It's Time to Talk: Islam and the Future of Tolerance

We need to talk openly about the world we live in because evil thrives on silence and secrecy. I’d go so far as to say that it can’t exist without them.


I am well aware that writing anything at all about the recent attacks in Paris (and Turkey, and Beirut, and wherever else attacks may have occurred by the time this goes to web) is to walk into a rhetorical snake pit. People, not surprisingly, have strong opinions about religion, mass murder, and geopolitics. Here is just a sampler of opinions I have heard expressed by pundits and friends in the week since the Paris attacks:

  • This is an attack on all humanity, all values of human decency, and all people who aspire to be rational should condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
  • People should not express solidarity with Paris because they did not express similar solidarity with other countries that have experienced similar tragedies.
  • People should leave other people alone and let them mourn however they want to.
  • France provoked this by attacking Daesh (ISIS)* first.  
  • The West created Daesh through wars and political partitions.
  • The West has nothing to do with it. Daesh is the expression of pure Quranic doctrine.
  • Daesh has nothing to do with "real Islam."
  • People stake out these positions and defend them, and more often than not, end up attacking others who disagree with them, ad hominem. I’m not noting anything new here, but I would like to add mine to the chorus of voices calling for a return to civil discourse, even (especially!) about difficult and painful subjects. We need to be able to talk about things that affect us directly and indirectly without being “shamed” (as the kids today like to say) for speaking up. White or brown, male or female, Western or Eastern, we need to talk openly about the world we live in because evil thrives on silence and secrecy. I’d go so far as to say that it can’t exist without them. The moment you drag evil out into the public square and demand that it have a normal, rational conversation, it starts to look very small and silly indeed. I’m thinking here of classicist Mary Beard, the Cambridge don who responded to her horrific internet trolls (who did things like superimposing an image of a vagina on a picture of her face) by writing back to them. Hundreds of them. And ended up getting a surprising number of sincere, heartfelt, abjectly human responses. It doesn't excuse what they did. But it deflates the power of these "monsters" significantly. 

    For all of these reasons, the best thing I have read this week is a short book by Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz called Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue. The former, an author of books on ethics, religion, and spiritual practice, has more recently become known as a pundit on the subject of Islam as an inherently violent religion. Because of his strong views on the matter, he’s been attacked by Ben Affleck (on Real Time with Bill Maher) and others as a “racist” and an “Islamophobe.” Nawaz is a former Muslim extremist and author of the book Radical, who now runs Quilliam Foundation, a think tank dedicated to promoting liberalism and human rights among Muslims, and understanding between East and West. It's also dedicated to counteracting Muslim extremism, a phenomenon he insists (and he should know) is very real, very virulent, and in need of formal recognition by Muslims and non-Muslims a like as a deadly problem to be solved. 

    For these two guys to sit down, as they have here, with the explicit intention of demonstrating how people with opposing views can find common ground on these very divisive topics, is in itself a big thing. Nawaz points out that there are many in the Muslim communities he works with who will consider him a traitor just for talking with Sam. Sam, on the other hand, has become an unlikely darling of neoconservatives. Needless to say, they’re not likely to be thrilled about this conversation, either.

    The two of them dive right into it, Harris asserting that core tenets of Quranic doctrine advocate things like beheading infidels, and Nawaz countering, with specific examples, that there is no one interpretation of any text, and that the meaning of any religion or belief system belongs to its practitioners. That said, Nawaz takes a very firm position for human rights, separation of church (or mosque) and state, and liberal, democratic values. He argues that democratic and human rights values mustn’t be seen as belonging to the West, and that it is a form of reverse racism to deem Muslims culturally incapable of embracing them and at the same time remaining “authentically” themselves.

    Things get a little slippery on the subject of Western intervention in the Middle East, mainly because they ARE slippery. Nawaz repeatedly takes Western "apologists" to task for treating Muslim extremism as a natural, understandable response to Western imperialism, pointing out that both Western intervention in and Western indifference to the problems of the Middle East are used as recruitment propaganda by groups like Daesh and Al Qaeda. At the same time both men acknowledge that even among those Muslims who despise Daesh, deep suspicion of Western motives exists, meaning that an act like France's recent retaliatory bombings in Syria may simultaneously aid the short-term goal of destroying Daesh and harm the long-term goal of ending radical Islam for the sake of stability and human rights in the Middle East. I should point out that both Harris and Nawaz want to see Daesh destroyed, one way or another. But Nawaz makes one thing very clear: Without a long-term strategy for winning the "war of ideas" against extremism, the grass roots will remain. And if recent history is any guide, Daesh's successor will be even worse. 

