Harry's Place

David, you are beautiful.

Is this aimed at me? By the way, I’ve never mentioned paedophilia.

Great post. The last time muslim birth rates came up I posted a research paper demonstrating the Eurabia thesis to be utter bollocks. It was met with stony silence from commentors who had been listing Mark Steyn talking points.

“Is this aimed at me”

No, although I did have a go at you for using the phrase “the Muslims”… which I think you did unconsciously.

But can you see my point?

I will say this – Muslims are sometimes made a scapegoat for people’s unease about multi-racialism and immigration in general. It’s become acceptable to criticise Muslims since the left, or part of it, became Islamo-sceptic. We cant criticise other aspects of the multi-racial society. In my part of the world West Indian/American machismo (acted out both by black and white males) has more of a corrosive impact than its Middle Eastern/South Asian equivalent, but even our more earthy newspapers steer clear of bringing this up.

Well said, David T.

“Is this aimed at me? ”

Traditional English proverb:- If the cap fits. . .

The bigots’ talking about “The Muslims”, the Government’s impulse to seek out “Community Leaders” and the Islamists vision of “The Ummah” are all part of the same undermining of the average Muslim person’s autonomy, and a failure to understand the complexities of identity – where religious belief or affiliation may not even be a person’s dominant identity. In this sense, bigots, misguided government figures and the Islamists all collude in robbing Muslim people of their individuality, personality and, for that matter, citizenship.

Steve, could you repost your riposte?

KB Player: Traditional London proverb: ‘Get knotted’.

In my part of the world West Indian/American machismo (acted out both by black and white males) has more of a corrosive impact than its Middle Eastern/South Asian equivalent, but even our more earthy newspapers steer clear of bringing this up.

Expect Graham to pop up and say that it’s not steering clear when it’s simply not being aware of its existence as such behaviour does not either threaten or express a desire to threaten middle-class journalists.

Hand-bags at dawn, I think.

My goodness, what a spectacular post. There is nothing to disagree with in this post, i dont know the blogger well, i have read many recent posts though. After this i shall become a regular reader. As a muslim i must say you are spot on about the jihadist threat and about anti muslim bigotry. The argument against Violent Jihadists must be put by people like you, because people like Robert Spencer and Melanie Phillips do you cause no good at all imo.

David, are you British? As a British muslim myself i have clung to the hope that British decency could find a path through the mire we are in, your posts reaffirms my belief in this country.

Thank you.

Alec,

Yep, it was this paper:

Westoff, C.F. and Frejka, T. (2007) Population and Development Review, 33, 785-809.

Based on official data on religion, national origin, and other indicators of ethnic origin, Muslim fertility in 13 European countries is higher than that for other women, but in most countries with trend data the differences are diminishing over time. Fertility varies by country of origin of immigrants. Various European survey data show that higher proportions of Muslim women are married and their commitment to traditional family values is greater than among other women. Muslim women are more religious than non-Muslim women and religiousness is directly associated with fertility. Among Muslim women, religiousness and commitment to family values are equally important for fertility, while for non-Muslim women religiousness is much less important.

Very good.
I’ve just shown this to someone who asks me why I read this blog.
Impressed.

“David, are you British? As a British muslim myself i have clung to the hope that British decency could find a path through the mire we are in, your posts reaffirms my belief in this country.”

Dual British/US

(The two best countries in the world…)

Cultural group bollocks. Yet more special pleading for tolerance of irrationality.

Muslims are followers of a vile, murderous, genocidal, evil faith. Its precepts and practises are disgusting. One that, like Christianity, has NOTHING to offer humanity.

There should be NO tolerance for Islam nor Christianity. Their followers have NO place in the UK.

Try telling the Queen that.

I’d been working on something similar, but only got as far as.

“anyone who thinks posting Barack HUSSEIN Obama or Rahm ISRAEL Emanuel, makes their point, can fuck right off.”

Good. Now we can all get back to hating Mormons.

Try telling the Queen that.

Fuck the Queen and the rest of her inbred rabble.

Nicely put, David. You’ve succinctly stated the official HP stance on this issue and reminded us why we are such keen readers of this blog.

Well said David. That’s pretty close to a mission statement for HP I think.

And the point about challenging the racists in the comments box is also well taken.

“There should be NO tolerance for Islam nor Christianity. Their followers have NO place in the UK.”

“Oh my Father, Lord of Silence, Supreme God of Desolation, though mankind reviles yet aches to embrace, strengthen my purpose to save the world from a second ordeal of Jesus Christ and his grubby mundane creed. Show man instead the raptures of Thy kingdom. Infuse in him the grandeur of melancholy, the divinity of loneliness, the purity of evil, the paradise of pain…”
Damian Thorn aka Morgoth

Satan is a Judeo-Christian concept, Mike, don’t ya know.

A welcome post, if overdue.

There are threads and threads on this blog of the most hateful, violently anti-Muslim vitriol (eg , usually unchallenged. In fact I’d guess HP is periodically the number one website for Muslim-baiting nuts in Britain.

I accept the point that editorial line and comments don’t necessarily tally, but frankly it’s unseemly to turn a blind eye to the depth of filth which accumulates in your comments boxes, at the same time as unleashing your fury on irrelevant loony saxophonists, or an infinitesimal far left grouplets.

The point made in this post is one which needs to be made and made and then made again, because a large proportion of your audience vehemently disagrees.

So, if this post marks a genuine turning point in the HP attitude to its many resident wingnuts, then that’s good news indeed.

If you read a lot of hate speech, directed at your cultural group, you begin to internalise it. It does very strange things to you.

Indeed. For example, look at the transformation of the Conservative Party over the last twenty years, from Iron Lady to Hoodie Hugger.

What David T is calling for is appeasement of the highest order. Appeasement of irrationality, subservience to a contagious virus of medievalism. He is calling for betrayal of the Enlightenment.

“KB Player: Traditional London proverb: ‘Get knotted’.

Typical metro-centric British imperialist garbage. We used that expression (it’s not a proverb, for goodness sake) in New Zealand.

“Satan is a Judeo-Christian concept, Mike, don’t ya know”

I do admire the consistency of your vision. Even the Prince of Hell is MSM.

Yes, I am indeed an “anti-muslim bigot”. and I’m damn proud I am. I’m also an anti-christian bigot, an anti-astrology bigot, an anti-supersititon bigot as well. Anything that turns a god (as a human has the potential to be) into a mentally retarded wreck should be opposed, whither that be Islam, Christianity, Nazism or Socialism.

Typical metro-centric British imperialist garbage. We used that expression (it’s not a proverb, for goodness sake) in New Zealand.

Of Maori origin, is it?

You know, Morgoth is some kind of revenge for the sins of Ian Paisley, it seems to me.

You know, Morgoth is some kind of revenge for the sins of Ian Paisley, it seems to me.

Don’t get me started on that cunt….

A welcome post, if overdue.

Ooo, bad grace, here. And wrong. David, did I mention you’re beautiful?

There are threads and threads on this blog of the most hateful, violently anti-Muslim vitriol (eg , usually unchallenged.

Hilarious buffoon.

In fact I’d guess HP is periodically the number one website for Muslim-baiting nuts in Britain.

Care you define periodically? And numbers reading?

HP can no more be held accountable for individual posters than it can be for allowing you to post. You select one thread doubtlessly to show John P who is, as sure as eggs is eggs, challenged every time he posts; and cheerfully sail by the likes of Habibi. The essay itself can only be taken to be anti-Muslim bigotry if you take the Osama bin Laden line that the only good Muslim is one with a murderous hatred of or desire to withdraw complete from the secular world.

As has been said before, this is simply the optical isomer of SueR or, in extreme, Morgoth’s burblings.

By the way, anything in particular bring this post on?

There could be threats from a third party, Mesquito, but my guess is that after the shit-storm of Obama Troofers and now Rahm obsessives, David has decided to draw together what is said in response to every piece of anti-Muslim twaddle into one easily linkable article.

a large proportion of your audience vehemently disagrees

That’s why this blog is popular, because it’s light-years away from the usual likeminded circle-jerk.

One of the facts of life, which have rightly be characterised as conservative, is that most people enjoy a good argument.

How do you handle opinion poll data that suggests systematic differences in attitudes between population groups (if you think these attitudes need to be addressed)?

So, for example, a Gallup Poll in May 2008 found that only 4% of London Muslims agreed that homosexual acts were “morally acceptable” compared to 66% of the British population as a whole.

(Obviously we can argue about whether the polling data is correct, but even if not this is an interesting hypothetical, I think).

I tend to think that it is important that one talks about this kind of thing. But… well there are difficulties, obviously.

Quite right David.

I can only echo what’s been said above. Great post.

Although this sentence –

The Islamophobes defend the flank, by slandering as an “Islamophobe”, any attempt to criticise Islamist groups, or politicians.

Should surely read

The fellow-travellers defend the flank, by slandering as an “Islamophobe”, any attempt to criticise Islamist groups, or politicians.

I think.

Anything that turns a god (as a human has the potential to be)

Oh, fuck, you’re not a Scientologist are you Morgy?

Expect Graham to pop up and say that it’s not steering clear when it’s simply not being aware of its existence as such behaviour does not either threaten or express a desire to threaten middle-class journalists.

Well I don’t want to divert this thread because anybody who comments here should realise the importance of the sentiments. Over the past few years we have seen a hard core of bigots appear in the comments boxes (to the extent that they often form a “bloc” which abuses anybody who dares disagree with them.)

However, I would suggest that whilst the national press may “steer clear” of what the commenter calls “West Indian/American machismo (acted out both by black and white males)” you would be hard pressed to find an edition of the South London Press which did not print an explicit picture (usually a mugshot) on the front page of the perpetrator of the kind of violent crimes I presume the commenter to be talking about.

there is also another problem regarding this issue, that is people who think of themselves as progressives but have an initialized view of what muslims are, and then find themselves supporting hard-line islamists because they ‘buy’ the idea that they are the legitimate representatives of the muslims, denying a voice to moderate voices who support a secular perspective (this is not a problem that affects muslims exclusively, of course…)

such people would be very surprised if they listened to muslims who criticise the role of religion in society, but usually they prefer to avoid such perspective because it would force them to question their self-image as non-ethnocentric ‘good guys’. conversely, such people think that any criticism of a culture to which they don’t belong is illegitimate. those are the real appeasers.

and then, of course, when people are in bad faith, they can accuse us of whatever, so the risk of being intolerant when we criticize the role of religion in a way that undermines democracy is one worth taking.

Oh, fuck, you’re not a Scientologist are you Morgy?

Oh Fuck No!

I do accept that there are likely to be different attitude on social issues manifested by cultural groups. For example, about 75% of African Americans voted for the homophobic Prop 8, as opposed to about 50% of other cultural groups.

I think that you need to look as things like that as distinct phenomena, which need to be addressed separately, and not treated as immutable facts of life. I expect that you’d have had a similarly anti-gay result from the UK population as a whole, 40 years ago.

What matters far more than the existence of a persistent level of bigotry, is whether people are organising politically, to push a ‘moral’ agenda which is hostile to liberty, and a pluralist culture.

excellent post.

Thanks Mark T – fixed

“Oh, fuck, you’re not a Scientologist are you Morgy?”

From stuff he’s said in the past, I think Morgy is a LaVeyian Satanist where he believes Satan to be part of the human instinct rather than a external entity of evil. It’s sort of entry-level Nietzsche with a bit of Hammer trapping (movies not MC).

Mind you, I suspect I might be about to be corrected.

Well, LaVey called it “Satan”. Crowley called it the HGA. They both might as well called it “Bob”. but yeah, that’s pretty much sums me up (though I’m not a Laveyian Satanist of course).

Plus I’m much more of a Vingean Deep Green anyway when it comes to terrestrial matters.

A wonderful post. A shame that these things even need stating but a wonderful post.

“What David T is calling for is appeasement of the highest order. Appeasement of irrationality, subservience to a contagious virus of medievalism. He is calling for betrayal of the Enlightenment.

The fight against Islamism and the fight for wider secularism are two distinct battles.

I think Morgy is a LaVeyian Satanist where he believes Satan to be part of the human instinct rather than a external entity of evil. It’s sort of entry-level Nietzsche with a bit of Hammer trapping (movies not MC).

