When Obama was finally forced to take ISIS as a serious threat, at least according to his rhetoric, he was also determined to state his view of Islam. He defended the “true peaceful nature of Islam” that he felt was being twisted and co-opted by a handful of people. He did not back up this positive view of Islam with Islamic Scholarship or Doctrine. Rather, he felt it so an obvious truth as to require no defence. And no-one pressured him to defend this judgment either.
In 2010, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave a stirring defence of the Ground Zero Mosque. Despite this being a simple case of property rights and religious freedom, Bloomberg could not help but also state his view of Islam. He said that the Mosque would help refute the “false and repugnant idea that 9/11 was consistent with Islam”. Bloomberg does not have any theological credentials, and as to whether the actions of the magnificent 19 were true to Islam or not is irrelevant. But still he wanted to state his view and he did. Nobody pressured him for evidence and there was no trial by media about whether his judgment was correct.
At the start of 2015, thousands of people, from Parisians to Palestinian Authority leaders, were traipsing through the streets of Paris with a pencil to show their solidarity with the Charlie Hebdo victims and their own commitment to freedom of speech. It was a beautiful display, but it didn’t take long for calls to curb freedom of speech destroy whatever sentiment that march was meant to display. What was even more striking was the number of people coming forward and stating that the perpetrators were not true Muslims. Francois Hollande went so far as to make a general commentary that “Islam is compatible with democracy”. That is big call to make, and therefore it should warrant some very hard evidence. But he did not give any, nor did anyone request any evidence.
Malcolm Turnbull, the current Prime Minster of Australia, spoke fondly of Islam as the founder and preserver of the number zero and our current number system. This is utterly false, as our number system was invented by Hindus and zero was invented by civilizations long before Islam even existed. As for the preservation of this knowledge, the word ‘stole’ or ‘pillaged’ would be more appropriate. But thankfully for Mr. Turnbull, nobody pressed him for evidence. For if they did, he would not have been able to give any.
I have long wondered why positive statements intended to defend and/or praise Islam, requires no statistical or theological backing. Yet, on the flip side, negative statements about Islam usually require enormous amounts of evidence, to the point that nothing short of a complete consensus from the Muslims community will suffice.
For example, in 2015, Ben Carson, during his Republican presidential campaign, stated that he would not advocate putting a Muslim as president due to the incompatibility of secular law with Islam. This received wide criticism, not only from groups like CAIR and the Southern Law Poverty Centre, but also from the Media in general. As calls for him to exit the presidential race become louder and more hysterical, Ben Carson elaborated on his position to make it more nuanced and evidence driven.
It is strange that judging Islam on the actions that it has become so famous for in the last two decades receives so much scrutiny. Yet, judging it as something that it seems to have a dearth of, receives so little.
A positive statement is still a claim based on a person’s judgment, and therefore it warrants the same amount of research and thought as a negative statement. Just as Ben Carson was criticised and interviewed multiple times to defend his position, so too should those who say positive things about Islam. Positivity should not give you a free pass.