A Crisis of Trust
A few weeks ago I was returning from a business meeting in Hartford. Having rented a car, I returned the vehicle and was seated in a bus…
A few weeks ago I was returning from a business meeting in Hartford. Having rented a car, I returned the vehicle and was seated in a bus transport provided by the rental car company to get to the airport terminal. There were two others in the bus, and we struck up a conversation to help pass the rather brief ride we were sharing. It was mostly small talk, and at some point landed on the topic of the weather. It was an unseasonably cold day, with overcast skies and light rain. The day felt better suited for October than May, and the others largely complained about the ‘bad luck’ they had been afforded on account of the seemingly dreary conditions.
At some point, one of the two quipped about climate change, to which we all chuckled. The other fellow responded in kind with more than a dose of skepticism about the whole “global warming” business, and although I don’t share their cynicism, I opted for congeniality over combativeness (it is easier, and certainly less taxing, to be polite in such circumstances). The ride ended shortly thereafter, after which we went our separate ways.
At the risk of being seen judgmental, the two did not strike me as climatologists (and, for what it’s worth, I am not one either). And I suspect that to some degree, the general profile of the average person refusing the narrative of climate change fits along the same lines of the two in the bus, at least insofar as they are not specialists or conversant with the relevant science undergirding claims of global warming.
Liberals would, I think at least, view the entire exchange I described with some degree of disgust. The earth is in an existential state, and the problems introduced by pollution at the hands of man threaten our very existence (or so we are told). Perhaps they would go further and accuse all three of us of rank ignorance and brutish belligerence, while assigning to their side of the political aisle a more “enlightened” perspective.
However alluring such a framing may be for liberal advocates, upon closer scrutiny there is much that can deflate the moralism held by our hypothetical liberal contingent and provide important insight into what is motivating a conflict that is increasingly central to modern politics. For one, a modest attempt to probe our liberal environmentalists would reveal an ignorance that largely parallels the conservatives they often vilify. Neither group is comprised of true specialists (normatively speaking) in the manner required to independently furnish a positive account of why and how the environment is eroding, nor do they possess the prerequisite knowledge needed to interrogate existing evidence in any meaningful sense were it provided to them.
Accordingly, where the two groups diverge substantively has less to do with their individual competence in examining climate data and far more to do with the the authorities they have elected to trust. The one (liberal) group has vested its trust in the claims of certain climate scientists (or the relative stability of the oft-stated “scientific consensus”) and political functionaries that promote a reading of the environment that largely, if simplistically, accords with the claims of climate change advocates. The other (conservative) group has elected instead to trust the misgivings of scientists refuting environmentalist arguments alongside a political party that has largely sought to discredit their liberal counterparts by portraying the entire ordeal as ideological. Like many of our debates, the fracture is tribal and affiliations map along party lines.
When seen as a dispute not over the merits of competing scientific accounts but instead as one of diverging trusts, the reasonability of disagreement becomes easier to apprehend, largely because presumably respectable institutions have given us all reasons to distrust them. Academia is no longer a reliable locus of authority (especially for conservatives), with research on the basis of fact increasingly giving way to ideology. The denial of gender difference by otherwise reputable scientists, overwrought assertions of ‘critical studies,’ and capitulation to progressive intransigence has damaged the reputation of the academy in the eyes of many ordinary citizens. Moreover, the ideological imbalance in our universities has passed the point of plausible deniability. Whereas universities once laid claim to a 3 to 1 liberal:conservative ratio, today that number stands at roughly 12 to 1. In Ivy League universities, the disproportion is even greater — Columbia and Princeton both report a 30 to 1 ratio at their respective institutions, numbers that parallel other prestigious universities throughout the country.
Like academia, the media is suffering from declining public trust as well. According to a 2018 Gallup poll, the vast majority of Americans report having lost trust in the media. A number of those polled reported their distrust as having emerged in the past few years, further stating that they expect their distrust to be permanent. The reasons for this are fairly obvious. Mainstream media outlets increasingly rely on clickbait journalism to draw readers, while investigative reporting has subsided in favor of demagoguery and hit pieces. Partisan consolidation in news journals has led to a calcification of conviction over issues that should inspire far greater scrutiny. A recent example that has revealed slipshod journalism once again has been the media reporting of the Mueller investigation and assertion of Trump administration collusion with Russian officials. For the better part of two years, media outlets from all corners have parroted this specious contention with unwavering certainty, leading Matt Taibbi to describe it as “this generation’s WMD.” In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (now confirmed by a 448-page report released by the Department of Justice), 84% of Democrats continue to believe collusion between Trump and the Russians took place (because, of course, they don’t trust the investigators or government officials whom they, not unreasonably, see as lacking in credibility).
