I wasn't able to post this video in the comment section on my post about spatial justice & the internet/media as a space, but I think it ties in really well so I wanted to share.
Reza Aslan makes some really great points about the danger of generalizations and corrects the anchor woman over and over as she continues to say "muslim countries", like they are all the same. As someone who decided to move to Turkey I heard a lot of the effects of generalizing via family and friends. People thought that I would be treated less than fair because I was a woman, that something violent might happen to me, that I would be forced to cover my head, etc. All this because I was moving to a country where Islam is the dominant religion.
I'm glad that he used Turkey as an example several times precisely because of that. The danger of using generalizations is that all of these different places get lumped into one group with a defining characteristic like "Muslim". As a result the people and culture are defined by the negative connotations associated with that and their culture gets ignored. Turkish culture is completely different from that of other predominantly Muslim countries, yet when I moved there the dominant religion was at the forefront of everyone's mind. When we generalize and lump many different people together we make their individual culture and beliefs invisible, which is obviously a very dangerous thing to do.
Hi Taylor, great video that you just have shared and I totally agree with your point that generalization has always been a problem as people get lump into one category. However I do like to maybe elaborate a bit further on what Reza Aslan mentioned. I think the word ‘Muslim Countries’ is very broad and I believe an understanding of what it means to be a “muslim country” is very important before a critique of it can be made.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes a country a “Muslim country”? I think a lot of people have a misunderstanding when it comes to that term. A Muslim country is a country that places religious Islamic laws as its primary basis for governance. I cannot speak for all the countries that were lumped together but I can speak for two countries that I know very well of. Firstly, Indonesia is not an Islamic state or “muslim country” because it does not place Syariah (Islamic) law as its primary governance. In fact, Indonesia can be considered a secular nation. It unfortunately gets its reputation as a “Muslim Country” just because they have the world’s largest population of Muslims in Indonesia. Indonesia’s constitution officially recognized total 6 religions and allows religious freedom to be practice.
Secondly, Malaysia can be a little ambiguous on it actual state. Again, we have a 60% majority of Muslims in our country and our Federal Constitution states Islam is our country’s official religion but we are allowed religious freedom. However, Syariah law is not the primary basis for our governance hence, Malaysia is actually neither a secular nor an Islamic state. It’s a little bit of both.
So it comes back to the question. What constitute as a “Muslim Country”? Is it the population of the people? Or the actual power structure that dictates and subjects its people to? Or is there even a difference in the eyes of the general public?
I think you raise a very good point, Terri. It would seem that the hosts of this particular segment, as well as the general public, most often define a "muslim country" by the number of people who practice the religion within the country and whether or not it is the dominant religion. In this clip I think they make the assumption that the governing laws of the country will reflect that, although this is certainly not the case. I disagree with your definition of "muslim country" to some extent because I think that if a government uses Sharia law as the basis for governance it would typically be referred to as an Islamic state. I do believe that these two are synonymous to some extent in the general publics eye, which contributes to generalizations and cultural misunderstanding.
ReplyDeleteI think you make perfect examples of the problem Reza describes. Due to the fact that Indonesia has a large population of Muslims, it is labeled a "muslim country" and other practiced religions are invisible. This causes people to assume the kind of things that Laura Ingraham talks about, for example that women don't have rights and they are treated poorly, and that the government somehow condones violence. I'm sure that this is not the case and although individuals have religious freedom Malaysia gets lumped into the same category as Saudi Arabia.
Labeling a country based on the beliefs of the dominant group is clearly a very dangerous thing to do. We can see from Turkey, Malaysia, and Indonesia alone that you cannot make assumptions about a country, its people, or its government based on the fact that most people share a particular religious ideology. It is also evident from the conversation that there is much misunderstanding among people between what constitutes a "Muslim country" so you raised an excellent question.