Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Best Thing I’ve Read About Contemporary Islam, Ever
From The (London) Spectator. There’s so much excellent here, but here’s a telling story:
The night after the Charlie Hebdo atrocities I was pre-recording a Radio 4 programme. My fellow discussant was a very nice Muslim man who works to ‘de-radicalise’ extremists. We agreed on nearly everything. But at some point he said that one reason Muslims shouldn’t react to such cartoons is that Mohammed never objected to critics.
There may be some positive things to be said about Mohammed, but I thought this was pushing things too far and mentioned just one occasion when Mohammed didn’t welcome a critic. Asma bint Marwan was a female poetess who mocked the ‘Prophet’ and who, as a result, Mohammed had killed. It is in the texts. It is not a problem for me. But I can understand why it is a problem for decent Muslims. The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk. How dare I say this? I replied that it was in the Hadith and had a respectable chain of transmission (an important debate). He said it was a fabrication which he would not allow to stand. The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed and I was left trying to find another way to express the same point. The broadcast had this ‘offensive’ fact left out.
I cannot imagine another religious discussion where this would happen, but it is perfectly normal when discussing Islam.
And this:
We might all agree that the history of Christianity has hardly been un-bloody. But is it not worth asking whether the history of Christianity would have been more bloody or less bloody if, instead of telling his followers to ‘turn the other cheek’, Jesus had called (even once) for his disciples to ‘slay’ non–believers and chop off their heads?
And this:
We have spent 15 years pretending things about Islam, a complex religion with competing interpretations. It is true that most Muslims live their lives peacefully. But a sizeable portion (around 15 per cent and more in most surveys) follow a far more radical version. The remainder are sitting on a religion which is, in many of its current forms, a deeply unstable component. That has always been a problem for reformist Muslims. But the results of ongoing mass immigration to the West at the same time as a worldwide return to Islamic literalism means that this is now a problem for all of us. To stand even a chance of dealing with it, we are going to have to wake up to it and acknowledge it for what it is.
And this, at the bottom of the piece, somehow strikes me as the saddest and most infuriating thing I’ve read in the past 12 hours:
This is an updated version of an article that was published in The Spectator on 17 January 2015.
Almost a year ago. After the last attack in Paris by literalist Muslims. After the last round of lies we were told, and that some of us told ourselves.
Published in General
Thanks Rob.
Regarding the 85/15 split. The 85 that are mostly silent on the matter are at least complicit in the conduct of the 15.
If that percentage can be generally applied to the adherents of Islam then we’re looking at 150 Million radicals. Yesterday’s death toll took a grand total of 7. Western Civilization is going to have to do some drastic not-so-nice things for its own security and that’s not going to be an easy bar to clear.
15% percent of 1 billion Muslims is 150 million.
If 15% of donuts were poisoned, and you had no way to tell which ones were, would you allow any donuts in your home?
Islam grapples with reason. Benedict XVI famously pointed this out in his Regensburg lecture. To help prove his point, Muslims killed an Italian religious sister in Somalia because the Holy father spoke the truth. Calling out Islam to confront reason and truth was a partial theme of his 2009 pilgrimage to the Holy Land (see here, here, and here).
Western leaders, particularly our President, grapple with reason also when it comes to Islam. It doesn’t take a superior intellect to see that these “violent extremists” are Muslim. Until Western leaders are honest and confront the truth that Islam poses a threat to Western society, we will continue to see terror and mayhem from the “religion of peace”.
And until Islam can come to grips with reason, there will be those who will kill in the name of Islam.
Excellent post. Thanks.
Thanks Rob, very good article and very interesting comments that follow.
The issue that ‘proves’ the point of ignorance, or blindness, concerning Muslims is to substitute any other religion for these Paris type attacks and people would want those groups eliminated. If the Mormons did this what would be the outcry? The Jews? That would be what everyone who hates Jews was waiting for to wipe them off the face of the earth. Religious Catholics would be called hate mongers following a pathological pope of evil.
But say they were Muslim… ‘oh that’s an exception, they are actually a religion of peace’. Hmm, I don’t see in the news any other religions attacking Paris or New York or Fort Hood or…
The “peaceful Muslims” people bang on about may be an overwhelming majority, say 90% (ad arguendo instead of Rob’s 85%). But 10% of 1,570,000,000 people is still 157,000,000. That’s a lot. The “peaceful Muslims” serve as the culture media for the violent jihadists. Just like it isn’t the agar culture in the petri dish that will kill you, it’s the anthrax it supports.
