudice

This isn't about pre-judging Islam; it's about a careful examination of Islam that finds it wanting, because of, for instance, the in-built misogyny and acceptance (which far too easily because encouragement) of war and violence. Dawkins judges the Old Testament harshly for the same reasons. It's not prejudice or bigotry to criticise imperialism; Islam suffers from many of the defects of imperialism.

[cbayer]

8. I think she assumes that some of these statements enable racism, whether intended to or not.

It may just be careless, but, in her opinion, it causes harm to individuals.

[okasha]

12. I gather she wasn't impressed

by his "Dear Muslimah" note.

[cbayer]

15. No, I don't think she was.

I found her response thoughtful and civil. The comments on the site are also interesting.

[longship]

11. Eh! She's wrong about Dawkins and about "Islamic racism".

Dawkins is speaking from his scientific viewpoint. This often gets him in trouble with those who use terminology in a much less restricted manner. Dawkins speaks about race from a biological sense. The author sees "discrimination from a person's appearance" as inherently racial.

I don't know if this argument is resolvable on these terms. Both are talking past one another. Both have valid points but both are invoking irrelevant points when viewed from the perspective of the other.

My approach to this is to point out that it isn't Islam's appearance that scares people, it's their often perceived reprehensible behavior. It is inevitable that people will attempt to characterize, and even stereotype, them.

I don't like that any more than anybody would. But if Islam is indeed a religion of peace maybe they ought to first clean their own house before criticizing anybody who would make even what can only be called a rhetorical argument (which is precisely what Dawkins said).

I am sure that somebody is going to inevitably point out that Dawkins has yet again offended a billion Muslims -- as if they spoke for all of them. (It is a common response for some strange reason.) Maybe some Imam ought to issue a fatwa. That'll do the trick.


Sorry about my sarcastic sweeping generalization but I cannot help but ridicule this argument.

I welcome comments, as usual.

[pinto]

13. "discrimination from a person's appearance" is often and inherently hurtful. I think that's a point.

And a good one.

[longship]

14. In this case however,

Dawkins was making a rhetorical argument and the author was more or less making a "you've insulted a billion Muslims" argument.

Sorry! I am with Dawkins, in spite of the fact that I strongly disagree with profiling anybody.

Also, Islam's behavior has been somewhat reprehensible. If they don't like being targeted, they can clean up their act. No more fatwas. Stop the infighting and killing people who disagree with them, even within Islam itself. Make peace with the world.

I won't hold my breath. I don't give a fuck what a person believes. It's behavior which I judge. Islam has a reprehensible record on that criteria. So do many other religious sects.

[cbayer]

16. I am going to object to your statement that "Islam's behavior

has been somewhat reprehensible" and that "they" should clean up their act.

You are describing extremists and I would suggest that most of the world's Muslims would love to see them stopped.

It's the toxic mixture of government and religion that seem to be at the heart of the problem.

[Niceguy1]

26. that doesn't cause the hate

And violence between the different branches of Islam. That is on the people themselves.

[pinto]

17. cbayer has a good point. Religion + Government is a toxic mix. Especially when one or the other,

or both are extremist in their points of view. And extremism is a sliding scale, imo. At least as far as the damage it holds for societies at large. I would consider some among all the world's major religions on that scale.

[longship]

20. Point well made by both of you.

But there seems to be an aweful lot of extremists in the Muslim parts of the world.

And I agree it is government + religion problem. But when government is removed, which the USA is pretty damned good at doing when they intervene, the resulting bloody civil battles are inevitably along religious lines. I find Muslim treatment of women to be particularly repressive and repugnant. Turkey has apparently solved the issue with a secular government, first by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. But many of the countries in the region have repressive regimes or open warfare based substantially along religious lines. And there's those fatwas where apostates have to go into hiding or use pseudonyms to speak out -- in fear of their lives!!

One can call it extremism, government, or whatever one wants. I call it unacceptable. If a sect doesn't want to be labelled using negatives, maybe they ought to look within instead of always blaming the other people. And maybe they ought to stop killing people because they believe differently, or stop believing like them. To be fair, it's not just Islam that does this. But IMHO, Islam takes things just too damned far when they have any kind of power.

I confess that I don't like any religious sect very much. I am being very biased here, which is usually not my nature. But damn! I am very worried about what's going on in the Middle East.

[pinto]

24. I think some of the violent extremism among young men has an economic factor.

Seemingly shut out from a secure future or a foreseeable path to that future must be extremely frustrating. That applies to cultures world wide, imo.

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. Agree and Disagree

Terrorism is certainly a fringe element in Islam, and I would also argue that the religious aspect of Islamic terrorism can be explained as a post hoc justification to preexisting malcontent. However, I don't agree that it is necessarily economic. A good number of terrorists--notably a few of the 9/11 hijackers--come from respectable, monied families across the Middle East. Their gripes are decidedly more political in nature; they desire to expel foreign influence from lands they see as theirs.

However, the anti-theist objections to Islam don't start and stop with terrorism, and aren't limited to beliefs and practices supported only by fringe elements within the larger Islamic world. Islamic doctrine, as codified in law, tends towards the brutally regressive, and is not as obviously rejected wholesale by mainstream Muslims as is terrorism. We could certainly have a debate as to why many countries across the Middle East and Asia have not seen the wisdom in secular government, but that isn't really the thrust of Dawkins' argument. He's merely focused on criticizing the tenets of the religion, many of which are abhorrent by today's ethical standards.

[Leontius]

19. Maybe you should explain the "biological sense" of race Dawkins speaks about.

[longship]

21. Dawkins has consistently said race is cultural and not biological.

There's no evidence of racial divides in biology. I think that's pretty darn well right on target.

[Leontius]

22. Thanks for the clarification on his position.

[longship]

23. I now see that I didn't word my first reply very well.

Your confusion is understandable.

