In what might come as a surprise to some, and I would suggest is a counter to a broad narrative, an Employment Tribunal (a form of Labour Court) in England has upheld the principle that criticism of ‘unreformed’ Islam is legally protected. The Tribunal considered a preliminary point as to whether or not the Claimant (Plaintiff in old, sound [ 🙂 ] money) could in principle bring a claim on the basis that he held a belief that had sufficient cogency as to be worthy of respect in a democratic society. As far as can be discerned from the judgment, there was an issue (which is very much now an issue for a determination on the merits at a later hearing) as to whether the employer was taking action against the Claimant (the circumstances of which we know nothing) because of his manifestation of his belief, (which is permissible) rather than because he simply held those beliefs, which is not permissible; e.g. a nurse who is a devout Christian being sacked for being a Christian rather than specifically, sacked for e.g. saying to a seriously-ill patient ‘Convert or face Hell-fire soon!‘ which could well be a manifestation of a belief at which offence might be taken.
The issue that the Tribunal considered is set out in the judgment (linked above) as follows:
“The belief that Islam, particularly in a traditional form – rather than a reformed, modernised, moderate and Westernised form – is problematic and deserving of criticism in so far as it fails:
(i) To recognise a separation between religion (sacred) and politics (secular) and/or the Church and state,
(ii) To value and respect fundamental human rights such as:
• freedom of conscience and of speech,
• to eschew and condemn violence in the name of religion (Islam),
• to treat and respect women and girls equally when compared to men and boys.”
The Claimant appears to have been ‘hauled up’ by his employer over his Twitter/X usage, there is reference to a file of 141 pages showing his Twitter feed, which the employer sought (at this stage) to use to argue that his belief in the need for a ‘reformation’ of ‘unreformed Islam’ was not genuinely held, i.e. that he was using this ‘belief’ as a shield for views that would not be protected. That is yet to be determined, if it is continued with by the employer.
The main points of the Claimant’s case were the following which he considered problematic were noted at paragraph 13 in the judgment:
‘In his witness statement [C/14], the Claimant has cited the following
“traditional and unreformed Islamic belief[s]” that are that are incompatible with “Western values” in that they:
(i) advocate or justify violence against non-believers or apostates;
(ii) promote unequal legal status for women;
(iii) call for the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy or homosexuality;
(iv) reject the separation of religion and state, and seek to impose religious law;
(v) promote antisemitism or hatred towards groups including reformed Muslims;
(vi) condone child marriage;
(vii) permit forms of slavery or indentured servitude;
(viii) justify domestic violence, including wife-beating and female genital mutilation (“FGM”).’
It is important to note here that the Claimant’s belief isn’t about hostility towards Muslims as such, but to the holding and promotion of the ‘unreformed’ version of Islam that he is objecting to.
The issue for the Tribunal hearing the final case is summed up at paragraph 17:
‘The degree to which the Claimant will be able to establish that these tweets were a manifestation of the pleaded belief or that the Respondent will be able to show that these were inappropriate manifestations of, or otherwise separable from, the belief, are matters which fall to be decided at the final hearing.’
I.e. was the Claimant criticism of the ‘unreformed’ Islam that he weighs in against inappropriate, which takes into account the position that he held in the employer that he worked or works for.
There is nothing in this judgment that surprises me, it seems to be a legally-sound decision that the principle of criticising a belief on the basis of its incompatibility with ‘Western values’ (whatever they might be) is one where not only is it lawful, but an employer who acts against an employee for doing so (unless the manifestation is inappropriate) is itself acting unlawfully. Clearly, given that Courts are holding that such expression is legally-protected in principle, any notion that such comments are criminally unlawful are unfounded so any police action arising from those Tweets would be wholly unlawful.
Along with other economists Milton Friedman argued that an employer should be allowed to end the employment of someone for any reason – unless (unless) there was a contract-of-employment (which he recommended – that Milton Friedman recommended contracts of employment is often left out of discussion of this matter) which laid down protections.