Our “leaders” won’t do even the most commonsense actions like shutting down accepting “refugees” from Islamic countries. Even the peaceful ones fleeing third world hellholes want to turn their new countries into third world hellholes as soon as they get to 10% of the population (viz Dearborn & Hamtramck MI).
Here in Madiganistan, Senator Durbin wants to bring 100,000 Syrian “refugees” to the US. Wonder how many he’s going to take home with him?
The problem is not the 15%, it’s the 85%, the supposedly moderate Muslims. A moderate Muslim wouldn’t go out and chop off the head of the next infidel he sees, but it doesn’t disgust him either if a jihadist does it. Just like the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, moderate Muslims, perhaps think yesterday slaughters are justified.
How is this all that different from expunging the Confederate flag from the public square, renaming the John Calhoun building, wherever it was, and attempting to suppress the right of political and religious opponents from speaking at campus events because what they have to say (albeit often true) is too disturbing for young scholars and truth-seekers to hear?
The point of the article is good. But that’s not the only example of that sort of thing. Academia is full of them.
As I said in another post, the Judaeo-Christians better stop hating themselves and everything they stand for, and, well, just stand.
All Muslim immigration to the West should have ended the day after 9/11. Moreover, no allowances should be made for its continued practice therein.
As usual Mike’s thinking on the subject is so eminently sensible it happens to be my own.
A large percentage donate to radical organizations and an even greater percentage will root for them, seeing the situation as being “us against them.”
Comment Rescinded. Not long after hitting submit I was uncertain of my own point.
Thanks for the post Rob. It is a great article that I probably wouldn’t have found on my own.
So Mike and Nick are ready to shred the constitution and prohibit the practice of specific religions – anyone else want in on that? Kinda Reminds me of 1830s Missouri.
so I have a few friends who are moderate (non-jihad) Muslims. They are productive members of US society, some have been naturalized and they are as horrified as any of us at the destruction wrought by their co-religionists. So what would you have them do? What specific things should they do to stem the tide of extremism? They are peaceful, Americanized people as are their relatives and friends. They just want to live their lives and watch soccer (nobody said they were perfect!).
We call on American Muslims thousands of miles from the jihadis to end the radicalism and blame them when they don’t somehow magically do it. Does that sound reasonable to anyone?
Thanks for the post, Rob. The obviously radical terrorist groups are tough enough to swallow. What about the groups that are given a pass such as the Muslim Brotherhood, with a mission that still speaks of taking over the world? What about the other “mainstream Muslim groups” such as CAIR or ISNA who claim they are moderate but whose connections suggest otherwise?
I would like to see all Muslims who are not Jihadists notify the police whenever someone in their midst gives any hint of radical beliefs. They need to show real allegiance to the Western society they now live in rather than just making statements of regret after these atrocities happen. Your friends have integrated themselves into your community but in many places like France and Belgium they take over entire neighborhoods and refuse to assimilate.
Yet another comment rescinded. This is getting embarrassing!
I would add that they should marginalize Muslims with radical beliefs whether violent or not. It’s quite likely that your friends already do this, but too many non-violent Muslims sympathize with radical beliefs, even if they don’t advocate them, which allows the percentage of radicals to remain quite high.
I’m convinced that this is the only solution to the problem. Immigration controls will only serve to limit the violence that occurs on US soil. It’s better than nothing, but the global problem will persist.
Then Mike should clarify what he meant by:
I read it as “no allowances should be made for its (Islam’s) continued practice therein (in the West)” i.e. banning the practice of Islam in the West.
I stand corrected. Not sure how I overlooked one sentence of a two-sentence comment, but I did. My apologies Chosen. I’m happy to defend a strong position on immigration, but banning the practice is a step too far for me.
Isn’t the problem really the one that Ben Carson articulated, albeit in his sleepy, rather hesitant, roundabout way, when he was asked if a Muslim could be President?
Wasn’t he going after the point that an ideology that is inherently, indisputably, indubitably, anti-Western, which has its own set of politics and laws which are inherently, indisputably, and indubitably anti-Western, and which conflicts in many respects with the Constitution of the United States, as well as with many Western cultural norms, cannot really be integrated into Western culture, because at its core, it refuses to even acknowledge, let alone submit to, Western values?
I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to fault the logic.
I’ve known many wonderful Muslims in my life. Lots of them have been peace-loving, fun-loving, orderly, decent, civilized people. Many of them have been quite tolerant of others’ religion. Many of them, as individuals, could, and have, integrated into Western life just fine, in the same way that they happily live their lives and want to be left alone to do so in their own countries.
