Author: Maryam Namazie

  • Rights Trump Culture and Religion

    Cultural relativism is not only a prescription for inaction and passivity in the face of the oppression of millions of people struggling and resisting in the Middle East and here in the west but is in fact racist in and of itself

    Cultural relativism and its more seemingly palatable multiculturalism have lowered standards and redefined values to such depths that not only are all cultures and beliefs deemed equally valid, they seem to have taken on personas of their own blurring the distinction between individuals and beliefs (whether theirs or imputed).

    As a result, concepts such as rights, equality, respect and tolerance, which were initially raised vis-à-vis the individual, are now more and more applicable to culture and religion and often take precedence over real live human beings.

    This is why any criticism and ridiculing of or opposition to beliefs, cultures, religions, gods and prophets are being deemed racism, disrespecting, inciting hatred and even violence against those deemed believers. Moreover, the social inclusion of people into society has come to solely mean the inclusion of their beliefs, sensibilities, concerns and agendas and nothing more.

    The above is particularly applicable to and spearheaded by Islam and political Islam as it is a religion in state power like in Iran or vying for political power in the likes of Britain and Canada. Cultural relativism has become the channel through which it and its apologists have sought to deflect criticism of its inhumane nature and at the same time undermine the very fabric of society here and elsewhere.

    Needless to say, cultural relativists have it all wrong.

    The distinction between humans and their beliefs is of crucial significance here. It is the human being who is sacred, worthy of the highest respect and rights and so on and so forth not his or her beliefs.

    It is the human being who is meant to be equal not his or her beliefs.

    Of course, people have the right to their beliefs no matter how absurd they may seem but that is a different matter. Having the right to a belief, culture, or religion does not mean that the belief or culture or religion must be respected or that those who disagree, oppose or choose to mock said beliefs must refrain from doing so because it is unacceptable to believers. (As an aside, given that much is unacceptable to the Islamists – including holding hands and dancing to music – there wouldn’t be much left to say or do if they had their way.)

    The demand of cultural relativists for ‘sensitivity’ and ‘responsibility’ (whilst thoughtfully reminding us that we have the right to mock and criticise – at least for now – in the west) are savvy attempts at actually restricting expression on and opposition to religion and culture and its adverse effects on people’s lives. After all, cultural relativism is brisk business for the many self-appointed cultural and religious ‘leaders’ working hand in hand with the state.

    But are we really expected to respect, for example, a belief that women are sub-human, that ‘disobedient’ children need to be exorcised, or that gays are perverts because someone or some religious groups believe it to be so? How about the belief that girls who date non-Muslim men should be murdered in the name of honour? Or that little girls should be veiled and not mix with boys or swim? And does anyone in their right mind really think that such beliefs are equal or equally valid to humanist, secularist, left and progressive ideals fought for by generations?

    This is of course not to deny that racism, including against Muslims, exists, but racism exists because of the profitability of racism for the class system and not because of critical thought and freedom of expression however offensive and insulting it may seem to those who hold those beliefs.

    And anyway, how can criticising or mocking or opposing a belief, culture or religion be racism against or disrespectful of those who believe them? Firstly, you cannot be racist against an idea or belief or ideology. Racism is distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin (albeit constructed) of individuals – of human beings – not their beliefs. Saying a criticism or mockery of Islam, Mohammad, or political Islam is Islamophobia or racism against Muslims is like saying condemnation of Judaism and Zionism fans anti-Semitism.

    Clearly, there is a big difference between Muslims and political Islam – as a contemporary right wing political movement like many others, as well as between Muslims and Islam, which is the ideological aspect of this contemporary movement and a belief like many others.

    Blurring the distinctions between the two and the use of rights and anti-racist language here in the west to do so are devious ways of silencing criticism and opposition – criticism which is particularly crucial given the havoc that political Islam has inflicted in the Middle East and North Africa and more recently here in the west. Needless to say, the language calling for restraint rapidly becomes one of threats and intimidation when Islamists has some form of political power. In Iran, Iraq and elsewhere, they kill and maim indiscriminately, tolerate nothing and no one, hang the ‘unchaste’, ‘kafirs’ and ‘apostates’ from cranes in city centres, and say it is their divine right to do so.

    Cultural relativism is not only a prescription for inaction and passivity in the face of the oppression of millions of people struggling and resisting in the Middle East and here in the west but is in fact racist in and of itself.