Personally, if I felt as unconstrained by social mores and conventions as Crowley’s injunction would seem to encourage, I’d probably not be spending my time sitting in front of a computer posting to HP, but robbing banks, kidnapping supermodels and assassinating world leaders, and other such fun stuff.

I guess that’s they mean when they talk about the banality of evil.

That’s a fundamental misreading of Thelema, MB.

David

I think you’re too sanguine about persistent levels of bigotry (well maybe you’re not, but that’s the danger of your argument). It’s certainly arguable that the ability of any political mobilisation to push a moral agenda will in part be determined by whether it successfully articulates beliefs and values which people already hold.

The latest Pew Global Attitudes survey found that 97% of Lebanese hold an unfavorable view of Jews, including 99% among both Sunni and Shia Muslims (as well as 95% of the country’s Christians). In Jordan (96% unfavorable) and Egypt (95%) opinions also are nearly unanimously negative.

I think this matters. I think it is partly – though not entirely, obviously – to do with religion (and yes, I’m aware that the 95% figure for Christians is a complication). And I think we should be talking about it.

But again, I’m aware that in doing so I’m in danger of being seen as a bigot.

I suppose in general I’m slightly wary of the simple assumption that heterogeneity is always the name of the game. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case (unless you’re setting the bar for homogeneity very high).

The fight against Islamism and the fight for wider secularism are two distinct battles.

In fact, they are opposing sides in the same battle. “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.” It’s the relatively de-Christianised societies in Europe where fears of “creeping Islamification” are strongest.

I am talking predominantly about open, pluralist, democratic and essentially secular countries. You can’t do much to tackle bigotry in countries in which bigotry is a matter of state policy

I’d add, though, that Pew found that 46% of Spanish people have negative views of Jews; and 52% have negative views of Muslims.

“When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”

That’s a load of crap though (as I hope you’re pointing out).

It’s the relatively de-Christianised societies in Europe where fears of “creeping Islamification” are strongest.

I think you could make a similar view about the appeal of Islamism to some Muslims in the West: which seems in part to be a desperate attempt to hold onto an ‘authentic’ identity. Remember that Qutb’s politics only crystalised when he encountered the horrors of mixed dancing in Ohio.

That’s a load of crap though (as I hope you’re pointing out).

Not at all, I was about to go on and say that your mumbo-jumbo was a perfect example of what I meant :)

Hey, Morgoth, after you with the Queen.

Jeremy Stangroom, the 95% figure for Christians is not just a “complication” – it’s the refutation of what you’re suggesting. The examples of countries bordering Israel make them inherently unrepresentative of opinions in the wider Muslim world.

Furthermore, the cheap gains for a political leader in a Muslim country to be made from virulent anti-Israel rhetoric (often merging into the anti-Semitic either in the leaders’ words or the minds of those listening to him) are so great that your explanation seems by far the less likely.

The point MB, is that without a sufficient sense of self-worth, mentally week people can fall victim to the theist meme. Its an inherent danger in liberalism for example, with its focus on an artificially created groupthink which is a form of collectivism that opens the door to stronger versions, i.e. theism.

Hey, Morgoth, after you with the Queen.

No thank you. She’s so old, I hear her pussy’s haunted*

*(c) Frankie Boyle 2008.

I conur 100% with David T. Over the last few years since I have been reading David T’s comments on Muslim groups, I invariably agree with him. Sadly, I cannot always say the same for people in the comments boxes.

Ilike attacking the views of Communists who post here with the best of them, but I often feel uncomfortable with the views expressed by some in the comments boxes, views that I believe are bigoted.

Without naming names, I wonder what is the point of repeating at every available opportunity, and sometimes when it seems simply for fun that the Muslim prophet was “a pedophile.” This accusation is based on the fact that the Prophet had a nine year old wife. Those people that male that accusation I do not see attacking Cane and Abel as incestuous because presumably they had sex with their sister.

There are some people in the comments boxes that I have noted seem to want to destroy Islam, rip up the Koran and have them all start again under a religion that suits the morals of the posters. It may well be true that the Koran can be used as a basis for starting violence but that does not mean that out of a global Muslim population of way over 1 billion that all Muslims have violent tendencies or will follow that path.

The word “Jihad” has many meanings, one of them is a violent meaning. There are groups, including those mentioned by David T that use the word “Jihad” purely in the violent sense. That does not mean to say all Muslims, even those that consider themselves devout, are terrorists in waiting. Those people who believe that to be the case are little better than the radical feminsists who argue all men are potential rapists.
There are those that desire a “clash of cilivilisations.” David T is not one of them. His posts are well thought out and attack those that deserve to be attacked, not over a billion people who would have no more desire to fight a holy war than they would have of walking blinfolded across a busy motorway.

Its an inherent danger in liberalism for example, with its focus on an artificially created groupthink which is a form of collectivism that opens the door to stronger versions, i.e. theism.

While I fully share most of your objections to collectivism, Morgoth, the radical unconstrained egotism you promote in its stead reminds me of Michael Caine’s complaint that you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off.

But it *is* constrained, or rather, by definition, no two person’s True Wills can clash in any fashion.

“Remember that Qutb’s politics only crystalised when he encountered the horrors of mixed dancing in Ohio.”

People say this, but I would argue that his being tortured while in custody in Egypt in the 1950s was more pivotal. Which for those who argue that Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, or the unseen horrors that await the subjects of rendition are no more than they deserve should provide food for thought.

Those people that male that accusation I do not see attacking Cane and Abel as incestuous because presumably they had sex with their sister.

You’ve obviously not been reading much of what I post then, Mikey.

An excellent post, David.

But again, I’m aware that in doing so I’m in danger of being seen as a bigot.

Not really, Jeremy, just ahistorical and taking situations out of their context in space and time. Had house-or-garden variety, CoE Brits been polled about their attitudes to homosexuality fifty years ago (say), many more than 60% would have been vehemently opposed. And fifty years are but an instant in historical development. So why should your poll prove anything at all about Muslims? Or, alternatively, do it in space, not in time. It is likely that the proportion of anti-gay CoE members ind Muslims in Nigeria is very similar. Does it prove anything?

Majority of US voters in Israel, overwhelmingly Jewish, voted for McCain. Does it prove anything generic about Jews? 78% of American Jewish voters voted for Obama. Does it prove anything generic about Jews? Or does it prove that the environment and the location in the space-time continuum, rather than generic features of this or that ethnic or religious group, account for an outlook?

The point MB, is that without a sufficient sense of self-worth, mentally week people can fall victim to the theist meme. Its an inherent danger in liberalism for example, with its focus on an artificially created groupthink which is a form of collectivism that opens the door to stronger versions, i.e. theism.

Utter bollocks, as usual. The greater danger of people falling prey to theistic nonsense is found in conservatism, with its foundation in hierachical structures and unthinking tradition.

I’m not a conservative, Gregg.

Mike S, sorry to be facetious, but would it be less worthy of note, then, to torture individuals who’d merely retreat in an autism or, at worst, mistreat their immediate families?

Regarding Qutb, it was a church dance in Greeley, CO.

Good grief this is like the invasion of the body snatchers, although the creature that seems to have taken over David’s body is much nicer. For I distinctly remember the old Mr T running off to the Daily Mail because his local swimming pool had a Muslim-only swimming session. A story that surely can only be interrupted as prompting bad feeling towards Muslims, after all for the life of me I fail to see how this had anything to do with defeating “Islamism” let alone terrorism!

Indeed over the years that I have been following HP practically ever other posting has been on how some random Muslim has done something that the HP editorial board somehow disapproves, constantly failing to mention that there are bigots and fools in all sectors of society. And given that editorial focus has not been afforded to any other community, with perhaps the exception of “The Left,” we can only reasonable conclude that HP had it particularly in for Muslims, or in other words were Islamophobic.

Well let’s hope that HP has turned over a new leaf – I for one won’t be holding my breath.

DavidT writes extremely well. I agree with all points made by him in this article.

However, it would be unfortunate if there is any attempt to censor/discourage a handful of commenters who may hold various types of ‘bigoted’ views of Muslims. I read HP regularly and imo, the commenters here are much more knowledgeable than those in the CiF and other left-political blogs that I frequent. I myself come from a secular Muslim background, but I have no problem absorbing a certain amount of prejudice from posters who I’ll probably never meet in my lifetime. At the end of the day, free and frank discussion of these Muslim/Islam issues may help some folks changing/moderating their prejudicial views in the long run.

S.O.Muffin

“Jeremy, just ahistorical and taking situations out of their context in space and time.”

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

David T, I appreciate you want to attack anti-Muslim bigotry on your site which is laudable, but if you campaign against Islamist youre going to attract islamophobes and islamosceptics. live with it. theres also a difference between an Islamophobe and anti-Muslim bigot.
also your comparisons of a Muslim feeling what it must be like to be Jewish or gay are weak for so many reasons. And lastly youre not going to “defeat” Islamism. It is here to stay, and wherever there are Muslims there will be a number of Islamists.
Its an ideology that will probably burn itself out, but a long way down the line. Saying you can stop young men joining terrorist groups is like saying youre going to stop young men getting into drugs or suicide. hopelessly naive.

Clearing the air on Harry’s Place is a dirty job but someone’s got to do it. Great post David. And luniam is right.

20 years ago I came across a newly built mosque in a local working class district of my town.It was financed by the Saudis. It replaced an old secondary modern school which had served many generations, and, unusually, had produced many prominent rugby union players. It reminded me of a Martian spaceship. It jarred.
It still jars.

The greater danger of people falling prey to theistic nonsense is found in conservatism, with its foundation in hierachical structures and unthinking tradition.

Would “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” be theistic nonsense, or unthinking tradition?

Children who are taught to question authority (”hierarchic structures”) before they are taught to submit to it grow up to be the little savages plaguing the schools and streets of Britain, methinks.

There are no such things as Islamophobia or anti Muslim bigots.
Neither were there Naziophobes, fascistophobes or anti totalitariann bigots. There are, however, such people as Useful Idiots and the Labour Party & the Lib Dems have got loads of ‘em.

Don’t be one Harry !
Martin.

I myself come from a secular Muslim background, but I have no problem absorbing a certain amount of prejudice from posters

A fine reposte to David T’s expectation that you must surely be lying prone on a shrink’s couch incapable of dealing with all that internalised hate-speech.

David T, I would like to ask.
Why did you choose the term anti-Muslim bigotry rather than Islamophobia? I read this as an attempt to avoid the inevitable debate (there is no such thing as Islamophobia or, the more valid it’s a term that’s over-used by people trying to shut down debate).
I loved your way of identifying an anti-Muslim bigot – would you say that this differs from how to identify an Islamophobe?

For I distinctly remember the old Mr T running off to the Daily Mail because his local swimming pool had a Muslim-only swimming session.

No, you don’t, Richard.

David T ,What if your view is wrong? What then? If we end up with a third world war and 600 million dead, will you still say the
“People are just bigots” it was their fault, “they just did not listen to the people who knew, like me” There has been a seismic shift in the “Peoples” view of islam and that has been caused by islamic fanatics not ordinary muslims but that simply does not matter. The failure of logical statements made by rational and compassionate people like yourself, as expressed in the above post, to change the peoples perception of islam, all islam, is simply because the “people” in ever growing numbers do not like what they see. They are simply scared for the future of themselves and more importantly their children and that is how fanatics gain credence, through fear. We must all be careful that the term “bigot” and those that use it frequently do not simply become the boy who cried wolf. I applaud your post but you are speaking to the converted here (mostly), unfortunately the people on the street are moving towards the right because of this perceived threat and its not just the usual morons either the “ordinary” people are moving too. Great post, but i wish it would have been a imam who posted it, but as you say us “bigots” would not believe him anyway would we?

Should have made clear – my question was motivated not by the desire to encourage a discussion of Islamophobia but to clarify your position. I am mainly reacting to Ed’s comment.

Why did you choose the term anti-Muslim bigotry rather than Islamophobia?

Good question, especially as he seems to subscribe to the belief that “hate speech” is primarily a psychological injury for Muslims, perhaps best countered by a nice doctor from the NHS, rather than one that is political, best countered by political debate and action.

It replaced an old secondary modern school which had served many generations, and, unusually, had produced many prominent rugby union players.

Reading this on face value, secondary modern schools would have been no more than 40 years old at this point. Furthermore, you do not specify whether or not the school was closed down specifically for the mosque to be built (highly doubtful).