The number of Americans expressing any trust at all in political parties has also declined considerably in recent years. Republicans have obsequiously acquiesced to the Trump agenda, repeatedly supporting an Executive that has circumvented standard political procedures, impulsively fired those expressing the slightest resistance against his most offensive (and likely illegal) directives, and spent his entire presidency campaigning against Democrats, the courts, national security agencies, intelligence services, and members of his own party. Meanwhile, young liberals do not trust the Democratic Party. They have yet to forget the manner in which the party colluded with Hillary Clinton to ensure her nomination and thwart Bernie’s presidential aspirations. The party has not reckoned with its barely-concealed conspiring against the progressive branch, and an air of open hostility between ‘establishment’ Democrats and its progressive wing looms over primary season (with Joe Biden seemingly receiving the brunt of it, at least for the moment).
It would be easy to go on and register the many institutions being held with suspicion by an increasing number of Americans. Corporations, law enforcement, schools, churches, and more are all viewed as compromised, febrile, and fundamentally untrustworthy.
When people fail to trust institutions of authority, they seek answers elsewhere. Often, these “truth tellers” are discovered on the margins, in alternative media, and among “outsiders.” The elevation of the uninhibited and unqualified radicalizes our discourse, with swift dismissals prepared for anyone who seeks to sublimate or otherwise challenge their more provocative proclamations. Trump is perhaps the best example of this dynamic. He is a pathological liar, yes. But he is also, paradoxically, fundamentally trustworthy to his followers. They trust him when he speaks about border security, China, putting “America first,” and never “apologizing” for American actions. His many faux pas, absurd denials of statements captured on tape, and moral infirmities does not destabilize the trust his followers have in him, because, unlike his many more seasoned counterparts, he (often) speaks without calculation. For those accustomed to hearing the rote platitudes of our political elites, Trump’s musings can be refreshing in their candor. As many have noted, his prior vocation in reality television seems to have served him well for the type of politics he now practices. Likewise with liberals and AOC. Implausible policy proposals do not diminish her appeal — in fact, they often strengthen it. Fellow party members are in the inconvenient position of having to express uncritical support for her political agenda given the favorability she commands among the base. Many Dems will have to rely on her in the coming year as they embark on their own re-election campaigns, and there is little incentive to spoil that by allying with an unpopular establishment over its prodigal daughter.
Religion in American life is suffering at the hands of disillusionment as well. Religious affiliation is declining, and Christian America has had its reputation damaged badly by scandal. Pope Francis, once the fancy of liberal groups in the West (and some Muslims who wanted him “on their team”), has been mired in scandal for at least a year following revelations of Theodore McCarrick’s many sexual indiscretions during his career as a prelate. The Pope’s mismanagement of sexual wrongdoing among the priestly class has now led to questions of his own knowledge of McCarrick’s peccadillos. Francis’ most recent defense was one of memory lapse (“I might have known but can’t recall”), to which Archbishop Carlo Maria responded by calling it “a lie.”
A church embroiled in sexual scandal cannot stand guard in the face of rising sexual debauchery with any credibility. Anecdotally, I have met many young people in college who abhor the church in principle and priests as a category for this very reason (they simply do not trust them). This sense of derision and contempt for Christian theological life is on ready display in the public square as well. Just last week, Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin tweeted, “A reminder that Catholics should not support or attend LGBTQ ‘Pride Month’ events held in June. They promote a culture and encourage activities that are contrary to Catholic faith and morals. They are especially harmful for children.” The backlash that has ensued has been astonishing to witness. The seemingly trivial and largely noncontroversial tweet received over 94,000 responses. Stories covering the tweet have hit national media outlets, and Christians of all manner have come out publicly denouncing Tobin while ensuring the public that theirs is a church of ‘acceptance, not judgment.’ This past week in Providence, Rev. Edward L. Pieroni addressed his (Catholic) congregation saying, “I am here to beg you — and I will get on my hands and knees and beg you — not to leave.”