    This is because it implies that masses of people choose to live the way they are often forced to and imputes on them the most reactionary elements of culture and religion, which is that of the ruling class, imams and self-appointed leaders. I am supposedly automatically Muslim because I was born in Iran as if that is the only option available; the Muslim Council of Britain, the Islamic Human Rights Commission and the rest of them supposedly automatically represent me – though I wouldn’t touch any them with a ten foot barge pole.

    Cultural relativism also implies that Islam and political Islam represent all those who are considered Muslims – whether they were born or living in the Middle East, Asia or North Africa or once came from there umpteen generations ago. It would be similar to assume that the Catholic Church (that is during the inquisition) and the right wing British National Party represent all British.

    It’s as if there are no classes, political, social and rights activists, communists, atheists, progressives, humanists, rationalists or secularists among this group – all are Muslims and the most reactionary of Islamists at that!

    In addition, for society, cultural relativism promotes a policy of minoritism where people deemed to be different because of their culture are ghettoized in regressive fragmented "minority" communities where they continue to face apartheid and Islamic laws and customs. Their rights are not the highest standards available in the given society as one would expect but the most regressive and reactionary ones. They live in Bantustans with somewhat separate legal, social, cultural, and religious systems. They are compartmentalised to the lowest reactionary denominator and are relegated to second and third class status. They are forever minorities and never ever equal citizens. They are denied access to universal standards and norms. They are denied equal rights and the secularism fought for and established by progressive movements over centuries.

    The idea of difference has always been the fundamental principle of a racist agenda not the other way around.

    The defeat of Nazism and its biological theory of difference largely discredited racial superiority. The racism behind it, however, found another more acceptable form of expression for this era. Instead of expression in racial terms, difference is now portrayed in cultural terms.

    In the face of this onslaught, secularism, universalism and values worthy of 21st century humanity have to be defended and promoted unequivocally.

    We must not allow any more concessions to cultural relativism; we must no longer allow the respect for and toleration of inhuman beliefs and practices. We must hold the human being sacred. We must start first and foremost with the human being. We must stop sub-dividing people into a million categories beginning with religion and nationality and ethnicity and minority and not even ending in Human.

    At a minimum, we must have the complete separation of religion from the state and educational system. Secularism is an important vehicle to protect society from religion’s intervention in people’s lives. A person’s religion has to be a private affair. All religious and religious-inspired notions and references must be omitted from laws. No reference must be made to them in any official documents or in the media, whether as individuals or groups.

    Faith schools, religious education and religion in assemblies must be abolished. Child veiling and religious symbols in schools and public institutions must be prohibited. Children and under 16s must be protected from all forms of manipulation by religions and religious institutions. Cultural and religious practices or ceremonies, which are violent, inhuman, or incompatible with people’s rights and equality must be banned. Any kind of financial, material or moral support by the state to religion and religious activities and institutions must be stopped. All religious establishments must be registered as private enterprises, taxed…

    And it is the state that is duty bound to implement these. Everyday, the state intervenes to protect people whether they want it or not (e.g. in domestic violence or child neglect cases). It has to do so with regards to religion as well. Not necessarily because it likes to but because civil society and established norms force it to.

    Civil rights, freedom and equality, secularism, modernism, are universal concepts that have been fought for by progressive social movements and the working class in various countries.

    That people worldwide, including in Iran, continue to struggle for equality, freedom, secularism and to overcome their lack of rights and repressive regimes is a confirmation of this universality.

    Of course, cultural relativists have said and will say that universal rights are a western concept. This is just more deception on their part. When it comes to using the mass media to broadcast their decapitations, or using the web to organise terrorist attacks, and the internet to issue fatwas and death threats, the Islamists do not say it is western and incompatible with an Islamist society. It is only when it comes to universal rights, standards and values, and secularism, that they suddenly become western. Even if such rights and values are western, it is absurd to say that others’ are not worthy of them.

    In fact, though, rights are gains forcibly taken by the working class and progressive social movements. Therefore, any gain or right obtained anywhere is a gain and a right for all humanity.

    Only an unequivocal defence of universal rights, secularism and the de-religionisation of rights and values will challenge cultural relativism and its racism head on and relegate it to where it belongs – the dustbins of history.

    Maryam Namazie is the host of TV International English, is a Central Council Member of the Organisation of Women’s Liberation and Director of the International Relations Committee of the Worker-communist Party of Iran.

  • Goat Forced to Marry Man

    Rape victim handed over to perp.

  • Women Protest Segregation in Grand Mosque

    ‘The proposal was made by a panel of men.’ Surprise!

  • It Seems Women Are Always in the Way

    They have to be pushed to the side so that their presence does not irritate, annoy or distract – men.

  • ‘What Happened in Rwanda, it Will Happen Here’

    “If these soldiers leave,” Sheik Ali said, “we will all be slaughtered.”