More information!

Would “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” be theistic nonsense, or unthinking tradition?

In that platitudinous form, both. But reciprocity and forgiveness are moral values that pre-date and will out-live all of the world’s major religions.

Children who are taught to question authority (”hierarchic structures”) before they are taught to submit to it grow up to be the little savages plaguing the schools and streets of Britain, methinks.

No, no – we grow up to be obnoxious leftist blog commenters.

Wonderful article, David!

The only correct response to David T’s missive is that of Theoden rejecting the vile overtures of Saruman.

Théoden: “We shall have peace… when you answer for the burning of the westfold, and the children that lie dead there. We shall have peace, when the lives of the soldiers, whose bodies were hewn even as they lay dead against the gates of the Hornburg, are avenged! When you hang from a gibbet for the sport of your own crows… we shall have peace.”

Yes, very well manifestoed. The problem I have is with the notion that Islamists are somehow separate from “Muslims”. Islam is not a religion. It is, as any Muslim will tell you, a way of life. That means Islam is also the source of politics and much else. Ordinary people may shy away from the brutal logic of radical Islam, which seeks to achieve the subjugation of everybody to the peace of the ummah by blood and terror, but they can’t really say there is something wrong with the actual aim, because it is their duty to pursue jihad. The common response of ordinary Muslims to radical Islam’s bloody attacks on civilians is to condemn them but also to say, “They aren’t Muslims. Islam is a religion of peace.” Not my peace, not yours possibly. The peace is the peace of Allah, AFAIK achieved through jihad.

I don’t know any Muslims who would put the constitution and the state above the tenets of Islam. But that doesn’t mean they would not defend those institutions, assuming such a conflict does not arise.

I’m saying you can’t just create a kind of Islamistan outside which all other Muslims went about their business within the secular state. Support for attacks against Israelis, or, for that, matter, Brits and Americans, is quite prominent in some quarters.

I also see believe Muslim conservatism is becoming much stronger. Here in Cape Town the headscarf, the veil and more all-encompassing sartorial purdah are making a big comeback. Even though the significant Muslim population is pretty well integrated into the society as a whole, a hard core of traditionalists is definitely growing.

Thanks, David.

Needless to say, Morgoth’s response is to resort to quotes from fantasy novels.

P.

But reciprocity and forgiveness are moral values that pre-date and will out-live all of the world’s major religions.

I don’t see much evidence of loving thy neighbor or turning the other cheek in post-religious Britain, quite the opposite in fact. Instead, rather a lot of people being assaulted on a Saturday night for looking at someone the wrong way or being asked to stop smoking, or howling about how offended they are by some semi-imagined racial slight or a couple of twits on the radio.

The Irish people may not have agreed with the Terrorism of the IRA but they all agreed with their aims, just ask them.

Alec Mcpherson – Comprehensive schools gradually replaced the Sec Mods. If you really want to know more go and see for yourself. Set your satnav for Fitton Street Nuneaton.

What faggotry, David is try to stir up drama in his comment section.

How long till he makes the rule that all Islamists insist on, banning all criticism of Mohammed pbh.

Paul, at least it wasn’t from WoT. Monkey Boy, are you the original or just a namesake? Like Jack Straw.

David T, nice post, but the problem is that certain individuals prance across boards coming out with the same material, shrill egotists on a mission to do nothing but fill the halls with their voice and vision. How does it advance the debate to have people make contributions persistently and unremittingly demonising individuals and groups of peoplem, and then making comments about people like ‘XYZ has his cock in So-and-so’s mouth’? You’re dealing with trolls there, and if you don’t notice, the entire thread becomes all about that troll, not about the issues that are being discussed in the posts you make. What do the trolls bring to the site?

what a marvelous post,

so well written, covers all of the points, and adding to David T’s remarks, one of the many ways to spot a bigot is to look for essentalism and obsession – those are two most obvious character traits that they tend to demonstrate

by that I mean the anti-Muslim bigot always looks for a way to bring the topic around to his (and it is mostly blokes, with a few exceptions) favourite gripe: Muslims

so there’ll be a topic completed unrelated to Muslim, Islam, etc, on, say, the Mars Lander and yet the anti-Muslim bigot will want somehow to pull it around to attacking Muslims, directly or indirectly

it is a persistent theme with the more extreme bigots, that obsessive, constant hatred and it is a useful way of spotting them.

The person who is most vociferous in describing Mohammed as a paedophile is Morgoth, who is not a Communist, in fact he has said many times that he is a Tory. Alec M: what’s isomer mean? I take it it’s derogatory in one way or another. I am sure most Muslims in the world just want a quiet life like we all do, in which case they have to exercise political power to make sure they get it.

Great post David. Pity that it needed saying on this blog.

Islam bans all criticism, and the argument against freedom of speech is usually (in the west) couched as “Imagine how criticizing our prophet who is closer to us than our children, makes up feel! To criticize him is racism”

It’s disgusting to see that David has given up on “Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear”

The “imagine how they feel” argument needs to be shot at twenty paces!

Comprehensive schools gradually replaced the Sec Mods.

I couldn’t fail not to see your point less. I was not commenting on that. What I was asking you was in what way a secondary modern which, based on the information you gave, was built following the Education Act, and therefore no older than 40 years (and probably a lot less).

If I go to a grid reference and find a certain building, what does that prove? That it’s there at this moment in time, nothing more. Please provide evidence to support your implication that an active place of education was torn down to build a mosque.

Monkey Boy. If the claims of a “war on Islam” did not correlate so readily with the experiences of many Muslims then groups such as HT would not be able to get as much mileage out of it as they currently do. And therefore, despite those Muslims who “have no problem absorbing a certain amount of prejudice from posters“, people who express themselves in a bigoted manner are strengthening the groups they are attempting to counter.

“The Irish people may not have agreed with the Terrorism of the IRA but they all agreed with their aims, just ask them.”

Right. And now that the IRA has abandoned arms, Sinn Fein’s vote in the last election has soared in the Republic of Ireland to, em, 7%.

And that’s why, when presented with an amendment to remove the claim to the North of Ireland from our Constitution, we voted for it 95%. Let me repeat, NINETY FIVE FUCKING PERCENT. You don’t normally get that kind of vote outside of referendums for dictators.

P.

I don’t see much evidence of loving thy neighbor or turning the other cheek in post-religious Britain

Then I urge you to look closer. On the first point, you could start with David T’s post.

Paul, that’s an excellent point to bring up next time John Wight lays into anyone on Ireland for “giving up the Struggle”.

Oh fucking hell. Mcpherson reminds me of my old geography teacher.For the sake of all pedants everywhere, I did not imply that the wicked moslems, with satanic glee, tore down Fitton Street school. I said that it had been replaced by a mosque, WHICH IT WAS.
Now fuck off.

If the claims of a “war on Islam” did not correlate so readily with the experiences of many Muslims then groups such as HT would not be able to get as much mileage out of it as they currently do.

You should take this point up with David T, who reckons that the extremists get hardly any “mileage” amongst ordinary Muslims at all. Perhaps they are following the teaching of Isa to “turn the other cheek”, in fact.

Thinking about Dave F’s comment above

I don’t know any Muslims who would put the constitution and the state above the tenets of Islam.

The obvious glib comment would be to ask if he’s ever been to Turkey. But more generally I think that the variety of ways in which modern Islamic nations balance religion and state can inform the debate here. Perhaps in future HP will feature posts on islamic political pluralism and on the arts in islam.

War on islam? pray tell when did that begin, i must have missed it, i remember osama declaring war on the west in the 90s but i am sure he was just being silly, or was he upset about palestine,the saudi royal family,the americans,the british,the mars program,evolution,reality, etc etc etc or was it something else? Maybe he did not like sharia banking with its no interest, but i find that hard to believe, do you? i mean no interest on loans, now who could argue with that?

Okay, maybe I’m on an uphill struggle with the fore/surname thing, but bloody well spell my name correctly!

Nodrog, many school grounds were sold off, or the schools themselves, during the 80s and 90s. Heck, two of mine burned to the ground. Maybe you find the thought of all of this jarring. What is your point?

I think that the variety of ways in which modern Islamic nations balance religion and state can inform the debate here.

I think rather it’s the “modern Islamic nations” which have something to learn from Britain and the other tolerant countries of the West, not the other way around. The only Muslim country where you need not fear for your life if you change your religion is (probably) Bosnia.

Not that I am suggesting that rule by Paddy Ashdown is part of any Islamic Reformation, you understand.

Monkey Boy. I said it correlated with the experiences of many Muslims. I did not address my question to David T because I also agree with him that the influence of HT and other groups should not be over-emphasised.

So I ask you (and also, actually more so, Josh Scholar): what do you hope to achieve through offence? Yes you have a right to offend many Muslims by insulting Muhammad if that’s what you really want to do, but you are not helping to counter HT types, you are strengthening their hands.

Monkey Boy, don’t you think its time to move on from this sort of attitude? All of the Islamic nations have emerged from colonialism of one sort or another during the 20th century. The variety of political structures that have emerged is informative not only in terms of the pluralism in islamic cultures but also for our understanding of the different islamic communities in Europe.

Then I urge you to look closer.

I’ve looked pretty close and it’s clear to me that eg. church attendance in Britain has fallen to miniscule levels over the same period that crime and anti-social behaviour has reached sky-high levels not seen for a century or more.

David T’s posting, no withstanding.

Coincidence?

Monkey Boy:

crime and anti-social behaviour has reached sky-high levels not seen for a century or more.

Actually crime rates haven’t reached the dizzy heights of the victorian era with its religion, morality, workhouses etc.

95% voted to give up northern ireland, now i did miss that one, thank you pm. Tell me though, do you think the IRA were wrong or were they simply freedom fighters struggling against injustice.

All of the Islamic nations have emerged from colonialism of one sort or another during the 20th century.

I wondered when someone from the Left would get round to blaming the West for the problems afflicting the Muslim world (and by doing so reduce Muslims to the status of children incapable of taking responsibility, or transforming, their own political fortunes).

The variety of political structures that have emerged is informative not only in terms of the pluralism in islamic cultures but also for our understanding of the different islamic communities in Europe.

Shorn of the strikingly uninformative gobbledegook you seem to be implying that Muslim countries cannot be judged by the same criteria as Western countries, specifically by whether they respect the dignity and liberty of individuals and minorities. Hmm.

“Actually crime rates haven’t reached the dizzy heights of the victorian era with its religion, morality, workhouses etc.”

In such a debate it may be worth remembering that in victorian times, there were many more things designated as crimes than there are today.

So when removing from consideration Victorian “crimes” that are no longer considered so, which era had the most crime?

Actually crime rates haven’t reached the dizzy heights of the victorian era with its religion, morality, workhouses etc.

I can state with some certainty that instances of criminal behaviour are far more numerous today than in 1907, junior, not to mention 1957.

Anaximanders sandal,

if you’re going to talk about Ireland at least try to read up a bit? cos you sound like an ignorant gobshite to me

or in doubt click on Paul M’s link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

try hitting the keyboard with your forehead, that might help :)

Anaximander. You misunderstand. I am not claiming the existence of a “war on Islam” I claim that HT get mileage out of the idea of one by bringing together a whole load of separate incidents of anti-Muslim bigotry and suggesting that there is something much more sinister in play. (Take a look at HT’ ‘Stand for Islam’ campaign and events if you doubt what I’m saying)

Most Muslims will have no time for this rhetoric. Some (a very few) will. That number would be even smaller if the HT talk of a “war on Islam” did not correlate with the experiences many Muslims have thanks to the media, bigots in the street, comments on blog such as this ad infinitum.

I’ve found out what isomer means. It’s a chemical term that is used to describe an element that is made up of molecules which have different properties than comparable elements. I’m all for an informed discussion on the social structures and political systems of Islamic countries, but no-one ever talks about them. could jr start the conversation?

In such a debate it may be worth remembering that in victorian times, there were many more things designated as crimes than there are today.

Actually, you are wrong. The New Labour government has passed more new laws in the last eleven years than parliament had previously managed to do in centuries.

Well said, David T.

Alec Mac a’ Phearsoin; My point has been quite clearly made. I have nothing further to add.

95% voted to give up northern ireland, now i did miss that one, thank you pm.