But it is not merely the sexual misconduct of some Christian leadership that has damaged the trust between the faithful and church leadership. Some churches in the West have misappropriated parishioner funds on eccentric luxuries, with prosperity gospel charlatans imploring congregations to enrich their already cornucopian wealth. Televangelist Kenneth Copeland was recently confronted about his three (yes, three) private jets, to which he replied, “I’m a very wealthy man.” The many peddlers of prosperity theology have apparently failed to learn from history, as Martin Luther famously occasioned his opposition to the Church with a strident repudiation of transacting in salvation. In his seminal Ninety-Five Theses, Luther objected to a saying attributed to Tetzel: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs,” by writing his own: “It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.”
Exacerbating theological disaffection even more has been a public politics by certain Christian denominations that has compromised moral verities in the interest of power (it should be noted here that many Christian groups have been rather principled and upstanding in their political decisions, though they tend to get far less attention when compared to the more bombastic and opportunistic televangelists). Allying with Trump was, for many lay Christians, the last straw for an already fed up constituency, rendering the entire institution too alienating to continue affiliating with.
If Muslims are to avoid the same fate, they must begin by understanding the place of trust in our communal discourse along with the ways in which their decisions undermine their credibility.
It was this question that I was thinking through recently as I read Usaama al-Azami’s piece at MuslimMatters about giving zakat to Muslim media and educational institutions. Azami goes to some length to demonstrate that the position of giving to organizations loosely regarded as acting fi sabili-Llah has scholarly support and theological defensibility, while begrudging the common misconception of zakat being a service exclusively tailored to assist the poor.
Though Azami’s defense of fi sabili-Llah supporting broader applicability can be contested, where his paper seems to me to lack the most is in appreciating why many Muslims feel unsettled by the idea of media institutions asserting zakat eligibility. Religious communities are naturally averse to financial impropriety, and succumbing to rapacity is something Allah warns against in the Quran on more than one occasion. In recent years, Muslim communities and institutions have increasingly relied on unseemly tactics to coax donors into dispensing with their funds while simultaneously turning their back on poor Muslims who live at or below the poverty line (a group that makes up roughly 35% of the Muslim community in America). Moreover, there is little (if any) discussion about financial ethics in Muslim institutions, and it is often unclear what guidelines are in place to determine appropriate monetary practices. For-profit Muslim institutions have fundraised without the slightest hesitation, while the very category Azami defends — fi sabili-Llah — has been exclaimed by all and sundry to denote their own practice as “zakat-eligible.” Put another way, perhaps we can ask: which organizations are not working fi sabili-Llah? And how can a sincere Muslim concerned over the appropriation of his zakat make a good faith determination about who should and should not receive zakat?
As it stands right now, civil rights organizations of all stripes (including some that openly profess their ambivalence to Islam’s moral norms), schools, masjids, third spaces, counseling centers, media websites, and more include explicit statements on their websites asserting zakat eligibility. Anecdotally, I have personally inquired of mosques and related institutions that treat zakat as essentially interchangeable with sadaqa, using the money raised from zakat to cover administrative costs, pay bills, or, less defensibly, provide for superfluous furnishings. Additionally, zakat committees are poorly staffed, and rarely have scholarly oversight to help govern the provisioning of finances.
Without boundaries, restrictions, or oversight, financial gain becomes the domain of the most aggressive and least caring. To the victor go the spoils. Many masjids now impose severe restrictions on what they deem to be “outside fundraising,” thereby preventing relief organizations and other worthwhile institutions from fundraising ‘on their turf.’ These decisions evince a lack of tawakkul in al-Razzaq, while instantiating an environment that ensures cosmopolitan Muslim institutions keep their wealth “in house” while the indigent remain at the mercy of social services which are increasingly being targeted by a government hostile to the very concept of welfare.