The difficulty is that an employer may be pressured by outside forces to dismiss an employee – “sack this Islamophobe or we will destroy your business – by picketing your premises, and so on”. Also there may be no individual employer as such (Milton Friedman, indeed just about all economists, thought in terms of one individual employing another individual – which is normally NOT the case now) – most people today are employed by either government or corporate bureaucracies (and contrary to the late Milton Friedman, there is NOW little difference between a government and a corporate bureaucracy – indeed they are often NOW joined at the hip) whose hiring-and-firing practices have little to do with merit – and a lot to do with box ticking exercises, which have been ruthlessly exploited by certain powers (hello BlackRock – and other such) with a political and cultural (NOT commercial) agenda. Someone like Larry Fink (head of Black Rock and the World Economic Forum) had demanded, for years, that people are hired and fired on the basis of the race, sex, sexuality – and yes OPINIONS (not merit).
The left noticed this weakness of the “Corporate model” quite some time ago. Corporations used to act “as if” they operated in a free market economy and sought to maximize long term profits – by such things as hiring on the basis of merit. But with so many shares “managed” by a few entities, and the supply of Credit Money in the hands of the government supported Credit Bubble banks, the left worked out how Corporations (Corporate bureaucracies – dominated by such things as “Human Resources” departments) could be used to push the political and cultural agenda of the left – and this really went into overdrive in the 21st century (yes, before anyone points it out, long after Milton Friedman stopped writing about economics – so he can NOT be blamed for not writing about things that had NOT happened yet).
In a free market economy where lending was entirely from Real Savings (the actual sacrifice of consumption) of cash (Commodity – for example gold or silver) money, rather than Credit Money created from nothing and dished out to the politically connected – entities such as BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, and the Credit Bubble banks would NOT have a stranglehold on Western economies – but that is a discussion for another time.
As for the present state of the law of England – Mr Ed (as one would expect) states it very well.
My fear is that the laws are soon to be changed – to make any opposition to Islam, even OUTSIDE working hours (not at work – not bothering people about their religion whilst at work) a matter than can end employment – and, indeed, be punished in other ways.
Islam is the teachings and personal example (actions – the deeds) of Mohammed (various spellings) – which, Muslims believe, were commanded by God (Allah) Himself.
It can not be “reformed” – as Mohammed stated that his teachings came from God (Allah) and that his actions (his killings, enslaving, and so on) were ordered by God – and were a model of conduct for his followers, for all time.
Mohammed was NOT some gentle hippy sitting under a tree preaching peace and love. Mohammed as a political and military leader, one of genius, who created a political and legal system meant to dominate the world (NOT a tiny bit of the world – as with the claim that Judaism makes to the “Holy Land” – all of the world) and rule. A political and legal system that, according to Mohammed, was personally ordered by God. And any person who claimed to be a Muslim, but did NOT side with other Muslims in the conquest of Infidels, was a “hypocrite” who, according to Mohammed, should be executed.
If a Christian does certain bad things one can say “would Jesus have done that – would Jesus have approved of what you are doing?”
If a Buddhist does certain bad things one can say “would the Buddha have done that – would he have approved of what you are doing?”
But if one tries this with a follower of Islam, someone who sincerely follows the teachings and personal example (actions – deeds) of Mohammed – the response is simple.
“YES Mohammed would have done this, indeed he did do it – repeatedly, and YES Mohammed would have approved of what I am doing – indeed he (Mohammed – following the commands of Allah) commanded his followers to do these things, till the end of time”.
There is no “reformed, modernised, moderate and Westernised form” of Islam and even if there was, it would be an Islamic heresy.
If the powers that be wanted to prevent rising anti-semitism, maybe not importing vast hordes of Muslims would be a good start?
I recall about twenty years ago it was fashionable to call for a ‘reformation’ in islam akin to the Christian one to counter jihadism. I think that was based on a misunderstanding of the Protestant Reformation. The complaints of islamic radicals like Bin Laden and co that many Muslims, such as the Gulf monarchies or Arab nationalists like Saddam Hussein or Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, had made too many compromises with worldly luxury and sin and this corrupted islam, seem not a million miles away from Martin Luther railing against a corrupted Catholic church that had compromised too much with the profane and corrupted by it. Admittedly my own Catholic biases may be showing here, and I’m not saying all contemporary Protestants are like islamic fundamentalists, but I think Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas or Khomeini in the Shia world etc are the Islamic reformation. I don’t think it’s any surprise they came after the failure of things like Arab nationalism, the Iranian white revolution, or the dismal attempts to impose communism in places like Afghanistan and Yemen.