Well, do you perhaps think that before you spout off your knowledge of the mental process of “the Irish people” in their entirety, you at least know some of the major facts of its history? Sorry for appearing snippy, but well, I am.

Tell me though, do you think the IRA were wrong or were they simply freedom fighters struggling against injustice.

Yes, I think they were wrong. I can understand a young kid who, the day after Bloody Sunday, reactively joined the IRA. However, any kind of reflection should have shown that not only were the tactics they used morally wrong, they had no legitimacy (Jesuitical references to the Second Dáil not withstanding) and were ultimately doomed to failure.

P.

P.

David, thanks for this. It’s thoughtful and well-reasoned.

We are lucky to have really good neighbours. They are two young, deeply devout Muslim families. They are decent and pleasant people – light years away from the likes of Motor-mouth Choudury, who would probably condemn them for apostasy for daring to associate with a Jewish family like ours.

I had major knee surgery 18 months ago and, a week out of hospital, the whole extended family came for a short visit to bring their good wishes.

Whenever I am tempted to tar all Muslims with the same Islamist brush I think of them and their kindness and mannerly behaviour.

But I do worry about the influence of HuT and organisations of its ilk. One has only to look at CiF to find support for Islamist ideas about other faiths and belief systems, and this goes unchallenged and/or posts which challenge it get deleted.

And I don’t believe that our government can protect Muslims like our neighbours from the fallout if the likes of HuT should get more power, or the MCB grows in influence.

Sorry modernity i will try harder and thankyou Gsirrah i agree. By the way i happen to be of irish descent but its been a long long time since i have been there and i dont read wikipedia, sorry perhaps you are right maybe i am just a ignorant “gobshite” a very irish term if i remember correctly.

Regarding the bigots in the comments boxes on this blog, they do cause me a lot of anguish. In 2005 and 2006 I posted quite frequently but in the last year or two, whilst I still read all the main posts, I am not one of the very active people in the comments boxes. This is a shame, but the main reason is due to the bigots – I simply do not wish to associate with them.

In his main post on this thread David T comments

There are two types of people who disagree with me: Islamists and their fellow travellers, and anti-Muslim bigots. They both do so from a perspective that is pretty much identical. Islamist politicians argue that their religion requires that an Islamic state be created, and that any Muslim who disagrees is no true Muslim. And that is precisely what the anti-Muslim bigots say, as well.

This has not been picked up much in this thread but I believe it is one of the most important points in David’s article. I guess many people recall Fitna the film by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. It uses the same images as those that appeal to terrorists to make its point. Both anti Muslim bigots and Islamic terrorists depict Islam in pretty much the same way.

oops – an end quote did not work. The quote should have ended after the first paragraph.

“Actually, you are wrong. The New Labour government has passed more new laws in the last eleven years than parliament had previously managed to do in centuries.”

I’m not sure how correct this is. Just consider in a period of 10 years 9,000 debtors were sent to prison. There definition of crime was quite different from ours

I’ve looked pretty close and it’s clear to me that eg. church attendance in Britain has fallen to miniscule levels over the same period that crime and anti-social behaviour has reached sky-high levels not seen for a century or more.
David T’s posting, no withstanding.
Coincidence?

We might also note that that same period has also seen commensurate falls in infant mortality, trade union membership, philaterly, cinema attendance, etc. Could all of this be coincidence?

So I ask you (and also, actually more so, Josh Scholar): what do you hope to achieve through offence? Yes you have a right to offend many Muslims by insulting Muhammad if that’s what you really want to do, but you are not helping to counter HT types, you are strengthening their hands.

“insulting Muhammad”
“insulting Muhammad”
“insulting Muhammad”

A man who is held up as the perfect example for all mankind, yet had the values of a despot, was opposed to all freedoms, who committed genocide, war, encouraged hatred against people of all other religions (tell me God turned them into pigs and monkeys isn’t hate speech), who sanctioned mass rape of the victims of his violence (remember Medina) who sanctioned slavery and sex slavery, who set in stone the oppression of women and girls as eternally God’s will…

If we criticise any of this, let alone all of it we are guilty of “insulting”????!!!
No we are attempting defend bring ethics, thought, and freedom and to perhaps bring it to people who have been taught to reject sane values.

My point has been quite clearly made.

No it has not been. It has been obliquely made, with subterfuge.

I have nothing further to add.

I am quite sure you don’t want to. I am quite sure you would like to leave a comment hanging in the air. Frayed knot.

You can not be a good and ethical man without “insulting Mohammad”

David’s article gives pause for thought, Gsirrah, but have you read Denis McShane’s “Globalising Hatred: The New Antisemitism Revisited?” You should.

Of course people should not blame anyone but their membership for the likes of HuT, but McsShane makes a plausible argument that neo-antisemitism, as he calls it, is a central plank of Islamist ideas.

Perhaps if fair-minded Muslims like yourself acted more strongly and proactively against Islamist extremism then it would not be such a problem.

sorry I typed too quickly
That should have read:

“insulting Muhammad”

A man who is held up as the perfect example for all mankind, yet had the values of a despot, was opposed to all freedoms, who committed genocide, war, encouraged hatred against people of all other religions (tell me “God turned them into pigs and monkeys” isn’t hate speech), who sanctioned mass rape of the victims of his violence (remember Medina) who sanctioned slavery and sex slavery, who set in stone the oppression of women and girls as eternally God’s will…

If we criticise any of this, let alone all of it we are guilty of “insulting”????!!!

No, we are attempting to defend ethics, thought, and freedom and to perhaps bring it to people who have been taught to reject sane values.

“Remember that Qutb’s politics only crystalised when he encountered the horrors of mixed dancing in Ohio.”

Perhaps.

It used to be said that when 19th Century Eurpean Intellectuals talked of the decline of the West they really were really reacting to the high price of servants forcing them to do their own washing up.
I strongly suspect that similar processes were going on in Qutb’s mind when he travelled in places where he had to do things for himself.

Perhaps we need to view Islamism in a perhaps overly discredited economic perspective – extreme patriarchy as a cultural survival maintained past it’s sell by date by oil wealth. If Arab countries had to undergo the kind of econmomic upheaval that made use of their human capital, rather than keeping it in a cultural infancy, then perhaps this problem would not exist.

Just consider in a period of 10 years 9,000 debtors were sent to prison. There definition of crime was quite different from ours.

Repealing the law that allowed creditors to petition the courts to jail bankrupts be the abolition of how many laws, YossiUK?

In 1908 there were some 108,000 recorded instances of crime. One hundred years later, there were some 100,000 prosecutions in a year for evasions of the TV Licence, alone.

You need a reality check, my friend.

Josh Scholar,

Why aren’t you ranting about Judiasm and Christianity for Leviticus 20:13?

“And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

This is what it says doesn’t it? Based on this, surely, if you were consistent, you would be ranting against Jews and Christians for following an evil religion.

Gsirrah, can you tell me please why it is forbidden to criticise or question your prophet and yet many Muslims (note, David T, I am not saying ALL) seem to feel that it is their right to treat other religions and faith systems with utter contempt?

Why should your prophet not be perceived by the rest of us to be AS important as any other rather than MORE important?

“One hundred years later, there were some 100,000 prosecutions in a year for evasions of the TV Licence, alone.”

Holy shit! Is that true?

“Regarding the bigots in the comments boxes on this blog, they do cause me a lot of anguish. In 2005 and 2006 I posted quite frequently but in the last year or two, whilst I still read all the main posts, I am not one of the very active people in the comments boxes. This is a shame, but the main reason is due to the bigots – I simply do not wish to associate with them.”

I feel somewhat the same though I’d say exasperation rather than anguish. Don’t the muslim-bashers ever get bored coming here time after time making the same points over and over again?

Monkey boy, I don’t take sides in the debate between crime then and now. I’m just pointing out that we have to factor in what actions were defined as crimes then, in order to truly compare the rates.

Macpherson IS my old geography teacher.

“This is what it says doesn’t it? Based on this, surely, if you were consistent, you would be ranting against Jews and Christians for following an evil religion.”

Every time a homosexual is stoned to death in Biloxi or Brighton Beach, you can bet I am at the van of the protest.

A few things.
1) I am not Muslim.
2) I did not say categorically that people should not criticise Muhammad – just that people should look at what they want to achieve through their words. How on earth does an observation of the age of Muhammad’s wife add anything at all to debate?
3) A man who is held up as the perfect example for all mankind, yet had the values of a despot, was opposed to all freedoms, who committed genocide, war, encouraged hatred against people of all other religions (tell me “God turned them into pigs and monkeys” isn’t hate speech), who sanctioned mass rape of the victims of his violence (remember Medina) who sanctioned slavery and sex slavery, who set in stone the oppression of women and girls as eternally God’s will… Is all so horribly wrong, both historically and theologically that I do not consider there to be any point in engaging with the bits that are less wildly inaccurate than the rest.
4) I read the article about new Anti-Semitism. It was very interesting. I should probably have added (about two miles up this page) that Anti-Semitism is a convenient trope to play on if you’re a leader desperately seeking popularity/legitimacy. My disagreement was with the assertion that Muslims were inherently anti-Semitic.

Thank you paul mooney in future i will certainly be more careful not to insult the entire irish population on basis of the relatively few i have met over the last few years.

David T says “However, you shouldn’t fall into the trap of thinking that religions that claim to be monolithic, unchanging, and directly transmitted by God, really do have those qualities. Follow any religion through the ages, and see how it changes. Look beyond the claims of coherence and universality, and look at the variation in its practice.”

Very true David T (and an excellent piece, by the way) but I think you have to admit that Islam has changed very little through the ages although, as Serendipity’s experience shows, it can be varied.

There also remains the question of whether those who are currently oppressed by Islam and Islamism can afford to wait through the ages for it to change.

I’m afraid that I see Islam’s rigidity and insistence that its practices not be criticised or questioned, and its attempts to foist some of its practices upon non-Muslims, as evidence of insecure rather than sincere belief.

I have no religion but I believe people should be allowed to worship in any way they wish provided that they do no harm to anyone and that each person be allowed to choose his/her beliefs or faith freely rather than be forced into by social and cultural pressures.

It seems to me that if one believes utterly and sincerely in anything one has no need to surround oneself with people of identical beliefs or to force that belief system onto anyone else in order for it to be valid. One simply has to live it. I know many people of faith whose lives are examples of this.

Indeed, the sort of reasoning Islam employs reminds me of Tinker Bell in Peter Pan, which I saw in pantomime when I was a child, who said that she would die unless we all applauded and showed that we believed in fairies.

Nodrog, you will stand in the waste-paper bin until you tell me what you meant.

Spot on David.

Regarding the Mahomed was a paedophile trope, David T could you reiterate for completeness of this masterly exposition, the position you once stated; namely that what is objectionable is the use of that trope for gratuitous baiting. What should not be excluded is a serious discussion of the real effect of having someone, who is regarded as a role model, having had a 9 year old girl as his wife. This is not the same as Cain and Abel, who are not regarded as perfect role models or role models at all. (There is of course no equivalent person in the Jewish narrative to Mahomed or Jesus held up for us to emulate.)

In a radio programme about child brides in Yemen for example, elders stated unequivocally that this was sanctioned specifically as following Mahomed who was to be emulated in all that he did. How to tackle this problem in a society such as Yemen which holds such beliefs, is, I think you have stated, a legitimate context to mention Mahomed’s life story in this regard.

I don’t have all day.

Gsirrah, Muslims may not be inherently anti-Semitic but Islam is, based as it is so utterly and completely upon its prophet’s thoughts and fears, and his insistence that his followers should not deviate from the path he laid out for them, and that they should emulate him in every particular.

People like Salah Uddin Schoaib Choudry are quite other, however, and in consequence are marked men, see:

http://www.interfaithstrength.com/images/Threats.htm

David T,

Yours is a very good argument.

But, how many will understand it ? And what are the consequences of trying to summarise it ? The least educated will either look for simpler categories and hence become bigots, or will be entirely empirical and deal with people as they meet them individually.

Intellectuals will not always be less bigoted, their desires may lead them to be highly selective in the evidence they choose to support their grand theories. Is it possible that you overestimate the importance of ideas in shaping people’s actions ? Could it be that as an intellectual that you want to believe this ?