    If there's anything to criticize about this refreshingly humane and intelligent dialogue, it might be the fact that these two men have much more culturally in common than they have to argue about. Nawaz' history allows him to move fluidly between worlds, acting as a kind of intermediary between conservative Islam and its critics. But in the end, he wants peace, civility, democracy, and human rights for all, which are core values for Harris, too. And he levels criticisms that might very well face serious backlash not only among politically correct Western leftists, but also among the majority in the Muslim world. The key difference is that Harris sees all religion as dangerous, unredeemable nonsense, while Nawaz does not. 

    Still, Islam and the Future of Tolerance is a great start, a more sincere and carefully reasoned attempt to bridge these cultural divides and talk openly about the issues than anything I've yet seen. And it's a powerful advertisement for the need for more intermediaries like Quilliam and Nawaz in these conflicts that divide us all.


    *Recently, many media outlets have begun referring to the organization as Daesh, for reasons I also support. For the short explanation, see here. For the exhaustive one, here

    -- 

    I'm @jgots on Twitter

    You might also enjoy: Think Again - A Big Think Podcast. Jason Gots hosts. This week: Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk teaches a valuable lesson on how to live as a writer (or anything). 

     

    3D printing might save your life one day. It's transforming medicine and health care.

    What can 3D printing do for medicine? The "sky is the limit," says Northwell Health researcher Dr. Todd Goldstein.

    Northwell Health
    Sponsored by Northwell Health
    • Medical professionals are currently using 3D printers to create prosthetics and patient-specific organ models that doctors can use to prepare for surgery.
    • Eventually, scientists hope to print patient-specific organs that can be transplanted safely into the human body.
    • Northwell Health, New York State's largest health care provider, is pioneering 3D printing in medicine in three key ways.
    Keep reading Show less
    Big Think Edge
    • Push Past Negative Self-Talk: Give Yourself the Proper Fuel to Attack the World, with David Goggins, Former NAVY SealIf you've ever spent 5 minutes trying to meditate, you know something most people don't realize: that our minds are filled, much of the time, with negative nonsense. Messaging from TV, from the news, from advertising, and from difficult daily interactions pulls us mentally in every direction, insisting that we focus on or worry about this or that. To start from a place of strength and stability, you need to quiet your mind and gain control. For former NAVY Seal David Goggins, this begins with recognizing all the negative self-messaging and committing to quieting the mind. It continues with replacing the negative thoughts with positive ones.

    Maps show how CNN lost America to Fox News

    Is this proof of a dramatic shift?

    Strange Maps
    • Map details dramatic shift from CNN to Fox News over 10-year period
    • Does it show the triumph of "fake news" — or, rather, its defeat?
    • A closer look at the map's legend allows for more complex analyses

    Dramatic and misleading

    Image: Reddit / SICResearch

    The situation today: CNN pushed back to the edges of the country.

    Over the course of no more than a decade, America has radically switched favorites when it comes to cable news networks. As this sequence of maps showing TMAs (Television Market Areas) suggests, CNN is out, Fox News is in.

    The maps are certainly dramatic, but also a bit misleading. They nevertheless provide some insight into the state of journalism and the public's attitudes toward the press in the US.

    Let's zoom in:

    • It's 2008, on the eve of the Obama Era. CNN (blue) dominates the cable news landscape across America. Fox News (red) is an upstart (°1996) with a few regional bastions in the South.
    • By 2010, Fox News has broken out of its southern heartland, colonizing markets in the Midwest and the Northwest — and even northern Maine and southern Alaska.
    • Two years later, Fox News has lost those two outliers, but has filled up in the middle: it now boasts two large, contiguous blocks in the southeast and northwest, almost touching.
    • In 2014, Fox News seems past its prime. The northwestern block has shrunk, the southeastern one has fragmented.
    • Energised by Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, Fox News is back with a vengeance. Not only have Maine and Alaska gone from entirely blue to entirely red, so has most of the rest of the U.S. Fox News has plugged the Nebraska Gap: it's no longer possible to walk from coast to coast across CNN territory.
    • By 2018, the fortunes from a decade earlier have almost reversed. Fox News rules the roost. CNN clings on to the Pacific Coast, New Mexico, Minnesota and parts of the Northeast — plus a smattering of metropolitan areas in the South and Midwest.