Even if “reformed” it begs the question of whether ANY religion, institution, person etc is above criticism and personal opinion.
willful knowledge – the answer should be “no” nothing should be above criticism, especially if it is false (such as “we have so much in common – we all want peace and respect all life”). But even the truth should be open to criticism – people should be allowed to argue that the world is flat, and that 1+1=68.
Martin – there are a few points in common with SOME of the Protestant thinkers and Islamic revival.
For example, the Determinism one finds in Martin Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” – his attack on moral responsibility (human agency – free will), has some things in common with Sunni Islam – see Winston Churchill’s “The River War” (the first edition – before it was sanitized) for the negative attitude of Sunni Islam towards human moral agency.
John Calvin (although not Martin Luther) also campaigned against ornament (as against the Commandments – as being idol worship), sharing this view with Sunni Islam.
And John Calvin also practiced treachery – for example inviting a theological opponent to Geneva with promises of safe conduct, and then having the opponent burned alive (some Muslims, especially in the Shia tradition, call the tactic of deception “Taqiyya”).
Merry Christmass to all!
Well, they have upheld that a *belief* that traditional Islam is a barbarous death cult is protected, but will they protect the *observation* that traditional Islam is a barbarous death cult?
Martin:
Raymond Ibrahim made pretty much the same point on PJMedia.
As for your “Catholic biases”: keep in mind that going back to the roots of Christianity (as the Christian Reformation did, or meant to do) is going to lead to quite different results than going back to the roots of Islam.
NB: I have no dog in this fight — that is, i am neutral about the relative merits of the Catholic and Protestant faiths.
After the Reformation, Protestant countries have generally been more free and prosperous. OTOH Protestantism in Germany seemed to correlate with support for the NSDAP.
There cannot be any ‘reformed Islam’. It is quite clear in the teachings of their ‘prophet’. This ‘revelation’ is the final one, it cannot be amended in any way. Any muslim trying to amend it will be regarded as a heretic, at best, and lay himself open to severe punishment.
Anyone who has studied Islam and tries to deny what I have written here is lying.
Snorri and Martin – as James Strong and Dan Souter have pointed out, there is a massive problem with the very idea of “Reformed Islam”.
Islam is the teachings of Mohammed (various spellings) and his personal example – what he did, his actions – his deeds.
I have made this point myself (as have others) multiple times.
Mohammed taught what he taught (noting the change in his teachings after he got his own army – the change from the Mecca verses to the Medina verses) and did what he did.
And Mohammed was quite clear about people who claimed to be Muslims, but refused to help in the conquest of infidels – according to Mohammed such people were “hypocrites” and, again according to him, should be executed.
As for morality – Mohammed held that what his God commanded was good by-definition, and what his God forbad was evil by-definition. A form of Positivism – sometimes called in theology “Voluntarism” (although that term is a big misleading) – with “God is good” being true by-definition (not based on the conduct or commands of God – which humans are, according to Mohammed, not allowed to judge), with whatever God orders being “good” (by definition) and whatever God forbids being “bad” (by definition) – no moral law, moral reason, as objective measure to judge these commands by.
No independent moral reason judging things – the role of reason according to Mohammed was, for example,in planning the conquest and enslavement of infidels – NOT in judging whether such activity was morally good or morally bad (it was morally good because, according to him, God commanded it – so it was morally good by-definition). Reason seen simply seen in instrumental terms – as a tool.
Some Western philosophers (over the centuries) come close to the above – but, in their time (not in these messed-up times) they were rightly seen as a AGAINST the Western tradition.
An obvious problem with all this is – “what if Satan pretends to be God – and issues commands to do dreadful things?”.
Islam gets round this problem in three ways – first if God commands something it is not, by definition, “dreadful” (whatever it is – is good), BUT also – Satan is allowed to pretend to be anyone with the exception of God (Allah) – so Satan is not allowed to pretend to be God.
Finally there is the core principle that Mohammed is the FINAL prophet.
So if someone says “I have had a revelation from Allah – we are NOT to rob and kill, or enslave, infidels anymore” they are LYING (or are deluded – mentally ill) – as the FINAL prophet was Mohammed.
So his orders can not be countermanded – can not be canceled.
Turning aside from Islam – and turning to the Protestant Reformation.