“In every investigation, in every extension of knowledge, we’re involved in action. And in every action we’re involved in choice. And in every choice we’re involved in a kind of loss, the loss of what we didn’t do. We find this in the simplest situations. . . . Meaning is always obtained at the cost of leaving things out. . . . In practical terms this means, of course, that our knowledge is always finite and never all encompassing. . . . This makes the world of ours an open world, a world without end. ” – J Robert Oppenheimer

To say that Islam is inherently anti-Semitic is as meaningless a statement as saying that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic.
There is much ammunition to be found, if you want to find it, in Jesus’s crucifixion to justify anti-Semitism and many people have made good use of that.

Mr Macpherson sir,I was not chewing, honestly.Well, only a bit . And it was definitely not chewing gum.
Now, please go away.
I’m going to bed.

I have to go now paul mooney, back to reality, again i thank you, but i have just one last comment to make, i did not know about the 95% vote because i do not follow irish politics or study irish history, but thats my point, i judge a whole nation or its people on a few i have contact with. Wrong i know, but this is how life is, this is were fear arrises, this alas is how wars start.

There are plenty of moderate Muslims. There is no moderate Islam. Hope this helps.

ConSad: David T said it better than I would at five to midnight:
Islamist politicians argue that their religion requires that an Islamic state be created, and that any Muslim who disagrees is no true Muslim. And that is precisely what the anti-Muslim bigots say, as well.

Gsirrah, there is a school of thought that argues that the Arab antisemitism which didn’t come from the Koran came from Christian colonialists of the Arab world.

There is antisemitism in Christianity, too, only much of it comes out as criticism of Israel using antisemitic tropes, eg the sort of criticism and hatred dished out by the Rev Naim Ateek, revisionist theologian in Jerusalem, who has accused Israel of crucifying the Palestinian people, (note the similarity with the Jews as Christ-killers antisemitic trope) and argues quite seriously that the Hebrews of the Bible had no link with what is now Israel, and that the Palestinians were in fact the chosen people referred to.

Ateek trivialises suicide bombing of Israelis too and shores up that argument by saying that Samson, a Hebrew, was the first suicide murderer in history.

To say that there are elements within a religious tradition that can be used by people, if they so chose, to support anti-Semitism is a very different matter to saying that Islam/Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic.
It saddens me that certain of the commenters on Harry’s Place do not draw that distinction in discussion of Islam.

Gsirrah everything I said about Mohammad is true. You really want me to quote horrible story after horrible story? Just take it up with these people http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?action=forum they’re used to telling people the bad news. I’m too emotionally fragile to face the horror that was your prophet, post after post.

“ConSad: David T said it better than I would at five to midnight:
Islamist politicians argue that their religion requires that an Islamic state be created, and that any Muslim who disagrees is no true Muslim. And that is precisely what the anti-Muslim bigots say, as well.”

So therefore it must be false? How about actually studying the basic tenets of Islam as understood by Islamic sholars throughout history? Certainly a worthier exercise than throwing around terms like ‘bigot’ at honest scholars and historians.

I did not say categorically that people should not criticise Muhammad – just that people should look at what they want to achieve through their words. How on earth does an observation of the age of Muhammad’s wife add anything at all to debate?

What I want to achieve through words is the utter destruction of the legacy of the genocidal rapist, pillager, massmurderer and childfucker Mo the Pro. For his legacy and his followers have murdered hundreds of millions of people all in HIS name. Hundreds of millions of women are enslaved by HIS name. Some day, Mohammed will be as despised as his willing pupil Hitler. I just hope the Enlightenment survives until then.

Screw your “debate”.

What I want to achieve through words is the utter destruction of the legacy of …

Yeh. How’s that working out?

Josh Scholar. I’ve already cleared this up. I am not Muslim and I will not be responding to your wildly inaccurate tripe.

ConSad: The whole point of David T’s article – as I have understood it – is an appeal against those observers who side with Islamists in propounding an unpleasant conception of Islam. By saying “There is no moderate Islam” that is exactly what you were doing.

The person who is most vociferous in describing Mohammed as a paedophile is Morgoth, who is not a Communist, in fact he has said many times that he is a Tory.

Sue R, I’m not a Tory (not since approximately 1999). It is true I consider them marginally better than the current shower of cunts in office, but that couldn’t be hard. I do consider the only person ever to have entered the Houses of Parliament with honest intentions was a certain G. Fawkes, Esq.

Gsirrah, denying both history and the actual contents of scripture is not the winning strategy you seem to think it is.

One can not rely on one’s audience remaining forever ignorant.

The only Muslim country where you need not fear for your life if you change your religion is (probably) Bosnia.

You don’t know much about the Balkans. Try Kosova and Albania, where so many have converted that it is likely that Christianity will become the majority religion in the next twenty years.

One of the best posts I have seen in months. Well done, David.

Gsirrah, I think your posts have been very well thought out.

And both you and David T are right in pointing out that there is a moderate Islam, i.e the understanding of Islam by moderate Muslims.

If the battle against extremist Islamists, is ever going to be won, it will require the active participation of moderate Muslims, who will not be inclined to co-operate with people who gratuitously insult their faith, the expression of which, causes no harm.

“To say that there are elements within a religious tradition that can be used by people, if they so chose, to support anti-Semitism is a very different matter to saying that Islam/Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic.”

Christianity and Islam both represent theologies intended as replacements for Judaism. Both contain explicitly antisemitic dogma. As such, they are inherently antisemitic. If a Christian or a Muslim do not believe that there religion is superior (in the theological sense) to Judaism can they really be said to be adherents of their respective religion? I’m not sure that they can honestly.

Yeh. How’s that working out?

Unlike certain religions I don’t resort to violence….

“If a Christian or a Muslim do not believe that there religion is superior (in the theological sense) to Judaism can they really be said to be adherents of their respective religion? I’m not sure that they can honestly.”

Yes. They are adherents to their religion as they understand it, not as you understand it.

Secondly as a Jew, I would expect Muslims and Christians to view their religions as theologically superior to mine, and it doesn’t in the slightest bit bother me if they do.

You can tactfully ignore that problem.

Shmuel. I would suggest that a person thinking his/her religion is superior (in a theological sense) to other options is not anti-Semitism but an inherent part of holding a religious belief. If you disagree with me then, by your definitions, Islam and Christianity are inherently anti-Semitic and we disagree only on semantics.

HP web master,

please could you make this a STICKY post for a few days? it is a very worthwhile subject and needs to be at the forefront of issues.

Is this the moment when David T abandons his progressivism and makes an accommodation with the forces of reaction? It sure looks like it.

I’m now much more of a progressive than he is.

“Yes. They are adherents to their religion as they understand it, not as you understand it.”

That’s not a meaningful explanation.

“Secondly as a Jew, I would expect Muslims and Christians to view their religions as theologically superior to mine, and it doesn’t in the slightest bit bother me if they do.”

Why should another person’s view bother you? The problem is when Christians and Muslims try and kill Jews obviously.

Personally, I think Judaism is superior to Christianity and Islam but theologically speaking. (Christianity and Islam are irrelevant to Judaism theologically.) But sociologically speaking, I prefer not to participate in dogmatic, proselytizing “death cults” that emphasize the life after over this one.

sorry:

Personally, I think Judaism is superior to Christianity and Islam but *not* theologically speaking.

And YossiUK. Thank you.
David T, I has a question for you ages ago about why you chose to say anti-Muslim bigotry rather than Islamophobia. Now you’re back, could I ask it once more?

that was a had rather than a has, sorry

“I would suggest that a person thinking his/her religion is superior (in a theological sense) to other options is not anti-Semitism but an inherent part of holding a religious belief.”

Other religions are irrelevant in Judaism. Judaism is not superior or inferior to other belief systems. Only replacement theologies bother creating supremacist hierarchies.

David T states:

[...]None of this means that you should never criticise the precepts of a religion. Religions are just collections of ideas and practices. They have no particular sanctity.

I couldn’t agree more. So given the sorry state of affairs in predominantly Muslim countries when it comes to treatment of homosexuals and apostates, tolerance of other religions etc; Isn’t it fair to conclude that there might be something wrong with the precepts of the religion of Islam?

Why, in this day and age, have they failed to get with the program? Wasn’t it mostly young people who were responsible for carrying out the Islamic “revolution” in Iran 30 years ago?

“Other religions are irrelevant in Judaism. Judaism is not superior or inferior to other belief systems. Only replacement theologies bother creating supremacist hierarchies.”

Shmuel perhaps I do not understand what you mean by relevance. But Judaism does have opinions about other religions.

Fine post, David

Fair enough, Judaism does not consider itself more true than other religions. Y
ou are wrong in describing Islam as a replacement theology, however. In Islamic doctrine both Judaism and Christianity are considered true paths to God for Jews and Christians and therefore, come judgment day, Jews will be judged according to their laws and their revelation and Christians by theirs. Jews and Christians have allowed their books to be corrupted somewhat but they are not superseded by Islam.
By your definition it seems that anybody who is Christian or Muslim is an anti-Semite. I am a little uncomfortable with that definition.

anybody who is Christian or Muslim is an anti-Semite.

Yep, that works for me. You?

They are not superseded for Jews and Christians that is.

Have you spoken to them all then, Morgoth?

Anaximanders sandal @ 11 November 2008, 9:46 pm

The Irish people may not have agreed with the Terrorism of the IRA but they all agreed with their aims, just ask them.

So perhaps you could explain how the people of the Irish Republic voted to delete a couple of clauses from thier constitution? You know, the ones that claimed jurisdiction over the North?

“In Islamic doctrine both Judaism and Christianity are considered true paths to God for Jews and Christians and therefore, come judgment day, Jews will be judged according to their laws and their revelation and Christians by theirs. Jews and Christians have allowed their books to be corrupted somewhat but they are not superseded by Islam.”

That’s very sweet, but I prefer religions where Jews are irrelevant.

Just a small correction, while Judaism recognises that non-Jews need not convert to Judaism in order to be righteous and have a relationship with G-d, it does in fact see itself as possessing more truth than other faiths.

Polytheistic and Idolatrous faiths are theologically unacceptable in Judaism. Christianity is subject to a debate, some considering it idolatry and some thinking that it is a legitimate monotheism for non-Jews, despite having an incorrect understanding of the nature of G-d, and Islam while being a pure monotheism is incorrect in believing that the Koran is the revealed word of G-d.

So yes, clearly as Orthodox Jews we view Judaism as “superior” to the beliefs of other religions, but that does not mean that we have any hatred for the adherents of those faiths. Likewise there is no reason to assume that Christians or Muslims hate Jews, just because they believe in the greater “truth” of their beliefs.

“But Judaism does have opinions about other religions.”

Judaism has opinions on bread mold, but it doesn’t factor into fundamental theological questions.

“Judaism …does in fact see itself as possessing more truth than other faiths.”

What does “more truth” mean?

David T – well said!

I’ve often wondered how many of the people who pratt on about “the Muslims” actually know any Muslims? In my life I have have had Muslim friends, classmates, neighbours and colleagues. None of them have tried to harass, oppress, attack or convert me. Have I just been lucky, or are they biding their time? Doubtless the anti-Muslim bigots would answer: “both”.

The supporters of Islamism in the UK are a small band – look how many “jihadis” turn up to Anjem Choudhary’s meetings and public protests. They are almost without exception losers, creeps and outright twats – the Muslim equivalent of BNP members.

It’s my sincere belief, from living, socialising and working with them – that mainstream Muslims, both practicing and non-practicing, want nothing whatsoever do with Islamism or a UK Islamic state. But because they don’t protest against it, “the Pratts” (how’s that for group stereotyping?) see this as evidence of their complicitness. The very same logic is used by 9/11 Troofers.

On which notes of Jewish theology I am going to bed. I would like to reiterate my praise for David T before I do so. A wonderful post.

Shmuel rather than saying it’s “very sweet” I would have said it’s a bit of a whitewash. For instance (and I’m sure there are many other examples) it is not a “live and live attitude” created by the poem Mo wrote saying that God will not bring the end of times until Muslims do their duty and slaughter the Jews who are described as hated by almost all of creation.

“What does “more truth” mean?”

Simply, that the Torah that G-d gave to us, is truth itself. Contained in it, is the correct way for us to live. We don’t believe that the Koran is the word of G-d. Our conception of G-d’s Oneness, (that we share with Muslims) is truth, Christian Trinitarianism is false.

This for example is what I mean by more truth.

A story which is relevant to the discussion of whether Islam is antisemitic.

