Karen Armstrong talk (MUIS lecture 2007)
The Role of Religion in the New Millennium
Part 3

If you go to war to make peace, this makes you as bad as the people you fought since you betrayed the values you fought for - Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are examples. [Ed: Curiously, she had earlier cited World War II as a necessary war. This also invalidated her explanations of the wars Mohammad fought; did they bring him back to the state of "jahilliya" (belligerence, striking first and imposing your values on others)] Don't imprison people who hate in a prison of hate - it destroys you.

Violence can make things worse for your people. Morocco suffered from 9/11 since tourism went down. US Muslims used to say that the US was the best place to be a Muslim and that it was easier to be a good Muslim in the US than in Iraq. Now this is no longer the case.

Christians have always had a problem with money worship. They're not supposed to have any - they should give it to the poor. Don't get a job, don't worry about tomorrow. But this was the religion that gave birth to/endorsed Capitalism through Calvinism - it was a remarkable transition. It is easier for a Muslim to accept democracy and secularism than it was for Christianity to birth capitalism.

Some Muslims seem to hate non-Muslims. People misquote the Koran and always quote lubriciously the parts about slaying unbelievers. This has nothing to do with belief. The instructions were to slay the arrogant, aggressive, chauvinistic people of Mecca - translating 'kafir' into 'infidel' is a wrong translation. Mohammad was telling them this on the eve of battle, during which you don't tell your followers to turn the other cheek. I noted that since she had told us that if you go to war to make peace, this makes you as bad as the people you fought since you betrayed the values you fought for, his followers were then to turn into arrogant, aggressive, chauvinistic people. I also noted that she could be accused of likewise misquoting the Koran. Really, when it comes to the misquoting game, you can get as good as you give.

In Thatcher's time, there was a group called the "Wets". In John Major's time, there was a group called the "Bastards". These were political factions and everyone knew who was being referred to with these terms. Islam does not have an undying hatred of unbelievers. It has a good record of living with other religions, better in fact than Western Christendom. For example, Jews in Spain and Jerusalem (one Byzantine emperor forbade Jews to live in Jerusalem, but Caliph Omar invited them back). I noted that, once again, this applied only to Peoples of the Book - others were forced to convert.

The next qustion was: should humans ignore their religious differences, embrace Universal Brotherhood with homogeneity being a result.

The response was a vehement no. Because of her religious past, she was into syncretism but it's best to remain in the religion you're born in. All religions have what you need: each has its genius and its failings. Appreciate other religions and learn what you all have in common and share tips. Christians can learn from Buddhists to stop being so obsessed with dogma, theology and belief - you need practise not just theology. I noted that she did not say what Muslims could learn.

The word 'toleration' is not good because it's very grudging.

It was then asked: if secularism has its failings, how can it be integrated with religion? What are your comments on Sam Harris/Richard Dawkins.

The reply was the secularism was possible. Secularism is like religion. It fails from time to time but it also has successes. The USA was the first secular republic, but it is also the second most religious country in the world (India is ahead). Yet it is not fundamentalist. The US is moving to pluralism and it has interesting theological questions, but secularism can be unskilful also.

I noted that 2 questions were asked from a mic and 1 from the floor. The rest were all read by the Chairman (the Minister) from pieces of paper. Given how everyone else seemed to be writing in successfully, I thought I should write in too, but then it'd definitely have been censored by the Chairman.

There is violent secularism - the 'wretched people who published the [Danish] cartoons'. They are secular fundamentalists; there are extremists on both sides. 97% of Muslim youths, while disapproving of the cartoons, disagreed with the violence. Similarly, most Danes, though defensive of Free Speech, were upset that they had caused such offence.

At this I recoiled and almost cursed aloud: had we seen the same cartoons? Perhaps she had confused the Akkari-Laban dossier, with the extra images of dubious provenance contributed anonymously by third parties, for the original 12 Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Why did she not then condemn the wretched people going on a Grand Tour to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) and inciting violence by outright lying?