It is interesting that many (not all – but many) of the Protestant thinkers did not tend to really strongly claim that the teachings of Jesus Christ were not being followed in this or that way – what they were really interested in was the teachings of Augustine of Hippo.
Augustine was active about four centuries after Jesus Christ – and could neither read Hebrew or (oddly for an educated theologian in the Roman Empire – which had not yet collapsed) read Greek – the languages scriptures were written in.
However, he had a very strong personality and was backed by Bishop Ambrose of Milan – one of the most influential churchmen of the time.
For example…..
Augustine stressed Predestination (although he may not have been the inventor of this doctrine – he was certainly the first well known person to really push it), and this is what John Wycliffe, Jan Huss, Martin Luther and John Calvin took from Augustine.
Basically they accused the Roman Catholic Church of Pelagianism – of following the ideas of the Romano British theologian Pelagius – a charge the Catholics denied.
The charge of “Semi Pelagianism” – i.e. that salvation depends on God, but someone has to CHOOSE to accept the offer of God. Was not, normally, so strongly denied by Catholics – and (I am going to stick my own neck out at this point), because the “charge” was at least party true – the Catholic Church (like the Orthodox, the Anglican, the Wesleyian Methodists, the Cumberland Presbyterians, the Free Will Baptists, and others) was and is SEMI Pelagian (NOT Pelagian – SemiPelagian). Although some might deny this – passionately deny it.
The talk about Church corruption (and so on) was not really what all this (the Reformation) was about, and the Reformation was certainly not about becoming “fluffy” (meek and mild – not fighting people and so on). As Dr Luther said “others have denounced the life – I denounce the doctrine” – and “the doctrine” he was denouncing was alleged opposition to Predestination.
It is an oddity of history that Britain produced forms of Protestantism that did include Predestination – for example Anglicanism (the Church of England) and the Methodism of John Wesley.
I do not believe that this is because Pelagius was from Britain (one and a half thousand years ago) – it is, I think, a coincidence.
One thing that concerned the English (and they tended to be English – not Scottish) anti Predestinationists was “what is the point of preaching?”
If who is going to be saved and who is going to go to Hell was settled at the start of the universe – and no one can choose to change their conduct, what is the point of preaching? Indeed what is the point of anything?
To this the Predestinationists have an answer – namely that their preaching was also predetermined (predestined) at the start of the of the universe.
“Here I stand, I can do no other” NOT as a statement of moral conscience – but meant literally (“I” a pre programmed thing, was predestined to stand here and say these things – with no moral choice, praise and blame, having anything to do with anything).
In what is now the Netherlands both Erasmus (a Catholic) and, later, Arminius (a Protestant) – rejected this.
The above should not be confused with “salvation by faith alone” – the denial (for example of the Epistle of James – which Dr Luther denounced as an “Epistle of Straw”) that works (good conduct) had anything to do with salvation.
It is quite true that Dr Luther and others denounced the idea that works, good conduct, was important to salvation. They have pointed out that it MIGHT lead to the Jewish position that even atheists would be saved by God if they made in their lives, a real free will effort at good conduct – Dr Luther did not particularly like Jews (hence, for example, his removal from the Bible of certain books that presented Jews in a positive light), but let us leave that aside for the moment, as the point is just – this IS a Jewish doctrine, so “guilt by association with the Jews” is not a worthless tactic – it has some validity (I have to admit that). BUT this, Predestinationism, is NOT really about that (although, yes, the Jews rejected Spinoza, in part, because he opposed free will – moral agency, indeed the ruling was very severe – they were forbidden to speak to him, and if he walked towards them, they were required to walk away – only if he forced his presence upon them, say by backing them into a corner, were they to strike him down).
The debate is NOT about “faith – or faith and works” – the debate is about “faith” itself.
According to the interpretation of Augustine (leave aside whether or not this is what Augustine really believed) of John Wycliff, Jan Hus, Martin Luther and John Calvin (and others) – who has faith (who believes) was predestined – decided at the start of the universe, long before they were born.
Some argue that this is defies reason – to which Dr Luther replied that reason was “a whore”, simply an instrumental thing (a tool – to be “used” – hence “whore”), and, therefore, had no place in theological or moral judgement (discussion yes – judgement no).
