Brief Summary
In this episode of "Zealots of the Game," Matthew Kaming and Shadi Hamid are joined by Jonathan Brown, a scholar of Islamic history, to discuss the complex issue of slavery in Islam, Christianity, and broader human history. The conversation explores how we reconcile modern moral standards with historical practices, the challenges of interpreting religious texts in light of contemporary values, and the nature of moral progress. Key points include:
- The pervasiveness of slavery across various historical and religious traditions.
- The difficulty of judging past actions by present-day moral standards.
- The role of custom, technology, and economic factors in shaping moral beliefs.
- The importance of manners and forbearance in navigating deep moral disagreements in diverse societies.
Introduction
Matthew Kaming and Shadi Hamid introduce themselves and the podcast, "Zealots of the Game," which explores the intersection of politics, religion, and democracy. They invite listeners to subscribe, leave reviews, and join the conversation on Twitter using the hashtag #zealotspod or via email. They mention their friendship despite differing religious and professional backgrounds (Christianity and theology versus Islam and political science), setting the stage for discussions on living with deep differences.
Introducing Jonathan Brown and the Topic of Slavery
Shadi Hamid introduces Jonathan Brown, a professor at Georgetown and a scholar of Islam, highlighting his influential work on Islamic law and history. They discuss Brown's book "Misquoting Muhammad" and his more recent work, "Islam and Slavery". Hamid expresses apprehension about discussing uncomfortable aspects of the Islamic tradition, such as the fact that the Quran and Prophet Muhammad did not explicitly forbid slavery. The conversation aims to explore how we understand and reinterpret the past in light of present-day moral values, questioning whether we are morally superior to figures like Muhammad or Jesus, who also did not prohibit slavery.
The Universal Problem of Slavery and Historical Moral Authority
Jonathan Brown responds by framing the discussion about slavery as part of a larger question: how do we regard the authority of the past when it conflicts with our current moral convictions? He emphasises that this isn't just a Muslim or Christian issue, but a universal human problem. The profound moral evil of slavery is a fixed point in modern discourse, yet nearly all religious and philosophical traditions before 1700 AD were comfortable with or tolerated slavery. This creates a dilemma, as it renders much of human history morally unacceptable by today's standards.
The Slavery Conundrum and Reactions to Jonathan Brown's Book
Brown discusses the context in which he wrote his book on Islam and slavery, spurred by ISIS's reintroduction of slavery and justification of it through Islamic texts. He recounts facing resistance from academics and Muslims who were uncomfortable with acknowledging that the Quran did not prohibit slavery. He shares an anecdote about a debate where he was asked to condemn slavery throughout history, which he found problematic given the historical context and religious texts. He also references the Charlottesville protests and the debate over statues of historical figures like Thomas Jefferson, highlighting the challenge of reconciling historical legacies with modern moral standards.
Tucker Carlson Clip and the Bait and Switch Tactic
The hosts play a clip of Tucker Carlson discussing the removal of historical statues and the moral complexities of figures like Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves. Brown critiques Carlson's argument, pointing out a "bait and switch" tactic where Carlson acknowledges slavery as evil but then downplays its significance when associated with figures like Jefferson. Brown argues that one cannot simultaneously condemn slavery as a universal evil and excuse those complicit in it. He also challenges the notion of historical figures having "flaws," arguing that being okay with slavery is not a minor flaw but a serious moral problem.
Bill Maher, Presentism, and the Authority of the Past
Brown discusses Bill Maher's engagement with the concept of presentism, the idea of judging the past by present-day standards. Maher views presentism as absurd, comparing it to blaming ourselves for childhood mistakes. Brown counters that religious and cultural traditions often view the past as a source of wisdom and authority, not as a period of infancy to be forgiven. He argues that for many, the past is seen as a superior time, and therefore, it cannot be easily dismissed or excused.
Apologetic Instincts and Clarifications on Islam and Slavery
Shadi Hamid acknowledges his "apologetic instincts" and offers clarifications on the Islamic perspective. He notes that the Quran encourages the freeing of slaves and provides incentives for manumission, suggesting a trajectory towards emancipation. He distinguishes between not forbidding slavery and actively supporting it, arguing that figures like Muhammad and Jesus did not enthusiastically support slavery. Hamid also provides examples from Christian history, such as the Apostle Paul's instructions to slaves and the Catholic Church's historical involvement in slave ownership, to provide a more ecumenical view.
The Slavery Conundrum Defined and Possible Resolutions
Jonathan Brown defines the "slavery conundrum" as the irreconcilable conflict between three axioms: slavery is a gross evil, all slavery is the same, and our past has moral authority over us. He explains that one must reject one of these axioms to resolve the conundrum. He illustrates this with examples of biblical commentary that downplays the severity of slavery in the Old Testament, violating the axiom that all slavery is the same. He also mentions William Lloyd Garrison, who was willing to reject the Bible if it meant condoning slavery, thus rejecting the authority of the past.
Jonathan Brown's Resolution and the Challenge of Moral Progress
Jonathan Brown is asked to share his personal resolution to the slavery conundrum. He states that he cannot condemn his prophet and scripture by calling what they allowed as evil. He then describes common approaches to reconcile religious texts with modern values, such as trajectory hermeneutics, which suggests that religious texts set us on a path towards moral progress. However, he argues that this approach fails to explain why God would allow something evil in the first place. He notes that some Christians conclude that the Old Testament is not the actual word of God, but rather a product of specific people at a specific time.
Christian Perspectives and the Longing for Moral Purity
Matthew Kaming shares his Christian perspective, noting that his faith does not depend on the perfection of figures like Abraham or David, but on Jesus. He highlights the Bible's inclusion of the moral failures of its heroes. Kaming questions the contemporary cultural longing for moral purity in historical figures and leaders, wondering why there is such scandal when they have different moral visions from us.
Moral Absolutism, Customary Morality, and the Role of Technology
Jonathan Brown argues that many of our moral certainties are not universally true throughout history. He contends that slavery and paedophilia, which are now considered deeply immoral, were relatively uncontroversial in the past. He suggests that our deepest moral intuitions can be historically contingent. He also emphasises the role of custom in shaping morality, noting that much of what we consider moral is influenced by technology and economic factors.
Moral Progress, Custom, and the Rapidly Changing Moral Landscape
Shadi Hamid notes that customary morality in America is rapidly changing, with things once considered acceptable now seen as evil. He points to Barack Obama's evolving stance on gay marriage as an example. He questions whether Americans should defer to this new customary morality or resist it. Matthew Kaming expresses concern about the belief in moral progress, arguing that every age has its own virtues and vices. He worries about the need to purify history and the lack of reverence for moral wisdom from the past.
Manners, Forbearance, and Living with Deep Difference
Jonathan Brown emphasises the importance of manners and etiquette in allowing people to coexist despite deep disagreements. He argues that each side in a diverse society should not demand that everyone abide by its sense of morality. He suggests that a willingness to sit down and share a meal with someone who is strongly disagreed with is essential for coexistence. Matthew Kaming agrees, noting that the core question of the podcast is how to live together with deep difference. He suggests that there is a lack of political manners in contemporary American culture and that we must forbear and sit with our ancestors in moral conversation rather than simply tearing them down.