    "Frightening map"

    Image source: Reddit / SICResearch

    This sequence of maps, showing America turning from blue to red, elicited strong reactions on the Reddit forum where it was published last week. For some, the takeover by Fox News illustrates the demise of all that's good and fair about news journalism. Among the comments?

    • "The end is near."
    • "The idiocracy grows."
    • "(It's) like a spreading disease."
    • "One of the more frightening maps I've seen."
    For others, the maps are less about the rise of Fox News, and more about CNN's self-inflicted downward spiral:
    • "LOL that's what happens when you're fake news!"
    • "CNN went down the toilet on quality."
    • "A Minecraft YouTuber could beat CNN's numbers."
    • "CNN has become more like a high-school production of a news show."

    Not a few find fault with both channels, even if not always to the same degree:

    • "That anybody considers either of those networks good news sources is troubling."
    • "Both leave you understanding less rather than more."
    • "This is what happens when you spout bullsh-- for two years straight. People find an alternative — even if it's just different bullsh--."
    • "CNN is sh-- but it's nowhere close to the outright bullsh-- and baseless propaganda Fox News spews."

    "Old people learning to Google"

    Image: Google Trends

    CNN vs. Fox News search terms (200!-2018)

    But what do the maps actually show? Created by SICResearch, they do show a huge evolution, but not of both cable news networks' audience size (i.e. Nielsen ratings). The dramatic shift is one in Google search trends. In other words, it shows how often people type in "CNN" or "Fox News" when surfing the web. And that does not necessarily reflect the relative popularity of both networks. As some commenters suggest:

    • "I can't remember the last time that I've searched for a news channel on Google. Is it really that difficult for people to type 'cnn.com'?"
    • "More than anything else, these maps show smart phone proliferation (among older people) more than anything else."
    • "This is a map of how old people and rural areas have learned to use Google in the last decade."
    • "This is basically a map of people who don't understand how the internet works, and it's no surprise that it leans conservative."

    A visual image as strong as this map sequence looks designed to elicit a vehement response — and its lack of context offers viewers little new information to challenge their preconceptions. Like the news itself, cartography pretends to be objective, but always has an agenda of its own, even if just by the selection of its topics.

    The trick is not to despair of maps (or news) but to get a good sense of the parameters that are in play. And, as is often the case (with both maps and news), what's left out is at least as significant as what's actually shown.

    One important point: while Fox News is the sole major purveyor of news and opinion with a conservative/right-wing slant, CNN has more competition in the center/left part of the spectrum, notably from MSNBC.

    Another: the average age of cable news viewers — whether they watch CNN or Fox News — is in the mid-60s. As a result of a shift in generational habits, TV viewing is down across the board. Younger people are more comfortable with a "cafeteria" approach to their news menu, selecting alternative and online sources for their information.

    It should also be noted, however, that Fox News, according to Harvard's Nieman Lab, dominates Facebook when it comes to engagement among news outlets.

    CNN, Fox and MSNBC

    Image: Google Trends

    CNN vs. Fox (without the 'News'; may include searches for actual foxes). See MSNBC (in yellow) for comparison

    For the record, here are the Nielsen ratings for average daily viewer total for the three main cable news networks, for 2018 (compared to 2017):

    • Fox News: 1,425,000 (-5%)
    • MSNBC: 994,000 (+12%)
    • CNN: 706,000 (-9%)

    And according to this recent overview, the top 50 of the most popular websites in the U.S. includes cnn.com in 28th place, and foxnews.com in... 27th place.

    The top 5, in descending order, consists of google.com, youtube.com, facebook.com, amazon.com and yahoo.com — the latter being the highest-placed website in the News and Media category.
    Keep reading Show less
    Big Think Edge
    • Master Execution: How to Get from Point A to Point B in 7 Steps, with Rob Roy, Retired Navy SEALUsing the principles of SEAL training to forge better bosses, former Navy SEAL and founder of the Leadership Under Fire series Rob Roy, a self-described "Hammer", makes people's lives miserable in the hopes of teaching them how to be a tougher—and better—manager. "We offer something that you are not going to get from reading a book," says Roy. "Real leaders inspire, guide and give hope."Anybody can make a decision when everything is in their favor, but what happens in turbulent times? Roy teaches leaders, through intense experiences, that they can walk into any situation and come out ahead. In this lesson, he outlines seven SEAL-tested steps for executing any plan—even under extreme conditions or crisis situations.