So it is clear that Mr Hobbes, Mr Hume and Mr Bentham (and others) did not originate this line of thought – and nor did they claim to have invented it.
What they did was to take out God – the one free will (i.e. being capable of being moral – subject, person, not just object) being in Dr Luther’s universe.
This does not mean that they were atheists (they may or may not have been) – it simply means that they were consistent and removed from consideration all free will moral beings – not all apart-from God. In this they were logically consistent – as they denied that free will beings capable of choosing, with moral effort, to do good against their desire (passion) to do evil, existed – or could exist.
@James Strong
There cannot be any ‘reformed Islam’. It is quite clear in the teachings of their ‘prophet’. This ‘revelation’ is the final one, it cannot be amended in any way. Any muslim trying to amend it will be regarded as a heretic, at best, and lay himself open to severe punishment.
But the facts don’t agree with your claim. There are millions of Muslims in the United States and other western countries that are not at all radicalized. They are just trying to live their lives, raise their families and find success and happiness in exactly the same way everyone else does. I’ve worked with hundreds of Muslim people, in fact I was just chatting with a couple of Muslims in Pakistan today. One of them is real excited because his wife is about to have a baby, and, like any expectant father he is worried about how they will cope, where he can make some extra cash to pay the new bills, worried about his wife and baby’s health etc. Out of all these Muslims I have never had any worry they want to kill me, blow up a building, destroy the infidels or that they love death more than I love life. I mean that is just the facts that I encounter and the vast majority of people who deal with Muslims day to day experience.
Of course if you read their holy book you get a different story. But have you read the Bible? It is full of the most appalling stories and commands. I won’t rehearse them here again, since I have done before on many previous occasions. But if Christians and Jews really followed what the Bible said they’d be just as terrifying as Muslims who are radicalized by their book too. And of course Islam, just like Christianity, Judaism and atheism, have their share or nut job psychopaths.
The problem in parts of the Middle East is not so much that they are Muslim as that they are tribal, 14th century uneducated, and unable to defend themselves against the worst excesses of religiosity. In the 11th century Christians were sending crusades to the middle east to destroy Islam too, and being given dispensations and plenary indulgencies by the Pope to engage in the worst kinds of savagery imaginable. Some of the religious excesses during the English civil war were barbaric. This really is a lot like some of the crazy Jihadis today, just displaced a few centuries.
Any religion can inoculate people from the most horrific moral sins — when you do it in the name of God how can it be wrong? Which is why I think the Church of England is the best church. Lots of really lovely people, “do unto others as you’d have done to yourself”, “be polite”, ” don’t make a fuss”, “treat people kindly”. And whatever you do, don’t take the stuff in the Bible too seriously.
In the book of revelation the writer describes Jesus’ assessment of the church “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of My mouth.” I disagree. I think lukewarm Christians are some of the nicest members of society. Nice people, just don’t take the Bible too seriously. Wasn’t it Jefferson who used to cut out with a knife the Bible verses he didn’t like? Sounds like a plan to me!
But the idea that all Muslims are a threat just doesn’t match reality. I don’t think we should be importing third world people en masse by any means, but it has nothing to do with their religion and entirely due to their inability to integrate into a modern western society.
“We do not, most of us, respect Islam any more than we respect people who speak in tongues. What we respect is the right of Muslims to practise their religion in perfect peace, in so far as it does not conflict with our laws. We also hope that we can find common ground with them in many other aspects of human existence: in business, in the professions, in literature and so forth. Tolerance is not a matter of respecting what is tolerated – if it were, tolerance would hardly be necessary. Tolerance is the willing, conscious suppression of distaste or disdain for other people’s ideas, habits and tastes for the sake of a wider social peace.
[…]
Muslims should be told quite clearly that our citizens have the legal right to criticize, lampoon, ridicule and mock Mohammed to their heart’s content, in any way that they wish: that Islam and Muslims have no special claim to protection from the rough and tumble of post-Enlightenment intellectual, political and social life. If they cannot live in a society in which this is the case, they should go somewhere else; they are, after all, spoilt for choice, at least in theory.”
– Theodore Dalrymple
“Any religion can inoculate people from the most horrific moral sins…”
Substitute ideology for religion. People who tout “secularism” (that is, keeping religion out of public life) still believe in some desperately appalling things but think these are acceptable ideas simply because they don’t involve God.