Dawkins is a secular fundamentalist. He is a typical Brit in many ways, sharing the disdain for religion that most of my friends (who think my mad for working and writing on discredited stuff) have. Dawkins is obsessed with discredited religion. I have been on panels with him and when you point out that until the 19th century no Christian or Jew thought Genesis was a literal account, he just looks at you and then continues his tirade.


I noted that I was quite sure although most educated people might not have believed Genesis to be literal truth during the Enlightenment, the hoi polloi certainly did, not having either the capacity or time to ponder how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Furthermore, prior to the Enlightenment project (in the Middle Ages and before), many educated people accepted literalism (or at least a form of it). For example, Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews is certainly not a metaphorical account of Creation (Book I is subtitled: "Containing the interval of three thousand eight hundred and thirty-three years from the Creation to the death of Isaac.").

St Basil wrote: "I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. 'For I am not ashamed of the Gospel'."

Tribesmen sitting under the night sky (for that is how Genesis started) and looking up at the stars certainly believed in literalism.


Europeans are weary of secularism. You must be serious in your questioning. The Hitchens and Dawkins brand of secularism is a retreat from religion but religion can be good. When you're in a restaurant, after a strong first course you sometimes get a sorbet to clean your palette. Europeans want to rinse their minds.

Dawkins is fanatical. He has a closed mind. Secular fundamentalists can be as bigoted as religious fundamentalists, just as religious fundamentalists can be as bigoted as secular fundamentalists.

The next question was that the person agreed that we needed more compassion. He contested that people were lazy. No one knows about the hereafter because if you stick to the tenets of your religion, it is your best hope for the hereafter. The underlying motivation is a selfish one for salvation.

The answer: I don't want to interfere with beliefs. If you believe the world was created in 6 days I can't share that belief but this doesn't matter to me. I don't care what belief you have if it makes you kind. It's fine as long as you share your wealth and are kind. If you have a closed mind, are unkind, unjust, dismissive - whether you are a liberal secularist or a traditional religionist - it hasn't worked.

The Koran is dismissive of belief, and so am I, about 'self-indulgent guesswork about matters no one can prove one way or the other like the Divinity of Christ' is bad for it makes one belligerent. Ironically I noted that she had precisely and neatly defined religion, adding yet another layer of contradiction and paradox to her thesis.

St John said that faith that can move mountians is useless without charity. It is not correct theology that matters - you must lend compassion. In Buddhism once you achieve Enlightenment you must come down from the mountain and preach to living things. I am not interested in the details (? - transcribing is unclear) of belief.

I noted that to her the ends seem to justify the means (religions are good if they make you compassionate - this seems to justify a Noble Lie). This seemed Machiavellian but I don't have the time/energy to research anti-consequentialism, so. Suffice to say that there's a reason why perjury is an offence in court (even if its end result is good). Process is very important: if I steal a rich man's wallet and give the contents to beggars along Orchard Road who only want to buy something to eat, I am Robin Hood and have a price posted on my head. If the PAP government taxes the top tier of income at 40% and gives the poor unemployment cheques, this is instead called welfare and is a good thing, even if the end result is the same.

The Q&A session then came to an end. The question that I had wanted to ask was this: "Since this is the MUIS lecture, I would like to ask you for your views on Islam and apostasy. Having just come from Malaysia, you might be aware of Lina Joy and her unsuccessful battle spanning almost a decade to be allowed to leave Islam. Even in Singapore, I have a friend who is a murtad (apostate) who is absolutely terrified of coming out to his family. In his words: "I don't want to be blown up". Meanwhile, all 5 schools of Islamic jurisprudence condemn apostasy and prescribe harsh punishments for it. How would you advise Muslims to be more compassionate towards apostates so that they can fully embody the spirit of mercy and compassion of the Prophet (PBUH)?"

The President of the Muslim Converts Association (Darul Arqam) then ended with some platitudes about Singapore and Darul Arqam being a happy and diverse place.