I’m sure Mohammad recommended genocide against the Jews in a completely tolerant way.

What modernity said ^^^^

If I start a new religion based on Cherokee creation mythology, declare my new creation mythology as a “less corrupt” replacement for what the Cherokee’s thought up, while killing them in bunches over the next 2000 years, that doesn’t mean that I’m anti-Cherokee.

Josh Scholar, these religious books say a lot of things, but most people don’t get that hung up on it all. For instance, I haven’t killed any Amalekites recently.

“A story which is relevant to the discussion of whether Islam is antisemitic.

I’m sure Mohammad recommended genocide against the Jews in a completely tolerant way.”

While we can all have an opinion as to the intent of those verses, you presumably accept, that there are Muslims who know of those verses, who accept those verses, but interpret them in such a way, that they entail no danger or even hostility to Jews.

Shmuel, thats not happening now, is it? Let’s move on.

“Contained in it, is the correct way for us to live.”

Emphasis on *us*.

“We don’t believe that the Koran is the word of G-d….[or] Christian Trinitarianism…”

We don’t believe in many things. Like flying saucers and unicorns. But how is this relevant to Judaism?

jr, unfortunately Islam is the body of work of a single man who shut the door to both further revelation and (as much as he could) to reinterpretation…

While we can get tiny amounts of hope from the fact that he was not entirely consistent, he was FAIRLY consistent- consistently horrible. And ever more hate filled and violent toward the end of his life.

You can remake Judaism or Christianity by excluding any one interpreter or by playing prophets off each other. You can’t do anything like that with Islam… You can not bring reasonable values to the work of one man who slaughtered his critics, committed mass slaughter, rape, who was torturer a slaver, forbade democracy (”wherever there are 3 muslims there must be an emir”), who demanded his followers hate members of other religions, etc etc.

Well you keep returning to this theme and you are probably right to do so as it is important for how we live together in a democratic society.

My view is slightly different from yours.

1. It is impossible to understand the problem of Islam without understanding that its core mainstream ideology (as taught by it chief ideologues, the preachers, turned out by Islamic universities in Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan etc) is extreme. That does not make all followers of Islam themselves personally extreme, but it is a huge problem which won’t get smaller by pretending it’s not huge.

2. If you believe that Islam is (amongst other things) a form of political totalitarianism, then it is just as legitimate to be critical of Muslims as it is to be critical of Nazis or Communists. They want to take YOUR freedom away and destroy democracy. Of course there were plenty of fine Nazis and Communists as individuals and there are plenty of fine Muslims as individuals. But if they are sincere in their beliefs then they want to make you a second class citizen in your own country. That is what Shariah involves.

3. That said, much the same sort of things could be said about Roman Catholicism between 1540 and 1940. It was an extreme and totalitarian movement, which wanted to take your freedom away and destroy democracy. It was prepared to use political violence. It would make second class citizens of Jews and Protestants. Gradually from the 1890s onwards Catholicism made its peace with democracy and modernity (to a large degree). By the 1960s it had largely abandoned its really oppressive ideology.

So there is hope.

4. The way to ensure good relations with Islam is most definitely not to make any concessions whatsoever to it or to try and meet it “half way” .The best way to treat it is to ignore it as far as possible and assure Muslims that they will receive no special concessions. To the extent that it subverts our constitution it should be subject to controls. If Muslims get angry about that, it’s a good sign. It means you aren’t selling off your democracy bit by bit; you are pursuing the right policy. We do know that Muslim spokesmen are always angry about something: cartoons, Jews, Israel, Salman Rushdie, the USA, Guantanamo, British foreign policy, school uniform, mixed bathing, evolutionary theory…They only have a finite amount of anger to expend and they will expend it on something or other.

When Muslim spokesmen express satisfaction with the way things are going, that’s when you should worry. Probably the same goes for Trade Union leaders.

Field, I was 100% with you until you ragged on the trade unions.

But still, best post in the thread.

JS – By way of clarification: I’m all in favour of free Trade Unions. They are a sign of a free society. Their absence goes with dictatorship and totalitarianism.

But I’d still be worried if the Trade Union leaders agreed things were going swimmingly in terms of national governmental policy!

I’d also like to say that on personal note I do find that I do feel hostility to people who dress overtly in an Islamic way, covering their face and so on. I do not act on that hostility but I feel it because it is a badge of what they (very likely) want to do to my society. A few may be expressing a personal preference but the majority want Shariah with no freedom, no gender equality and Islam as the supreme religious, political and social institution.

But I have seen people out and about in Buddhist robes. I feel absolutely no hostility to them whatsoever. In fact I feel quite warm towards them. I think: there is a thoughtful person, who is interested in peace and harmony and doing good, who is not seeking to destroy our democracy or constitution.

So please – let’s get rid of this idea that anyone who dislikes and opposes Islam can’t tolerate “difference”. That is not true.

I can’t get through the comments – sorry if something deals with this already.

David T, I like this post. Your work here is an enormous public service. You’ve never written a bigoted word and the reason is that you aren’t a bigot, anti-Muslim or otherwise.

It isn’t clear how many readers adequately distinguish between post and comments, so the comments can come to define the blog. Hence your call to counter bigotry – completely appropriate. However, given your decision to keep comments open, you are promoting this activity to us as a kind of “Harry’s Place – home of anti-bigots and host to our foils the bigots”.

Couple of questions, more because I’m curious than because I believe in moderation.
1) The Web and streets are full of anti-Muslim bigots – why is it so important to accept bigots on this blog?
2) While I completely agree that the remedy for hate speech is more speech, if there isn’t more speech – i.e. if this call to comment doesn’t work – then what?
3) If you were to prune back disturbing levels of prejudice and bigotry by moderating it off your blog, would that be so bad? Why (not)?
4) What about comments guidance? For the mother of all comments policies, have a look at Alas. It is very respectful but it’s not open.

Despite this editorial, evidence suggests that HP is not very much worried about the problem of Islamophobia. For instance, when a woman at a McCain rally said “Obama is an Arab” and McCain answered “No, maam. He’s a decent family man and citizen,” a regular contributor to HP had this to say:

I don’t think McCain intended to suggest that Arabs can’t be decent family men and citizens, although I could understand some Arab-Americans being offended.

This benevolent treatment of a top US politician who clearly upheld a derogatory stereotype remarkably contrasts with the flaming of as irrelevant a figure as Tony Greenstein over his use of the “Uncle Tom” analogy with reference to Obama.

Hasbara Buster
1) You need to distinguish between commenters and bloggers
2) David T has just posted his call to oppose anti-Muslim bigotry – why would you say that HP isn’t worried? Of course it’s worried you eejit.

“Despite this editorial, evidence suggests that HP is not very much worried about the problem of Islamophobia. For instance, when a woman at a McCain rally said “Obama is an Arab” and McCain answered “No, maam. He’s a decent family man and citizen,” a regular contributor to HP had this to say:

I don’t think McCain intended to suggest that Arabs can’t be decent family men and citizens, although I could understand some Arab-Americans being offended.”

Clearly David T, has gone out of his way to express his distaste for anti-Muslim bigotry, and not only in this article, but also in many of the comments he has made.

Secondly Arab and Muslim are not the same thing.

In a radio programme about child brides in Yemen for example, elders stated unequivocally that this was sanctioned specifically as following Mahomed who…………………………………………………………………………. Yep, this was so and BBC trouncer said with a straight face, “what sort of man would have sex, with a nine year old girl? Gary Glitter perhaps?

Flesh Everywhere –

Just so we can get this straight ( because I genuinely think this is a difficult area).

Are you saying that HP posters should be denied the opportunity to express distaste for and even hatred of Nazis? If not, why not?

I’ve read the phrase “Muslims are the new Jews” on occasion and I’m getting a waft of that sentiment from David T’s post.

Field, it’s fine to hate Nazis. Since Nazis were deeply intolerant of diversity, it’s not such a problem to generalise about them too. Who cares about them?

It’s not ok to generalise about Muslims. Which I’m afraid, Field, you have done on several occasions this evening in ways which at this time of night I am unable to expand upon. But I can’t see any reason why Weety’s insidious paedophile Muslim comment shouldn’t be axed.

I just don’t see why the work of anti-racists should extend even to patrolling anti-racist blogs. What would John Stuart Mill say if confronted with the web? I reckon he’d gulp a bit.

Sorry, not Weety’s comment – I meant just “an insidious paedophile Muslim comment”.

Without naming names, I wonder what is the point of repeating at every available opportunity, and sometimes when it seems simply for fun that the Muslim
prophet was “a pedophile.” This accusation is based on the fact that the Prophet had a nine year old wife. Those people that male that accusation I do
not see attacking Cane and Abel as incestuous because presumably they had sex with their sister.

One difference is that Mohammed is considered the perfect human for all times. There is no current legal code modelled on the life of Cain but since Muslims insist that what Mohammed did can’t be immoral, they must either deny that Mohammed had sex with a nine year old; or they must admit that he did something which by contemporary standards is truly evil.
If Muslims consider their religion monolithic and refuse to take an intellectually consistent stance on sharia; apostasy and legal equality between Muslims and non-Muslims they are themselves to blame.

Who would have thought that worshiping a person as if he were a god could lead to problems in the future?

LC, I never understand why the fact that Mo had sex with a 9yo is so evil. Isn’t it much worse that he trapped her into a marriage for live at the age of 6 – that’s a form of slavery isn’t it?

Er typo: Isn’t it much worse that he trapped her into a marriage for life at the age of 6 – that’s a form of slavery isn’t it?

For god’s sake LC, Islam isn’t monolithic. There’s enormous diversity across the Muslim world. Some denominations have been conservative and relatively bolted down in terms of interpretation but there’s a lot of revisioning in Ankara at the moment.

Hey, look over there.

I hope you fuckers realize that you are now anti-Islam bigots for dwelling on the age thing according to David T.

- Muslims are presented as either conspirators or dupes of a Muslim conspiracy to subvert the West.

I have asked you before, and you haven’t answered:
Do most Muslims reject the ideal of an Islamic state with sharia law under all circumstances? If they don’t and at least a substantial 40 percent endorse sharia law with some form of legal inequality for women and non-Muslims it’s simply preposterous to call it a conspiracy theory. Muslims might well not care much about actually implementing sharia, but if they believe that sharia is better than democracy and equality why is it bigotry to draw any conclusion?

- Muslims are attempting to take over the West by outbreeding non-Muslims.
Actually Muslim spokesmen invokes the inevitably of demographic conquest as a reason for why Islam will be triumphant. Do most Muslims disagree with this?
If we shouldn’t have any cause for distrusting Muslims, I am sure that you can point me to Muslim nations where Christians, Jews and atheists enjoy equality in law.

- Any Muslim who denies this is either engaging in “
Taqiyya
” or has simply yet to realise the true nature of their religion.
The answer to that problem is Muslims beginning to act logically consistent:
Either sharia law is bad for all times and they should have no problem in disassociating themselves from the Quran and hadith interpretation mandating sharia, or they are simply not honest.

Oops! Apologies, David T. I think it was Mikey. Sorry! :D

As long as we’re talking about Aisha being abused, don’t forget the fact that as well as being trapped in a marriage against her will, Aisha was a victim of genital mutilation (now called “Sunna circumcision”), another crime whose effects are demonstratively permanent.

This is either Type I “partial or total removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) and/or the prepuce (clitoral hood)” or Type II “”partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (excision).”

One wonders what age THAT took place at.

In any case Mohammad did refer to that circumcision.

@Josh Scholar
I never understand why the fact that Mo had sex with a 9yo is so evil. Isn’t it much worse that he trapped her into a marriage for live at the age of
6 – that’s a form of slavery isn’t it?

Yes, and I really don’t think that Mohammad was worse than any average sixth century warlord, but since he is the perfect human for all times, it’s of concern how Muslims today view his life.
@Flesh Everywhere
For god’s sake LC, Islam isn’t monolithic. There’s enormous diversity across the Muslim world. Some denominations have been conservative and relatively
bolted down in terms of interpretation but there’s a lot of revisioning in
Ankara
at the moment.