Fraser Orr and others.
It is nothing to do with “radicalization”.
Islam is what Mohammed taught and what he did – his actions, his deeds.
Islam is based on Mohammed – who was a totally different sort of person from the founders of other religions. See the Koran, the Hadiths, and the Life of Mohammed.
Thomas Jefferson asked why followers of Islam were attacking American ships – he received an honest theological reply, from the envoys of the North African states involved.
The doctrines (principles) can-not-be-changed – because Mohammed was, according to Islam, the last messenger (prophet) of God – and the orders come from God (Mohammed just being the last messenger).
You can ask a Christian doing certain bad things “would Jesus have done that – would Jesus approve of what you are doing?”
You can ask a Buddhist “would the Buddha have done that – would the Buddha approve of what you are doing?”
But try such a tactic with a sincere follower of Islam and they will answer you….
“Yes Mohammed would have done this – he did do these things, repeatedly, and he ordered us to do these things to the end of time – and those orders came from Allah, Mohammed being just the last messenger”.
Someone who claims to be a Muslim and does not help against the infidels (when the time is tactically correct – NOT when they are absurdly outnumbered) Mohammed declared a “hypocrite” – and the punishment for being such a “hypocrite” is death.
Westerners today (not in the past – not Gladstone or Winston Churchill, the collapse in understanding seems to have come since the Second World War) seem incapable of understanding Islam.
This is NOT the fault of Islam – which does not hide what Mohammed taught and did, it is the fault of modern Westerners – such as President Bush and Prime Minister Blair – indeed the entire Western establishment.
They, the Western establishment, have made mental evasion into an art form.
The Western establishment is in the grip of a delusion – a delusion that is helping to lead to the death of the West.
And the delusions (this delusion – and other delusions) of the Western establishment are self inflicted.
As for past history…
The works of Raymond Ibrahim, which are based on both Christian and Islamic sources (he is a native Arabic speaker) are worth consulting – and, as he points out, the post World War II books of Western “scholars” are filled with anti Christian hatred – they take the primary sources and utterly twist and distort them, so much so that much of what is taught in Western universities and schools is the opposite of the truth – the primary sources (written at the time by Christians, Jews and Muslims) are there – but are dishonestly presented, because they do not say what “liberal” (in the bizarre modern sense of that word) academia want them to say.
But then people who have studied specific areas have always known this.
For example, a general book will tell you that Islamic Spain was a wonderful place, very tolerant and so on.
But a specialist work (on the specific place) will show that the opposite is the truth – see, for example, “The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise”.
I noticed this, quite some years ago now, with how the centuries long conflict between the Hapsburgs and Ottomans was being presented.
The picture of the Ottoman Empire presented (and presented by Westerners – by Westerners in modern times) was almost the opposite of the reality.
One could feel the frustration of the “liberal” teachers and academics (and media types) that Vienna did not fall to Islam in 1529 or 1683.
They are delighted by what is happening to Vienna now.
And these “liberal” teachers, academics, media types (and so on) are NOT Muslims (they are NOT followers of Islam) – they are just consumed with hatred of the West and the desire that it be destroyed.
Lastly I must stress that this “liberalism” has nothing to with liberalism as Gladstone or John Bright, or (say) President Calvin Coolidge (although the term was being stolen in his time), understood the term.
@Paul Marks.
Islam is what Mohammed taught and what he did – his actions, his deeds.
So what? In practice Islam is what Muslims do, and the large majority of Muslims, especially Muslims in the west, do not engage in these destructive behaviors.
You can ask a Christian doing certain bad things “would Jesus have done that – would Jesus approve of what you are doing?”
If you saw a genocide and you ask a Jew “would Yahweh have done that” he’d have to say yes, because the Bible is full of stories of God wiping people out or having his people wipe people out. And perhaps for meek and mild Jesus many acts of violence would indeed be outside his purview, but you read what he plans to do in the future, coming with a conquering army to destroy the infidels, I’d guess you can ask “will Jesus do this in future” and the answer could well be yes.
So again, what matters is not what is in the book, but what people actually do. And to paint Muslims with the same Brush as Bin Laden is an outrageous mischaracterization of their practical, lived religious experience. And the more you do so the more you push reasonable Muslims away from you and make radicalization more likely.
