Volume 10 - Number 2 - September 2003
Pages: 33 - 116
Kobrin, N. H. (2003). Kobrin replies to Lotto. Clio’s Psyche, 10(2), 73-74.
Kobrin Replies to Lotto
Abstract
In this response article, the author replies to David Lotto’s “Psychoanalytic Explorations of the Other as Rationalization of Vengeance,” which criticized the author’s earlier essay on Islam. The author disputes Lotto’s view that an unflattering assessment of Islam is for that reason false, and rejects his position that a valid view requires equal criticism of Christianity, the Christian West, and the United States. The author maintains that criticisms of either religion should be judged by the facts and the cogency of the argument, not by balance. The author contends that evenhandedness can give an illusion of balance at the expense of accuracy, and treats Lotto’s personal feelings as relevant only to how they bear on the facts. In support, the author points to Salman Rushdie and Ibn Warraq, both raised as Muslims, whom the author describes as regarding Islamism as inseparable from Islam.
Christianity, David Lotto, Islam, psychohistory, religious criticism
I welcome Dr. Lotto’s criticism, but I find it problematic. Just because I offer an honest critique of Islam which is not flattering and which he interprets as “negative,” he equates it with being false and not true. In addition, Dr. Lotto is of the opinion that I am obligated to criticize Christianity, the Christian West, and especially the U.S. in order to offer a point of view that is valid. This is clearly fallacious. Criticisms of both Islam and Christianity should be judged on the basis of the facts upon which they offer their respective views.
I have no problem with Dr. Lotto’s having personal feelings about my essay. Indeed, I would assume that each reader has feelings about the article. However, the personal response of the reader is not at issue. What is at issue and of interest is precisely what such “personal feelings” might have to do with the facts of the matter at hand. By this I mean, what might we learn from those who insist, as Dr. Lotto does, that I should have criticized both religions and that such criticism would have allegedly led to a more “balanced, evenhanded” view? If I had criticized Christians, this would not guarantee that I have offered a balanced and accurate view. If anything, such supposed, even pseudo-, “evenhandedness” towards both religions may proffer an illusion of balance to the detriment of the facts. His wish for such balance is clearly erroneous because it is the accuracy of the information and the cogency of the criticism that carries weight.
It is important to recall the fine critiques of Islam and Islamism by both Salman Rushdie and Ibn Warraq. They do not let Islam off, because they consider it impossible to separate Islamism from Islam. See Rushdie, “November 2001: Not about Islam?” in Step Across This Line (2002), pp. 339-340, and, most especially, Ibn Warraq, “The Totalitarian Nature of Islam,” pp. 163-171; “Arab Imperialism, Islamic Colonialism,” pp. 198-213; and “The Arab Conquests and the Position of Non-
Page 73
Muslim Subjects,” pp. 214-239 in Why I Am Not a Muslim (1995). Both noted authors were born and raised as Muslims. Having had intimate experience with Islam, they write from within the tradition. Having seen the “emperor naked,” they do not fear to speak out.
Page 74
How to cite this article
Kobrin, N. H. (2003). Kobrin replies to Lotto. Clio’s Psyche, 10(2), 73-74.