But at the same time as I view them as ‘wonderful Muslims,’ I’m very aware that they are viewed with fear, disgust, and hatred by the Islamic hard liners (and even many ‘moderately’ hard liners) who seem to have the upper hand at the moment. And that they, just as much as we, are targets and victims of the murderous zealots who are, in many areas of the Muslim world, effectively in charge.
And, unfortunately, I don’t see that changing any time soon. Certainly not with the current crop of ‘leaders’ (from all sides) that is on the job.
“I like those odds.” – Homer Simpson
Having spent the better part of 9 years traveling in Muslim countries, having rental houses in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, and employing Muslim chokidars (laborers), cooks and security personnel, the issue isn’t all that simple. I have trusted my life many times to a Muslim security guard and companion. On one occasion my nose was literally less than one inch from an AK-47 wielded by a 15 year old Taliban who was screaming in my face.
I accepted my Muslim employees as friends, and they never turned against me.
But I also knew that I was living in a civilization that was antithetical to the Judeo-Christian civilization I was part of. They were committed to our extinction, and the superiority of Islam was a given. But, they also knew that they were being observed by others who were committed to their deaths if they were to leave Islam, especially by converting to Christianity. I would characterize them as “moderate” Muslims.
Here in the West, we accept that the “moderate” Muslim is a part of Western Judeo-Christianity, and that the moderation is an acknowledgement of, and participation in, our civilization.
But every Muslim is his brothers keeper. If he should convert, not to Christianity, but to the West, he will receive the treatment of an infidel. Or, he will be expected to mete out that treatment to his brothers. Islam has a point when he must treat us as the infidels we are, or die with us.
What I don’t get is why. Why are so many, so willing to apologize for the radical muslim when we hear so much hate — generally from the same lot — toward Christians and Jews. I’ve never been able to get my head around this.
If you’re a Brit, your racial memory of this sort of thing goes back to Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech in 1968. As I said on another thread, I’ve no doubt thousands of Brits are going about their business today muttering under their breath, and to each other, that “Enoch Was Right.” (That’s what they usually do in these circumstances).
Unfortunately, Powell, who was a brilliant man, and although he had some controversial ideas, was far from a racist, was immediately tarred and feathered by an early outburst of political correctness, and, with few exceptions the country has been running away from the issue ever since.
Powell said this, when laying out his vision of the impact of the massive immigration wave on his native-born countrymen:
His biggest fear was that Britain would fall victim to the same sort of violent protest that was consuming the US at the time, although he distinguished between “the Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, [and which] started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come,” and the African and Asian immigrants who flocked to Britain bringing with them the immediate benefits of full citizenship.
And thus he famously remarked, at the end of his speech, “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman*, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”
Enoch’s a difficult man to defend, sometimes (like Madonna and Cher, he’s mononymous and needs no other identifier, at least in England).
But I think I have to say it.
Enoch was right.
*A refererence to Virgil’s Aeneid.
One word: anticolonialism.
This ideology dominates the thinking of many on the left. In their view all the problems around the world today can be traced back to the original sin of European (i.e. Christian) conquest, colonization, and exploitation of the rest of the world. Modern Israel is seen as one of the last remaining Western colonies in land that rightfully belongs to the Muslims, so Muslim grievances with the West are justified, starting (naturally) with the Crusades, the British occupation of former Ottoman Empire and creation of most of the modern day boundaries, the Balfour Declaration, U.S. involvement in the region during the Cold War, especially our support of the Shah in Iran, the two wars in Iraq — and of course the continued existence of Israel.
In this regard at least the left is entirely in agreement with Bin Laden: Western intervention in the Middle East is exploitative, somehow we profit from their oil and resources while keeping them impoverished. If we would withdraw and leave them alone, they would magically have functioning economies and soon be just as prosperous as us.
The first step is for the west and the US in particular to acknowledge that Islam is not (merely) a religion, but rather is a political program intended to replace the US Constitution with Sharia law, and to make all non-Muslims second-class citizens or perhaps to kill them.
The next step is a constitutional amendment declaring that anyone espousing such beliefs must be deported if a non-citizen, and guilty of treason if a citizen, with the punishment also deportation.
I know, this is extreme even by my standards. But it’s early yet. Wait until there have been, say, 20 or 30 Paris-style attacks in the US. The Constitution, as Justice Jackson so eloquently stated, is not a suicide pact. Not for the people, and not for our Constitutional order.