Yes, I am sorry, please refer me to the list of Muslim nations where the law doesn’t mandate any penalty for apostasy; where Islamic family law does not discriminate against women and non-Muslims; and the opinion polls showing that a majority of Muslims everywhere accept the right of everyone to change religion.
Islam is not monolithic, which is the reason why living in Indonesia and Malaysia is better on legal equality for women, non-Muslims and apostates, wait oh no, perhaps not Malaysia but rather Tunesia, Kuwait or Egypt. Nothing to see here.
And Muslims in the UK would never say yes to killing apostate members of their own families lest threaten them for leaving Islam.

I claim all rights to criticize the religion of Islam (David T said so) and make fun of its adherents. Fair’s fair. :D

Yes, I am sorry, please refer me to the list of Muslim nations where the law doesn’t mandate any penalty for apostasy

They CAN be more subtle than that. Egyptian law does not mandate death for leaving Islam, it merely decrees that killing an apostate is not a crime and thus sanctions Muslim fascists to terrorize and oppress the populace.

Despite this editorial, evidence suggests that HP is not very much worried about the problem of Islamophobia. For instance, when a woman at a McCain rally said “Obama is an Arab” and McCain answered “No, maam. He’s a decent family man and citizen,” a regular contributor to HP had this to say:

This benevolent treatment of a top US politician who clearly upheld a derogatory stereotype remarkably contrasts with the flaming of as irrelevant a figure as Tony Greenstein over his use of the “Uncle Tom” analogy with reference to Obama.

Buster, is that the best you’ve got?

As I am the regular contributor in question, I said this because I’ve never seen any other evidence that McCain is anti-Arab. In this case he was rushing to cut off a woman who obviously was hateful toward Obama and ended up suggesting something he almost certainly didn’t mean. If you’ve been following my posts on this blog, you’ll know I haven’t defended McCain on much, but I’ll cut him some slack on this.

Colin Powell made the very important point that even if Obama were Muslim– so what? I was pleased to link to a video of his statement.

@Josh Scholar
By penalty for apostasy I meant not only capital punishment but legal disabilities ranging from loss of marriage to a Muslim woman, loss of civil rights and denial of police protection against private violence. Even when apostasy is not directly punishable by law, the state becomes an accessory to murder by marking the apostate for death and after not doing anything to prevent similar killings.
This is the same legal apartheid everywhere Islam is in the majority. Even in secular Turkey, apostates are murdered.
My point is not that every Muslim is complicit in murder, but that most Muslims think that the proper punishment for apostasy from Islam is death.

Yes, and I really don’t think that Mohammad was worse than any average sixth century warlord…

Well I, for one, found his behavior inexcusable.

DavidT: Have you noticed that Benjamin Mackie has not yet appeared on this thread? It’s amusing to think that since your post went up he’s been struggling -apparently unsuccessfully- to find a way to disparage it and everyone who appreciates HP.

Benjamin’s sole purpose here seems to be badmouthing this blog. Wind him up and watch him go. Then again, you fuckwits encourage him.

Sorry just can not wait any longer, paul moody,mondernityblog and the other 95% if you are still around thank you for the link, you know i have met people like you for the last 30 years, well people like paul moody anyway. You see the amendment does not remove the “Claim to northern ireland” does it?. It says that violence will not be used to gain a united ireland if a united ireland is desired by the majority of the people in NI, not quite giving up the dream of a united Ireland is it?

Then again me being a “ignorant gobshite” i have no doubt missed something in the document or my powers of information analysis are woefully inadequate, either way it reads a bit Sir Humphrey to me. Well at least the David T article above is excellent, it gives me a little hope for the future.

The problem is that Islam really is a horrible mess. It’s silly in the same ways that Christianity and Judaism and all other religions are silly, but it’s also a seriously nasty political ideology.

Of course Islam should be attacked head on.

This isn’t only a matter of principle. It’s also practically beneficial.

I know quite a few Muslims, who are of course cool, though things sometimes get awkward if topics like Jews, or gays (to take a couple of recent examples at work) come up. But because of a couple of connections it happened that I finished up meeting a lot – LOT – more ex-Muslims.

(They’re in Sydney, from … actually they’re from a country whose government sends spies to watch their nationals in Australia, and they keep their heads down, so I’m not even going to name the place.)

But they’re very happy about having rejected Islam, which from their experience was a horrible mental straitjacket. No fun at all. A lot of them are women, of course.

But something that helped them get out of Islam was finding places and people where Mo wasn’t always spoken of with compulsory PBUH respect. When they encountered some bracing contempt for that bastard, it bettered their lives. (They didn’t encounter that contempt from me; they were ex-Muslims when I met them.)

So maybe speaking of Islam and its founder with contempt is not just speaking the truth, which it is, and not just a right, which it is, but also a duty. It’ll make some angry people angrier – but what doesn’t? It can also make unfree people free.

That doesn’t only apply to ex-Muslims. There are also people who are Muslims because of family, the rituals, and the nice community stuff, etc, but whose belief in the doctrines, including the perfection of Mo, is a lot weaker.

Exposing Islam to some bracing, undisguised scepticism, and Mo to justified ridicule and contempt, may just do more good for “moderation” than all the polite lip-zipping in the world.

Bravo Mine’s a Newt, that’s spot on, and should be printed on leaflets and dropped from the skies.

But they’re very happy about having rejected Islam, which from their experience was a horrible mental straitjacket. No fun at all. A lot of them are women, of course.

But something that helped them get out of Islam was finding places and people where Mo wasn’t always spoken of with compulsory PBUH respect. When they encountered some bracing contempt for that bastard, it bettered their lives. (They didn’t encounter that contempt from me; they were ex-Muslims when I met them.)

So maybe speaking of Islam and its founder with contempt is not just speaking the truth, which it is, and not just a right, which it is, but also a duty. It’ll make some angry people angrier – but what doesn’t? It can also make unfree people free.

That doesn’t only apply to ex-Muslims. There are also people who are Muslims because of family, the rituals, and the nice community stuff, etc, but whose belief in the doctrines, including the perfection of Mo, is a lot weaker.

Exposing Islam to some bracing, undisguised scepticism, and Mo to justified ridicule and contempt, may just do more good for “moderation” than all the polite lip-zipping in the world.

The obsessive repetition about Mahoma being a pedophile and a role model for Muslims reminds me that antisemites like to talk about the Golden Calf, and the repeated Hebrew rebellions against Moses as if these explained Jewish essence.
Obsessive creeps.

Moses was punished by God because he broke the first stone tables, but we call him still “Moshe Rabeinu” (Moses our Teacher).

Maybe if we look very close to the text we can find that he was also a pervert who liked to look upskirts, and then the enigma about the Jews will be solved, just like we solved the enigma about the Muslims with Aisha.

Fabian you can find flaws in any man, but Mohammad insisted that he had to be worshiped, that God demanded that Muslims hold Mohammad closer in their hearts than their own children.

It would be unseemly and disgusting to point out the extreme extent to which he was worshiped in his life, which apparently included his followers drinking his piss.

He is now held to be essentially perfect and to be emulated in all ways.

Sorry, we’re not obsessing on the man’s flaws, we’re pointing out that his role as an exemplar of God’s perfection is horribly harmful. Thanks for missing the entire point.

Anyway the importance of the ways in which the prophet abused his wives is in the fact that his example sets in stone the unjust and oppressive treatment of women and girls for all time. You can look around the world and see the Muslim women (and girls) still lack rights because of the travesty of his example.

Girls are forced into marriages from which they can not easily escape, in which they lack rights.. they are oppressed by their families, threatened. Genital mutilation is common.

Sorry to be “repetitiously” “obsessing” over “the enigma of Muslims” here. Sorry, I should forget all about women, they don’t count.

“Fabian you can find flaws in any man, but Mohammad insisted that he had to be worshiped”

No. Jesus insisted he had to be worshipped, and he viciously attacked perfectly innocent and useful trade people in the Jewish Temple.

“It would be unseemly and disgusting to point out the extreme extent to which he was worshiped in his life, which apparently included his followers drinking his piss. ”

¿Source?

“Sorry to be “repetitiously” “obsessing” over “the enigma of Muslims” here. Sorry, I should forget all about women, they don’t count.”

I think it is you who misses the point completely.
I will give you a clue: if you have a person X abusing his wife, what possible he or his wife would have to gain by you pointing that his role model did the same? (if he did). But for all your apparent concern for his wife, you only care about yourself.

I’m not going to be a walking bibliography for Islamic lore – go to the council of ex-muslims and ask them if you want references.

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/

I think it is you who misses the point completely.
I will give you a clue: if you have a person X abusing his wife, what possible he or his wife would have to gain by you pointing that his role model did the same? (if he did). But for all your apparent concern for his wife, you only care about yourself.

That’s completely incoherent and apparently meaningless. But extra points for sounding self righteously angry. If you do that emphatically enough some people will assume that you’re morally superior.

I think it is you who misses the point completely.
I will give you a clue: if you have a person X abusing his wife, what possibly he or his wife would have to gain by you pointing that his role model did the same? (if he did). *Rhetorical question. Answer: Nothing.

Implicit question: then, why do you do it?

Implicit answer: because it makes you feel better with yourself. You can offend two persons (X and his wife) by pretending to care for the latter, but without doing anything to help her.

Therefore: “But for all your apparent concern for his wife, you only care about yourself.”

Food for thought: if you cared for X’s wife you wouldn’t be calling Mohamed a pedophile, you would be a social worker.

Is it simple now?

Excellent comment, Mine’s a Newt.

“I’m not going to be a walking bibliography for Islamic lore – go to the council of ex-muslims and ask them if you want references.”

So, you can say that Mohammed’s followers drank his piss, but you don’t have a reference for that?

At least, it is not in the Talmud.

Ok, I think I’ve decoded the babble a bit… You’re saying that it does no good in the individual case for us to point out that the abuse of women has roots in Mohammad’s behavior – your assumption being that Mohammad will always be emulated and thus we should pretend he did not do the things he did, or say the things he did or order the things he did, and just hope that Muslims in our society and the world over forget everything they ever knew about Mohammad, and thus will become free though complete ignorance.

Talk about painting yourself into a courner.

No I rather think the only way to cut the gordian knot here to denounce what is evil and explicitly confront Mohammad’s horrible example.. That if rather than tie our hands behind our backs, gag our mouths and just think disapproving thoughts, we actually FIGHT for good values, then we will eventually people the long hard way – by convincing them rather than by hoping they one day do the right thing without noticing the fact.

Yep, I do hope that society stands together against oppression even when that means standing against Mohammad.

“Ok, I think I’ve decoded the babble a bit… You’re saying that it does no good in the individual case for us to point out that the abuse of women has roots in Mohammad’s behavior – your assumption being that Mohammad will always be emulated and thus we should pretend he did not do the things he did, or say the things he did or order the things he did, and just hope that Muslims in our society and the world over forget everything they ever knew about Mohammad, and thus will become free though complete ignorance.”

“Talk about painting yourself into a courner.”

Uh?
Now that is babble.

We posted at the same time Fabian. You focus on a single individual case of abuse and I focus on society and societies.

I don’t recommend that domestic abuse centers answer their phones with a message saying that wife beating was A-OK in Islam, so please call back when Allah has changed his mind and no longer approves.

Rather, I believe we our only hope of really safeguarding progressive values it to have the courage to explicitly confront and expose and denounce and oppose the inverse of those values wherever they come from. And when they come from Mohammad then we stand against Mohammad because we can do no good submitting to reaction and pretending, for the sake of reactionaries that black and blue are white and oppression is freedom.

Let me say that I can cut the Gordian know with you this way:
You are an obsessed obnoxious person because the man you think was your God was an obsessed obnoxious person who did not understand the concept of trade (he thought that there was something called fair trade with just value), did not value or understand the concept of sacrifice (therefore went to sacrifice himself! human sacrifices again!), was delusional thinking that the Temple was the house of his father and became violent when challenged about his nonexistent authority.

I am glad that you are far from me, since with such role model, I wouldn’t like to be near you, just in case you become violent too.

*Gordian knot*

That was satyre, of course. But only ridicule works sometimes.

Flesh Everywhere says:

“Field, it’s fine to hate Nazis. Since Nazis were deeply intolerant of diversity, it’s not such a problem to generalise about them too. Who cares about them?”

MY COMMENT: So you outlining a general principle here. It is fine to hate people who are deeply intolerant of diversity. Can you supply any evidence to suggest that Islam is not deeply intolerant of diversity? Its ideology says for instance that polytheists have no right to life and that Jews and Christians must be second class citizens under global Shariah rule. So if you accept that is the case, you seem to be suggesting it is acceptable to hate Muslims who follow such an ideology.

