Occidentalist Atheism.

This post is concerned with the fact that modern atheism/secular humanism (and a lot of agnosticism, as well) is inherently (and somewhat insultingly) Occidentalist. That is to say, its wholesale rejection of Divinity/religion is decidedly a rejection of its interaction with the Judeo-Christian Institution (capital 'i') and the essentially racist extrapolation that Islam is the same.

To begin, I am posting two links relating to how I have engaged in dialogue on Islam with non-Muslims. I'll segue into the above topic from the second link. In the first, some random Christian dude used to spam our MSA listserv ('01 -'02) challenging us to prove that there is salvation in Islam (he showed up again last year, as well - same arguments). I engaged him briefly and then I think somewhere in my second and last correspondence you can hear me sighing and never wanting to do anything interfaith ever again.

To be certain, this guy was particularly insincere about his interest in Islam - lesson #1 in how to decide with whom one should engage in discussion and with whom one should recite "For you is your way and for me is my way."

http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/truth/dialogue2.html

As you can see here and elsewhere on his website, he is clearly quoting from compiled arguments that I would be amazed if he conjured himself. Not because of their potency, but their sheer volume. He probably has no clue whom he was quoting. The arguments themselves are as poorly crafted and unlikely as the idea that anyone would pay for the sins of another.

Recently (spring '06), I was incensed by news of riots abroad regarding the illustration of the prophet, 'alayhis-salatu was-salam, and started a da'wa group on Meetup.com. I invited various people through the website and through Craigslist, as well. I also very selectively browsed the profiles of agnostic groups and sent a few invites to people who didn't seem like belligerent agnostics, but openly or possibly interested ones based on their profile comments. I was careful to attempt a tone that was not condescending, insha´Allah. I found the link below as a discussion surrounding my invitation:

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-16443-0-days0-orderasc-.html

I am not quite certain whether my email was the best method, but I don't know how I would change if I had to invite this person again. I think shameless and harmless invitation is not a problem, as long as you are not reckless or insensitive.

Clearly, I was not terribly condescending, but she did take issue with me apparently assuming she was searching. Perhaps there is a lesson there. But a closer look at what I wrote reveals that it is she who was assuming about my assumptions:

"I'm not going to lie and say I'm emailing you on coincidence, but on the off-chance that you are interested in learning and discussing what Islam claims it is..."

So, I was honest and said that while it would be the unlikely case that you are interested ("off-chance") I am extending you an invitation to this group. If she read what I said, it communicated that I did not "assume" she was searching.

What is more telling, however, are the silly responses in the thread that follow. They clearly have no rudimentary idea of Islam, which is all the more disconcerting, considering how erudite and enlightened agnostics and atheists would claim to be about their rejectionism. (Not to mention most Christians and Jews.)

Nonetheless, I still think that Western atheists and agnostics (more so the latter) are possibly the most fruitful grounds for da'wa in many respects. I believe this in light of the following:

1) Judaism is unfortunately tied to Israeli politics in the current world stage and the campaign of the Zionists to conflate religion with politics impedes da'wa opportunities.

2) Much "orthodox" Christianity is tied to the war against "militant Islam," politicised by the Republican Right, and tends to go in circles around the contention that deeds are worthless. On the flip side, most Christians who are Democrats tend to depart from their religion on many aspects of practice. (It's true!) Not that Republican Christians are great moral leaders, but a larger proportion adhere to the letter of their deen a bit more, at least in theory.

3) Hindus tend to be tied to deep cultural symbols, more than anything religious - but their pantheistic relativism typically makes for very unfruitful da'wa. And, really, along with Buddhism, it is more of a philosophy than a religion.

But there is something different with Western Agnostics and Atheists. I find that most are quite dishonest with themselves - or ignorant - about characterising what exactly they are rejecting. It is obvious that they are typically overwhelmingly rejecting a Judeo-Christian concept of God and religious institution - almost never are they at all versed of anything with respect to Islam. They base the latter perception off of carnage and fatwas on the evening news like other lazy people.

I used to correspond via email with a very decorated professor of linguistics periodically about religion, geopolitics, and race, among other things, and I was shocked when I subtly queried him about his knowledge of scripture in Islam.

Our discussion centered around the violence and genocide present in Judeo-Christian texts, among other things; I suggested "what of the Muslim texts?" and he simply analogically prescribed that he "assumed" that Islam "probably" had the same problems that exist with the Judeo-Christian texts, though he had never read a word of it.

So, if Noam Chomsky rejects religion without reading Qur'an, we can assume the average atheist or agnostic probably hasn't done a whole lot either in that respect. Sure, they will rattle off their hatred of the institution of the church and organized religion and etc., (Chomsky's model was his father's Rabbinical example). But all of that is experientially based on interaction with Judeo-Christian understanding of the Divine. And most Judeo-Christian understanding in that respect is severely flawed, especially institutionally.

Here, I believe, lies a critical point of empathy between Muslims and those who reject the Judeo-Christian traditions:

Muslims reject much of the concepts of Divinity and religious institution that most atheists and agnostics reject from the Judeo-Christian traditions. In many cases, discussion may find that we, too, are "atheists," by their framing of religious parameters.

While we maintain that the original link is the God of Abraham, the way the Jews and Christians have come to institutionalize and understand that God is by no means identical to the concept that Muslims have.

This, I believe, is a unique point through which the Muslim and the non-believer can attempt to come to a dialogue.

It's a simplistic thesis, but I think it holds some water - maybe.

CAVEAT: Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala has elevated the rank of ahl ul-kitab above other kuffar and the above conention is not rejecting that fact. I believe that in the U.S. today, ahl ul-kitab da'wa can suffer from political realities that ineract with those religions - by their own imposition. This thought experiment simply states that there exists a very unique point of empathy between Muslims and modern Atheists, Secular Humanists, and Agnostics by virtue of the fact that they are built largely on assumptions about religion constructed from a deep rejectionism of Western religion - not Eastern. "...so give glad tidings to the strangers..."