[dimbear]

18. Some see Islam as a massive negative for the world, but slamming it is like slamming the Nazis in

the 30's. It's only for the brave, and nobody knows how it all comes out. History will judge us.

[intaglio]

27. Dawkins is wrong for 2 reasons

Firstly "Islamic" and "Muslim" too often describe a particular racial sub-group.

Secondly, because classifying all Muslims under the one umbrella is exactly like classifying all Christians as being alike.

[Act_of_Reparation]

28. Not as such

Dawkins isn't criticizing Muslims, he's criticizing Islam. One may just as well critique the tenets of Roman Catholicism without generalizing as to the beliefs and practices of mainstream Catholics.

The difference between an anti-theist taking umbrage with the particulars of a given faith and the xenophobic ranting of your average Fox & Friends host should be obvious: one is addressing the religion as a collection of ideas and dictates, while the other is spreading fear of a particular people.

Incidentally, Sam Harris recently crossed that line by supporting torture and racial profiling as methods to suss out terrorists, and caught considerable flak from many liberal atheists. If anything, this goes to show we anti-theists are capable of separating the religion from the religious, and tune our arguments accordingly.

[cbayer]

29. Or classifying all atheists as being alike.

It's wrong which ever group you do it to.

[skepticscott]

30. As pointed out above

It's not Dawkins' fault that ignorant, Fox-addled types make "Islam" or "Muslim" out as a racial group.

[intaglio]

31. Sorry, but Dawkins does not have that excuse

He is well educated and very capable of doing his own research before sounding off. The problem is that he comes from an elite that regards all other cultures as somehow "less" than his own, I caught the tail end of this type of attitude when I was at a private school briefly back at the beginning of the 1960s. On the other hand I was lucky in that one of the teachers was ex-Indian civil service and taught that in no way were other cultures less developed.

[skepticscott]

33. Ironic that it's you who is broad-brushing Dawkins now

by implying that he must necessarily be exhibiting the behavior of the "elite" that you claim he comes from.

And what does he need an excuse for, exactly? What was his statement that "insulted a billion Muslims"? (Ironic too, that that claim generalizes and broad-brushes Muslims just as much as it's claimed that Dawkins' statements do, but I suppose when the broad-brushing is done in the cause of smearing someone who gets your hackles up, it's perfectly OK).

[intaglio]

34. Not a claim, he is of the elite

Public schoolboy (in the UK Public Schools are hugely expensive private schools) and degree from Cambridge. Less than 2% of UK population has these advantages and virtually all of them have the contacts to do anything with their life. He had the native intelligence and desire to become a researcher but even there he will have been aided by his contacts. It is notable that his non-academic publishing received reviews from others of his background and without that publicity I doubt we would have ever heard of The Blind Watchmaker; it would have remained a niche book.

What he needs an excuse for is his classification of all Muslims as following a violent faith which is both false and insulting, just as it would be to claim that all Christians follow a violent faith.

[skepticscott]

35. Funny that you would ramble on

about a largely irrelevant point, and completely dodge the issue of broad-brushing, but I'll take that as an admission that you recognize your guilt in that area but are unwilling to acknowledge it honestly.

And what was Dawkins' exact statement (quote and link, please) that "insulted a billion Muslims"? I'm assuming you have the results of polling those billion Muslims that justifies you to generalize about the feelings of every one of them, right?

[intaglio]

36. What "broad brush"?

Are you claiming that Dawkins is not of an elite? And are you claiming that his elitist background has nothing to do with his more abhorrent views? My point was to provide background to my claim to have some insight into the world of the 1950s/1960s educated Englishman - which is something you do not have.

As to what he said, try reading the OP - it's at the top of the page.

[skepticscott]

37. The broad-brushing that was clearly laid out in post 33

which I know you read, so why you're feigning ignorance now is a mystery. Your assumption that everyone in that "elite" must have had the same experience and the same viewpoint, and will necessarily think and act like all of the others, is broadbrushing, as you yourself characterize it.

[intaglio]

38. So your claim is that Dawkins pronouncements in this matter

are not the product of his education and upbringing. By your account they sprang full grown, like Athena, from his brain with no precursor. Or are you convinced that his ideas in this matter are purely the product of reason?

My contention, which has the benefit of being explanatory, is that Dawkins is and always has been a part of an elite that regards the foreign as somehow flawed and less reasonable than European sensibility. My contention is that he has never bothered to examine this received wisdom in the same way as he has examined the basis of belief in a deity.

There are those from the same elite who do examine their perceptions of the other; Alexander Thynne, Marquis of Bath and Alec Guinness to name but two. Dawkins flaw is that he is mouthing received wisdom about subjects he has not studied

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Since the only quote from Dawkins in the OP is "simple semantic disagreement", can you be precise?

You are presumably referring to something else he wrote or said, but what? Is it "Islam is not a race" you object to? That's sort of a quote from him.

[Agnosticsherbet]

32. Race from the POV of NOVA and Anthropology

Here is an anthropological discussion of race "The Concept of Race in Anthropology." Related is the and article from NOVA on the argument over whether races actually exists or not. "Does Race Exist?"

I see these as a good beginning on a discussion of whether Dawkins misspoke, spoke through ignorance, spoke out his ass, or slipped into a sort of racial bigotry.

Looking at race from a biological point of view, defined by the shape of skills or the color of skin, appears to be an antiquated hold over from from the 18th and 19th century. Looking at race is a social construct must recognized that race will vary from group to group.

Either way, in my opinion, he screwed up and through a sense of hubristic dickassishness won't admit a mistake. Supporters will rally around him because of misplaced belief in his intellectual infallibility. Opponents attack him because they caught him in a mistake that he is too proud to admit.