As a society, we have decided that it is unfair to treat people based on group characteristics. John is a robber, but his co-religionist Bill isn’t, so we don’t punish Bill for John’s sins.
But, as a practical matter, we do this all the time. I don’t walk down many streets in Minneapolis at night, even though 90% of the people whom I might encounter will do me no harm. I avoid the other 10%, by shunning 100% of those street’s people.
And who can do the most effective job of convincing that 10% of the error of their ways? Their own 90%, most likely.
So, does it make sense to pressure the 90% to help to change the 10% of their own group to conform to society? I think it does. I think the most effective change agent has to come from within their own groups.
If I walked into a new society with 100 other Norwegians, and ten of us turned out to be pillaging Vikings, I wouldn’t be surprised if I was considered to be more responsible for changing the marauders than the non-Norwegians around me. I might think “but I’m not pillaging!”, but I’d still work a bit harder to stop my co-Norsemen from their murderous ways.
So I don’t feel too awful about holding all of Islam a bit more responsible for cleaning up murderous Islam than I do non-Muslims. If I can pressure them to work harder to clean up their own co-religionists, I will.
Fair to them? Not entirely. But, safer for the rest of us? I think so.
@bobby b
And who can do the most effective job of convincing that 10% of the error of their ways? Their own 90%, most likely.
So then, I hope you’ll agree that the ONE thing we don’t want to do is to treat those 90% the way we’d treat the 10%. If we were to treat all those Norwegians as if they were marauding Vikings, if we were to pigeonhole them in that way, if we were to other them and alienate them from polite society, they may well want to throw in their lot with the marauders.
So sure, Muslims do have a special responsibility to quell the crazies in their own ranks. But we have a responsibility to recognize that the non crazies are reasonable, that they are not so different than us, that we are on their side, and that we will support them as they try to get their own nut jobs under control.
So all this talk of “Islam is so terrible — all Muslims are bad because of what their crazy founder said” is exactly the wrong thing to do. It pushes the good and decent Muslims that make up the large majority of their number, out of polite society and leaves them alienated, othered and more inclined to throw in their lot with the worst kind of people.
So do we have the right to say bad things about Muhammad, draw pictures of him, ridicule him? For sure we do. It is a free society. But just as it is pretty bad manners to tell your Catholic friends that you think Mary the mother of Jesus was a filthy whore, it seems right to show a little respect and politeness toward other people’s feelings.
For sure, just as the US Navy ensures freedom of navigation by sailing its ships down the Taiwan strait, we need to exercise our freedom of speech to keep it alive, but there is such a thing as politeness and consideration of other people’s feelings. Sure you can fly your Nazi flag in the house opposite a synagogue entrance, you have the right to express your views, but it doesn’t mean you aren’t an asshole for doing it.
Certainly. Not sure if you’re aware of the special place that Somalis are taking in Minnesota – think “they just stole 10% of the entire state budget” – but I am not telling my Somali acquaintances “you are all thieves and grifters” – I’m telling them “if you ever want to see the word “Somali” spoken here without the speaker then spitting, you need to clean up your clans’ acts.”
And they’re not acting as though I have spoken out of turn. The response I see is usually “yeah, we know. Working on that . . .”
@bobby b
Certainly. Not sure if you’re aware of the special place that Somalis are taking in Minnesota
Yes, I have been following the story. It is hard to believe that the moron responsible for this was almost a heartbeat from the presidency.
Though I suppose breathtaking corruption is hardly unusual in Washington either, so perhaps he’d fit right in.
Fraser Orr.
Your refusal to understand the truth – does not alter the fact that is the truth.
Islam is NOT “what most Muslims do” – Islam is what Mohammed taught and practiced, and followers of Islam can be called upon to do these things, when it is tactically correct to do so (YES – there can be legitimate debate over when it is tactically correct to act).
If they refuse, they have left Islam – and the penalty for leaving Islam is death.
If you continue to stick your head in the sand – you deserve no sympathy.
We who live in Europe get to see the bitter truth.
I am reminded of Tommy Robinson’s (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon’s) reply to Tucker Carlson – namely that people who have never lived in a formally Western town where the followers of Islam have become a large proportion of the population do-not-know-what-they-are-talking-about.
And this is not just Europe – there are starting to be a few American towns where the reality can be experienced.