The key to combating racism is a focus on pluralism, says an author on the subject, Mansoor Ladha, a Shia Ismaili Muslim who moved to Canada from Tanzania in 1972.
So far, so good, but then it goes downhill: "Muslims have been stereotyped," says the author. "After 9-11, everyone who wears a beard was regarded as a terrorist. It was difficult for Muslims to go to the United States." I wonder whether Ladha can point to any evidence for this assertion. I rather doubt it. I hate to keep bringing this up, but it is something of an inconvenient truth: Muslims are the least hated minority group in America.
"Even now, there are people with names like Abdul or Amin who are being singled out by the immigration department in the United States."
Gasp! Islamophobia!
My main question for Mr. Ladha here is this: There are many Muslims in the West today who have no loyalty to the states they live in, and no intention of integrating into Western society. Many openly abhor the West. Many more openly despise Jews and Christians and others. How are you going to combat that, Mr. Ladha? Why is it that all Muslim "plans" for a pluralistic and peaceful society are so one-sided? The emphasis is always placed on how non-Muslims can be less "racist" or "Islamophobic", but never on what Muslims can do to contribute to this paradisaical society. Why is that?
The article ends with Ladha pointing to the current Aga Khan - the Imam of Ismaili Shi'ite Muslims - as an example of the model he is following. Claims the article: "Known as a philanthropist, the Aga Khan has built universities, hospitals and schools, all in the name of pluralism." What is never adequately answered is the definition of what "pluralism" is. Because even looking up this quite reverent Wikipedia page about him, I can't tell. Could it be that that the Aga Khan is tolerant towards all races and creeds...along as they are all Muslim? The Wikipedia entry also lists one of the Aga Khan's achievements as "the expulsion of Asians from Uganda". That doesn't sound very pluralistic!
In summary, then, this is the sort of thing that apparently comforts some liberal Westerners, but leaves more questions unresolved than it answers. Why does Mansoor Ladha seem to believe that only non-Muslims are responsible for creating a pluralistic society? We've heard this kind of one-sided veiled threat-making from Muslims before. What does Mansoor Ladha - or the Aga Khan, for that matter - mean by pluralism? Until we get clearer answers, first steps like this are never going to be enough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hi Ben ,
I think you need to read a bit more about the AgaKhan. Sadly Wikipedia is not always the best source.
I humbly suggest you read the following speech at www.pluralism.ca given by the Agakhan.javascript:void(0)
Publish Your Comment
REMARKS BY HIS HIGHNESS THE AGA KHAN
ON THE OCCASION OF THE SIGNING OF THE FUNDING AGREEMENT
FOR THE GLOBAL CENTRE FOR PLURALISM
OTTAWA, CANADA, OCTOBER 25, 2006
mV
Anonymous; thanks for the link.
Even after reading it, my problem with this is still the vague terminology. As lovely as all this sounds, nowhere does the Aga Khan ever say that he intends for Muslims and non-Muslims to live together as equals on an indefinite basis. He never defines anything at all, in fact. This is important because more radical Muslims today are very clever with their wording, allowing them to convince non-Muslims that they are champions of pluralism and democracy when in fact they harbour Islamic supremacist designs. Such apparently high-profile figures as the Aga Khan need to be more transparent in their pronouncements if this pluralism is to go anywhere, in my opinion.
Ben
Ben, you said: "The Wikipedia entry also lists one of the Aga Khan's achievements as "the expulsion of Asians from Uganda". That doesn't sound very pluralistic!"
My correction: This is an error. The Aga Khan does not claim the expulsion of Asian from Uganda as an achievement. The Asians from Uganda were expelled by dictator Idi Amin. The Aga Khan helped the Asians resettle in other countries, particularly in Canada.
Ben, you said: "nowhere does the Aga Khan ever say that he intends for Muslims and non-Muslims to live together as equals on an indefinite basis.".
My correction: You have to read the Aga Khan in more than just one speech. He guides his people to do exactly that, live in harmony with the law of the land. Wherever his people are settled, they are instructed to follow the law of the land. This is very critical.
Ben, you said: "Such apparently high-profile figures as the Aga Khan need to be more transparent in their pronouncements if this pluralism is to go anywhere, in my opinion."
My answer: You may read more on Aga Khan and his Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) at :
http://www.akdn.org
There are no questions of transparency.
On the contrary, anonymous, I contend that there ARE real issues with transparency. Especially when the AKDN website contains dishonest articles like this one (http://www.akdn.org/akfisp/HTML/aliarticle.html), which conveniently leaves out some important details about Islamic theology. It contends that Muhammad considered the Bible and Torah to be just as valid as the Qur'an, but this is a gross simplification. The Qur'an actually says - and is reinforced by traditional scholarship in doing so - that Jews and Christians TWISTED the true teachings of Allah to form their scriptures, and have been cursed by Allah for rejecting him in this way. (e.g. 2:87-90) Hardly pluralistic. Meanwhile, Muslims are "the best of peoples" (3:110) while Jews and Christians are "the vilest of animals" (98:6). The author also makes no mention of the system of the dhimma, which reduces non-Muslims (the People of the Book) to inferior status and institutionalised discrimination. His explanation of jihad is also inaccurate.
With the AKDN posting such disingenuous articles, it's difficult to see a way forward with this. If it can't clean its own house, what can it do with others?
Ben, you seem to have switched your attention to theology from pluralism (or theology was on your mind to begin with?). Pluralism is a universal theme, it is not just restricted to Islam.
AKDN is a human development organization, the article you refer to is an individual interpretation perhaps there to guide the visitors for the background in building proper context with history.
I regret providing further information if your intentions were to argue theological matters.
Post a Comment