Surely context is important here though? For example, one might criticise Islam in the form of a general criticism of religion, but that's not to personally malign all members of all religions. One might also criticise Islam in general terms with regards to the text of its 'holy' writings, but that's not to criticise any and every interpretation of those texts. One might also criticise Islam in specific formulations, and at this point the context becomes more specific and bounded.Exi5tentialist wrote:There are millions of muslims in islam. Islam is what they make it. Not all muslims are the same. Not all islams are the same. To "criticize islam" is to conceive of a single thing called islam. But there are many islams so it is an inaccurate construction.
With respect, pah!The edict that it is always and everywhere ok to "criticize islam" is a dualistic declaration of open season on muslims.
Of course it's OK to 'criticise Islam' as there is nothing special or particular about Islam or Islamic ideas or ideals, or about Muslims or about being a Muslim; if one accepts this then the issue becomes one of the content and context of any such criticism. Why, for example, might we suppose that an "edict that it is always and everywhere OK to criticise Islam" is of a special type or kind when it is essentially no different to maintaining a right (and some might say, an obligation) to criticise political viewpoints? Does maintaining that it is "always and everywhere OK" to criticise Anarchism or Constitutional Federalism, for example, declare an 'open season' on anarchists and constitutional federalist - or does it just entail a criticism of their ideas; an opinion on an opinion? Well, here we disagree. In my view people are not their ideas; their ideas, whether that be normative or objective claims or moral judgements, or (perhaps) transient opinions on this-or-that, or just their stated preferences, tastes, or inclinations, become public affairs within a public domain as soon as they communicate them to others. As such people's publicly expressed ideas and beliefs act as a trigger to our own ideas and opinions, and how we react to those ideas, and the manner in which we articulate those reactions--and indeed whether we choose to articulate that publicly or just to ourselves--is our business and responsibility alone.Islam and muslims are not dualistically separated; they are one in the same.
Of course, I'm not suggesting here that this affords anyone a de facto right to say whatever they like, to whomever they like, in whatever manner they like: The fact that someone has expressed an idea or opinion does not grant one free licence to act without restraint or, if you like, distastefully. To maintain that the existence of other people's ideas and opinion justifies any and all action we may undertake in response is merely an exercise in abrogating one's responsibility as an autonomous agent at large in the world. And yet, if we foreclose on a reasonable allowance to respond to the ideas and opinions of others, on the grounds that the existence of criticism of the expressed ideas or opinions of others is somehow morally dubious or untenable, or somehow emotionally dangerous or harmful to them personally, then we are in fact also foreclosing on the possibility of reasoned, rational discourse. In my experience, those who maintain that this-or-that idea is necessarily beyond criticism, review or rational challenge are those who also maintain a claim to personal infallibility and an unshakable right never to be wrong or to never have their utterances challenged - such that even when they're wrong they're right!
The philocratic roots of an idea, any idea, is irrelevant here as it neither elevates nor degrades an idea automatically, and the formulation of dualism you present is, it seems to me, simply a necessary social construct which affords us the ability to both appraise and assess the merits or veracity ideas (claims, judgements, opinions, and preferences) from another's perspective as well as on and in their own terms at a step removed from the person and the personal.As with the dualism of "criticize the idea, not the person", this islam-muslim separation has philosophically religious roots. Dualism is valuable to people who need a get-out-of-jail-free card. People who want to act in a discriminatory way but at the same time give themselves a free pass to do so. That's why I'm not a dualist. These separate realities of muslim-islam or idea-person are cynical artificial constructions.
We have to accept that, on the whole, religions are predicated on a number of declared objective claims and normative moral judgements, even while the composition and content of those claims and judgements are not fixed - either between religious traditions or indeed within them. One might criticise a claim that Jesus walked on water or Buddha lived on a grain of rice a day (and then on nothing at all!) in the same way one might criticise a claim that Muhammed rode a heavenly steed from North Africa to Jerusalem's Temple Mount in a single night before climbing a ladder and touring the seven levels of heaven for a chat with Isa, that is; in context and accepting that not every Christian or Muslim actually believes these these claims or orders their life by them - even if they are, to a greater or lesser extent, obliged to take the writings in their 'holy' books as the indisputable, factual word of God/Allah.
Similar reasoning and criticism can be brought to bear on moral claims, obligation and judgements as to objective or factual claims, and in circumstances where people or organisations propose the adoption of a normative ethic I suggest an allowance to critically respond to the ideas and opinions of others is a reciprocal necessity unless, that is, we are to grant that everyone is 'a law unto themselves' and inculcate a society in which all are free to act as they see fit without recourse and any and all action is assessed only in terms of the (self-declared) justification of the individual agent.
He's been on a Hemingway binge for a few weeks now. 