  • Fred Halliday on the Left and the Jihad

    History is being rewritten, the language of political argument adjusted to accommodate this new accommodation.

  • Martin Amis on the Age of Horrorism

    All men are not my brothers, because all women are my sisters.

  • Priest Makes Bomb Threat to Stop Madonna

    Compassion, mercy, charity in action.

  • Nick Cohen on Research into Forgiveness

    Vicars practice what they preach but churchgoers were as likely to want revenge as unbelievers.

  • Ignatieff: Prodigal Son or Martian Outsider?

    ‘There’s a difference between weekend jaunts and the rootless existence of an incurable cosmopolitan.’

  • Terry Glavin on Michael Ignatieff

    He understands politics as tragedy, as a matter of always having to choose the lesser evil.

  • Sen quotes Tagore

    A thought for the day. From Rabindranath Tagore, quoted by Amartya Sen in “Tagore and his India” in The Argumentative Indian (page 99).

    “We who often glorify our tendency to ignore reason, installing in its place blind faith, valuing it as spiritual, are ever paying for its cost with the obscuration of our mind and destiny.”

  • Follies of the Wise

    Jerry Coyne on Frederick Crews’s Follies of the Wise.

    In Follies of the Wise, Crews takes on not only Freud and psychoanalysis, but also other fields of intellectual inquiry which have caused rational people to succumb to irrational ideas: recovered-memory therapy, alien abduction, theosophy, Rorschach inkblot analysis, intelligent design creationism, and even poststructuralist literary theory. All of these, asserts Crews, violate “the ethic of respecting that which is known, acknowledging what is still unknown, and acting as if one cared about the difference”. This, then, is a collection about epistemology, and one that should be read by anyone still harbouring the delusion that Freud was an important thinker, that psychoanalysis is an important cure, that intelligent design is a credible alternative to Darwinism, or that religion and science can coexist happily.

    And should be read immediately by anyone still harbouring all four delusions.

    Crews gives peacemaking scientists their own hiding, reproving them for trying to show that there is no contradiction between science and theology. Regardless of what they say to placate the faithful, most scientists probably know in their hearts that science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world….Virtually all religions make improbable claims that are in principle empirically testable, and thus within the domain of science: Mary, in Catholic teaching, was bodily taken to heaven, while Muhammad rode up on a white horse; and Jesus (born of a virgin) came back from the dead. None of these claims has been corroborated, and while science would never accept them as true without evidence, religion does. A mind that accepts both science and religion is thus a mind in conflict.

    Or a mind that resolves the conflict by pigeonholing the two and keeping them, mentally, completely separate – but that seems to me to amount to the same thing. It can be done; people do it; but it does seem like an exercise in denial, and denial is what we use to suppress conflict.

    It is not politically or tactically useful to point out the fundamental and unbreachable gaps between science and theology. Indeed, scientists and philosophers have written many books (equivalents of Leibnizian theodicy) desperately trying to show how these areas can happily cohabit. In his essay, “Darwin goes to Sunday School”, Crews reviews several of these works, pointing out with brio the intellectual contortions and dishonesties involved in harmonizing religion and science. Assessing work by the evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, the philosopher Michael Ruse, the theologian John Haught and others, Crews concludes, “When coldly examined . . . these productions invariably prove to have adulterated scientific doctrine or to have emptied religious dogma of its commonly accepted meaning”.

    Just so. Anything can be made compatible with anything by changing the meanings of both sides of the equation, but that’s not an honest or, in the long run, helpful way of proceeding. Fred Crews does a great job of pointing that out.

  • Why Music Matters – to Humans

    Did a taste for music evolve? Or is it just a by-product of other adaptations?

  • ACLU Condemns Approval of H.R. 2679

    ‘Public Expression of Religion Act’ would discourage enforcement of a specific constitutional protection.

  • George Alagiah Sees Tensions in Multiculturalism

    Institutionalised tolerance for diversity may have led to institutional indifference to separation.

  • Rights Trump Culture and Religion

    Maryam Namazie calls cultural relativism a prescription for inaction and passivity in the face of oppression.

  • ‘Iconoclasts’ on the Philosophy of Peter Singer

    Singer, Janet Radcliffe Richards, Kenan Malik, Andrew Linzey debate.

  • Signs of Mental Activity in Patient in PVS

    Neuroscientists used fMRI to detect signs of awareness; first success with PVS patient.

  • Ben Goldacre Asks: How is This Not a Trial?

    It’s a trial in the press, but when questions are asked, it’s not.