Despite my misgivings about the details of her speech, one might ask if I would agree with her basic messages: religious tolerance is good, secularism can be bad and religion good, 'skilful' religion makes you compassionate to others and good and context is important in religion. Surely only a mean old grinch could disagree. Unfortunately, I am a mean old grinch; basically she was repeating fluffy things people want to hear and believe and that sound good until you critically examine them, upon which they fall apart.

Religious tolerance: I am very much for religious tolerance but her version of religious tolerance seems to be following the modern transcendental syncretic line that all religions are the same, all religions are good (in their 'true' form) and that all of them are true (in a sense, or have elements of truth).

The problem with this that if all religions are the same, good and true, this negates any criteria that we might have in sensibly evaluating religion. If a religion qualifies by virtue of being a religion then there is nothing differentiating (and more importantly, there is nothing that can differentiate) a fly-by-night cult with an established (and presumably more credible) faith.

Respecting the right of other people to have their religion does not mean that everyone is right (and MUST be right), for if everyone is right then everyone is also wrong; "Always remember that you are special. Just like everybody else."

Secularism can be bad and religion good: On the contrary, I'd argue that it is precisely secularism (and liberal democracy) that is needed to protect religion, since it does not privilege any one religion over the others; also when a religion is made dominant it often goes to the dogs so secularism protects dominant religions as well.

Religion can certainly be good, but when people press for religious 'rights', too often they want to impose their version of religion on the unwilling. This is why secular liberal democracy is needed, to protect people from having religion foisted on them.

'Skilful' religion makes you good: She seemed to pull a pre-determined criterion for determining religious worth from out of thin air without justifying it, and relied on the moralistic fallacy (what we want to believe is true is true) to get it by us. I wasn't convinced - it would make more sense (or at least be less insensible) to say that the religion with the highest mindshare was the truest, since its truth managed to convince the most people.

Certainly, if a religion makes you compassionate and such this is a good result, but in evaluating truth claims, proper criteria must be determined: saying that the sun revolves around the earth to escape crucifixion may be wise, but this does not mean that the statement is true.

Of course this is likely why she deftly avoided the issue of religious veracity, preferring to focus on the changes religion resulted in and the nebulous concept of 'skilfulness'. Yet even then she was on shaky ground. The positive values she credited 'skilful' religion with fomenting (primarily compassion) were not inherently religious in nature: secular humanism is eminently capable of promoting them. In fact, in boiling religion down to secular principles she was removing all religious content from it. In that case, we don't need religion (if, as she says, its primary purpose is to teach us to be good) and can dump it for philosophy. After all, this follows the principle of Occam's Razor and anyhow, calling the vacuous shell 'religion' mocks the concept of religion.

Context in religion: Context is surely important in interpreting religion, yet the trouble with context is that many things can be justified with it. Taken to an extreme, one might say that religious precepts were meant for and only for the time in which they were propagated and can thus yield no morals across temporal constraints (ie We shouldn't follow religion today since it wasn't designed for our context).

For example, one could justify Muslims eating pork thus: In ancient times, pork was not always a healthy meat to eat because of the danger of trichinosis but modern rearing and cooking methods mean that this is no longer a problem. Thus, pork is no longer haram. Another example is that polygyny was allowed by Mohammad because there were too many women, the men having died off in wars. Thus, in modern China Muslims should be allowed to practise polyandry, since there are too many men and not enough women (some suggest male homosexuality as another possibility).

It's a good bet that virtually all Muslims would disagree with these two examples. What, then, is the arbiter of context?


A saving grace was that she didn't bring in the tired point about how religion has done lots of good (she talked mostly about how it makes you compassionate, which is in the realm of personal development rather than phenomena-that-change-the-world-for-the-better). For abrogating all responsibility religion has for causing evil while simultaneously claiming for it all the good that can remotely be connected to it is most dishonest, and there's no good reason not to believe the reverse - that religion can only cause harm and never good.