Instead of convincing Muslims that their zakat need not go to the poor, perhaps we would be better served by asking why so little goes to the poor today. Believers, many rabbis and monks wrongfully consume people’s possessions and turn people away from God’s path. [Prophet], tell those who hoard gold and silver instead of giving in God’s cause that they will have a grievous punishment. (al-Tawba: 34)
Our financial ethics aside, perhaps an even greater concern lies with our absolutely perilous political decisions, ones that are alienating scores of Muslims and entrenching the community into a particular paradigm of viewing the world, ourselves, and our religion. The “Christian Right” was not always a thing, and mainline Jewish organizations were not always doggedly Zionist. It is easy to malign those groups, but far more difficult to reflect on the manner in which our own politics are taking shape in similar ways. Muslim leaders in the West are unwittingly falling into these traps, acting in the name of political participation and belonging in ways that undermine their moral high ground. These decisions include open alliances with progressive and far-left organizations, an assimilation of identitarian discourse into the Muslim mainstream, and promotion of figures who have subordinated Islam to the political fashions of liberal acolytes.
Our online environment has worsened the situation, corroding what little solidarity remained among those promoting a life of God and faith. The online behavior of Muslims, particularly of the “traditional” variety, leaves much to be desired. Popular personalities publish an eclectic mix of spiritual tourism, advertisements for programs being held in different cities, cringe-inducing selfies, social justice rhetoric high on the latest fads, and a few lazy anti-Trump remarks here and there. Less prominent figures preoccupy themselves in bitter disputes on Facebook and Twitter, ministering to people with condescending reminders of their illiteracy and general religious stupidity. Some resuscitate debates that scholars have had for centuries, insisting that they have a novel take that can settle the score once and for all. Egotism, jealousy, hatred, virtue signalling, passive aggression, demeaning rhetoric, and open backbiting are now features of this toxic milieu.
The result of all of this is an erosion of trust. People are quick to impugn Muslim leaders today because they see in them the behavior of politicians, not scholars, and no longer trust them to take inconvenient stances when necessary (the general absence of anything approaching moral clarity on homosexuality is a frequent reminder of this). With what credibility can we speak about “women’s rights” when something as ubiquitous as pornography hardly gets mentioned as an objective moral wrong and scourge on our society? People no longer take adab-policing seriously because it is so rarely observed by those decrying its absence. They feel unsure of institutions that clamor for money and display none of the selflessness that they expect their donors to embody. For all of the (undoubtedly important) talk about upholding what Islam says, many are desperately searching for leaders and institutions who actually live it.
In short, many have stopped trusting us. And I for one cannot fault them.
Other thoughts:
Ben Domenech at The Federalist writes:
“But the truth is the culture has long ago passed the point of consensus where it is possible for a peaceable navigation of the conflict.
Politics today is for the rough, the confrontational, and the unapologetic. It is not comfortable unless we lie to ourselves about where it is and where it is going. Instead, American Christians inhabit the position where their foes are animated by beliefs consistent with an apocryphal quote from Frank Herbert’s Children of Dune: “When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”
And it could get worse: it’s possible both the perspectives of these Christian conservative thinkers are too optimistic. Social conservatives should be most concerned that both French and Ahmari are wrong about what the enemies of freedom believe possible, that the harshest voices in the American left won’t be satisfied just driving traditional American values from the oped pages or the universities or the local boards. Instead, the left may be turning into the culture war white walkers, bent on utter and total destruction of everything American Christians hold dear — including the liberty to hold beliefs at odds with the consensus of the elite — and that they will root for that belief, even when it is hidden in their hearts.”
I believe Muslims in America will have to make abundantly clear that infanticide is abhorrent and unequivocally murder very soon. There are simply too many indications that many in the community, under the guise of supporting ‘the right to choose,’ no longer see the elimination of a few babies here and there as worthy of any special concern. This is not about establishing an official position and adjudicating long-standing differences over the moment of ensoulment (which itself has been contributed to in substantive ways by some, including Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Dr. Abdullah bin Hamid Ali), but a far simpler acknowledgment that reads without qualification, reconfirming what should otherwise be obvious but is sadly under significant cultural assault: killing children is wrong, and taking the life of a baby in the womb after ensoulment is a gross act of sin that is not tolerated in Islam.
Wael Abdelgawad has an important reflection on those suffering at MuslimMatters. He writes:
“Our local Imam recently gave a khutbah about the importance of dua’. He said that Allah loves the dua’ that is persistent. Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Daa’ wa’l-Dawa’: “One of the most beneficial of remedies is persisting in dua’.”
So be persistent. Pray for our suffering Ummah, and pray for our heroes. And donate whatever you can spare to the organizations that work on their behalf.”
Allah Knows Best.