“It’s not ok to generalise about Muslims. Which I’m afraid, Field, you have done on several occasions this evening in ways which at this time of night I am unable to expand upon. But I can’t see any reason why Weety’s insidious paedophile Muslim comment shouldn’t be axed.”

MY COMMENT: I haven’t generalised about Muslims. I’ve generalised about what Muslim ideologues say Islam is and means and I’ve indicated that Muslims who sincerely believe in what those ideologues teach, necessarily believe in those things.

But I am interested in the principle you are setting out here. Why is it inadmissible to generalise about Muslims. It appears permissible to you to generalise about members of Nazi parties, many of whom will have been or are inoffensive members of the community who may not even understand the racist ideology their leaders espouse. Where else does this rule apply: is it inadmissible to generalise about Mormons, Scientologists, Freemasons, Rotarians, Tories, trainspotters, Yorkshiremen, shoplifters, cancer patients, men and women, young people, chimpanzees, or Tesco shoppers? If not why not? Surely Muslims can’t be the only group in the world one is not allowed to generalise about. But if we aren’t allowed to generalise about any group (or perhaps any thing) then how on earth are we ever going to discuss anything.

“I just don’t see why the work of anti-racists should extend even to patrolling anti-racist blogs. What would John Stuart Mill say if confronted with the web? I reckon he’d gulp a bit.”

MY COMMENT: The problem with anti-racist zealots who want to shut down racist speech, is that they don’t stop there. We know that for many years there was a lock down on any discussion of the impact of mass immigration on this country because of anti-racist zealotry.

It’s simply not acceptable that you should set yourself up as some sort of debate police officer who is going to rule out of court perfectly valid criticism of an ideology that advocates killing of polytheists, second class status for women, marriage at 9 for girls, the end of democracy, clerical rule, the abolition of the arts as we know them and
the teaching of creationism.

Why aren’t you doing something about those poisonous teachings?

I Fabian attempted to make a point through satire, but I can’t follow it at all.

Seriously, I thought he was better at reading, writing and thinking than he’s showing now. Are you drunk?

In any case I suggest he calm down, reread the thread so he is has some hope of understanding where I’m coming from, and try to be clearer.

Sorry about the editing errors. I should proofread my edits to make sure I don’t leave extra words lying around:

I think Fabian attempted to make a point through satire, but I can’t follow it at all.

Seriously, I thought he was better at reading, writing and thinking than he’s showing now. Are you drunk, Fabian?

In any case I suggest he calm down, reread the thread so he has some hope of understanding where I’m coming from, and try to be clearer.

“I Fabian attempted to make a point through satire, but I can’t follow it at all.”

Joshua, I was speaking about Jesus and the episode with the merchants of the temple. Jesus is a role model for a lot of people. Maybe they are all about to explode in a whipping rage at the sight of merchants?

Fabian, of course your satire is misaimed. I grew up an agnostic, and certainly don’t consider Jesus beyond criticism..

Frankly the reason Jesus has not been held up to much criticism is that he had reasonably good values, and modernization of Christian’s values could be done without conflicting with the things Jesus said…

Unfortunately with Mohammad the case is completely unrelated. One story I was told by one of the ex-Muslims at that site was that there is a story about Mohammad trying to steal money from a city leader who was also a banker (and a Jew) – the man was tortured to death, then his father in law killed and his wife taken as Mohammad’s “wife” and raped that very day in Mohammad’s tent. Also innocents slaughtered.

I suppose the Israelites committed horrors at God bequest (I don’t know Judaism well enough to know any details), but Christianity would be a different religion if Jesus himself were a cruel monster – in fact the religion it would be is called Islam.

ok, Josh. Next time I see an irate Christian I would remind him that the roots of his rage need to be traced to Jesus rage against the inocent merchants. Since there are plenty irate Christians in the world, I know what a hateful religion they follow.

I don’t have anything else to discuss with you. You are a scratched record.

And you have failed to make any relevant points. A non sequitur is not an argument.

Joshua: I have only used your superb argumentative tactic against you. If you consider that a non-sequitur, you make my point for me.

Well then you’ve obviously won if you have to tell us yourself.

Wonderful post !

Yes great stuff, the bigots will fail to grasp the message of course but I suppose if they were intelligent they wouldn’t be bigoted.

Everybody finished feeling good about themselves? Then it’s safe to put one’s head above the parapet.

Fabian, I am not a Christian but I have had a fairly extensive Christian education because I went to school in the days before Britain became ‘multifaith’ and ‘multicultural’. The story of Christ in the Temple is usually taken as evidence of his displeasure with swindling businessmen. Christianity as you know, has always encourage business, especially the Protestant variety. it was what enable Europe to build Empires based on trade. The essence of Christianity is ‘Love your neighbour’ not ‘Overturn the tables of the moneylenders.’.

Islam will change because it is confronting the modern world. it is not a surprise that revision is going on in Turkey, although whether that will be acceptable to the entrenched interests in the rest of the Muslim world is a moot point. Remember, Turkey wants to join the EC, and has to make its laws closer to Western European laws. When Sadiq Khan (MP for Tooting) spoke at the ‘Global Peace and Unity Conference’ in the Docklands, he quoted the a holy jpassage that said that Islam must be like a clear river, reflecting the riverbed beneath it. Thus, it changes its form to meet the situation it finds itself in. As it has predominently been in underdeveloped pre-industrial societies, it has not developed concepts to deal with urban, industrial society. We shall have to wait and see what happens, but the ordinary, decent Muslims need to raise their voices more.

By the way, I heard a long time ago that the reason Michael Foot said that ‘Peter Thatchell was not a recognised candidate for the Labour Party in Bermondsey and never would be’ was because he was misheard heckling and thought someone had yelled out ‘Tariq Ali’. I wonder if McCain, given his advanced years also misheard the question.

Wonderful post!

It isn’t. It can basically be summed up as “Please don’t be nasty to the murdering medievalists in case they kill us even more”.

This post has really sorted the late-nighters from the early-morning types. I’m in the latter group and have just read it. It’s terrific and very important. The call to take on bigots rather than just reading their trash, giving out a sigh and moving on to the next post can’t be repeated often enough – particularly if HP is going to retain its open comments policy, from which we all benefit.

For all those who are arguing about the various meanings and attitudes of the different religions, please remember that religious people do not follow the teachings of their religion (whichever one it is) consistently and unthinkingly. People are as contradictory, inconsistent and individual in their religious observance as in everything else:

What matters about a religion is how it is practiced, and what its adherents say and do.

This is why ‘Anti-Muslim bigotry’ is a more appropriate term than Islamophobia: because it is about ordinary people, and how this bigotry can ruin their lives.

I’d like to put forward another trait of anti-Muslim bigotry. (By the way, I wonder why you don’t just call it Islamophobia. It’s shorter and more official). That would be the tendency to only criticise Islam and no other religion. This assumes that there is something uniquely evil about it over and above the evil common to all religions. If anyone were to criticise Judaism and no other religion, they would rightly be called an anti-semite.

Field, as far as generalisation is concerned, well you are quite right. But if you want to generalise about Muslims you’d better be very, very knowledgeable. And if your purpose is to make people fearful of Muslims, as it seems to be, then you’d better be correct in your analysis.

You aren’t though. You don’t seem to accept any difference between the scriptures and the ethos. You keep referring to qualities in “Islam” as if these are taken for granted. But Muslims are manifestly diverse. The difference between Sufi and Salafi interpretation is immense. The interpretation of sharia in different countries also. So your “ideology” is a fiction insofaras you call it Islam, denying this diversity.

“The problem with anti-racist zealots is that they don’t stop there…”

Go ahead, construct a villainous cartoon character for me based on a couple of comments.

No, I’m not into moderating. I’m just wondering. If there weren’t the whole of the web to advance hateful ideologies, I would be a staunch defender of unrestricted commenting. As things are I’m not sure that moderation suits HP at all. But it’s worth asking. A lot of blogs moderate, after all.

Here we have David T focusing sharply on particular aspects of Islamism and carefully distinguishing between these and Islam in general. David T being careful not to inculcate stereotypes by, for example, posting Fiyaz Mughal today. What you’re telling me is that creating a whole argument round the premise that Islam is (amongst other things) a form of political totalitarianism, and indulging yourself by publishing your personal knee-jerk hostility to conservative Muslim women, both further to a post about avoiding anti-Muslim bigotry, is perfectly appropriate. I disagree.

So really I want to turn round the question and ask you how you avoid promoting anti-Muslim bigotry. What Nick Cohen refers to as “throat clearing” (i.e.putting in little clauses to give the impression of acknowledging exceptions to the bad, but actually only concentrating on the worst, most extreme elements of – in this case – Islam, and making much of their threat) doesn’t do the trick.

“Fabian, I am not a Christian but I have had a fairly extensive Christian education because I went to school in the days before Britain became ‘multifaith’ and ‘multicultural’. The story of Christ in the Temple is usually taken as evidence of his displeasure with swindling businessmen. Christianity as you know, has always encourage business, especially the Protestant variety. it was what enable Europe to build Empires based on trade. The essence of Christianity is ‘Love your neighbour’ not ‘Overturn the tables of the moneylenders.’.”

Sue R.: someone who does not believe in your religion can validly interpret the story of Jesus in the Temple as I have done in my 12 November 2008, 8:54 am message. A bigot like Joshua or Morgoth might then explain the behavior of Christians using this interpretation. That was what I tried to show. When you say: “The essence of Christianity is ‘Love your neighbour’ not ‘Overturn the tables of the moneylenders.’.” you are making a personal interpretation as valid as saying that “The essence of Islam is “Work for social justice” (as Fiyaz Mughal wrote in a later thread) and not “Be a pedophile”. A bigot will catch the latter and discard the former. A Christian bigot will say that Christian behavior can be explained by “Love your neighbor” and Muslim behavior by “Be a pedophile”, and a Muslim bigot will say that Christian behavior is explained by “Overturn the tables of the moneylenders” and Muslim behavior by “work for social justice”. I hope we all (except the bigots) agree that this is what we call bigotry.

“Christianity as you know, has always encourage business, especially the Protestant variety. it was what enable Europe to build Empires based on trade.”

To argue this for “Christianity” is false. The Church fathers were very much against trade and profit. Which doesn’t say much about what individual Christians did in practice.

I have to clarify that Fiyaz Mughal did not say that “the essence of Islam is ‘work for social justice’”. He only said that that is what Islam taught him.

So really I want to turn round the question and ask you how you avoid promoting anti-Muslim bigotry. What Nick Cohen refers to as “throat clearing” (i.e.putting in little clauses to give the impression of acknowledging exceptions to the bad, but actually only concentrating on the worst, most extreme elements of – in this case – Islam, and making much of their threat) doesn’t do the trick.

I can’t speak for Field, but for me, you have things arse about face. The default position in a post-Enlightenment technological society SHOULD be of complete hostility to theological irrationality – we can put people on the fucking moon and you’re telling me we should be accommodating to loons who get their morality systems from imaginary sky fairies and long-dead mass-murdering warlords?

Oh for 3001! It can’t come soon enough!

A bigot like Joshua or Morgoth..

Don’t bother explaining how denouncing Mohammad’s violent and oppressive example and teachings makes me a bigot because I don’t have enough respect for you to bother reading your reply.

Modernity, a resident apologist for murdering irrationality if there ever was one, probably thinks Voltaire and Richard Dawkins are bigots as well. If so, I am proud to stand on the shoulders of giants like those.

“Don’t bother explaining how denouncing Mohammad’s violent and oppressive example and teachings makes me a bigot because I don’t have enough respect for you to bother reading your reply.”

I will bother, because I know you will read it.
It is explained in my 12 November 2008, 10:51 am message.

David T: Seeing what has followed my 11.28pm request for an extension of your exposition to clarify the parameters of “legitimate” discussion of Mohamed’s marital history, the need for this is great.
You said at 12 November 2008, 12:33 am
You can tactfully ignore that problem.

What was that in reference to? Surely not the one I have raised?

hi, just visiting (don’t normally hang out at HP) and wanted to say i thought the original article was excellent – and the commentary more or less shows why the original article was needed.

b’shalom

bananabrain

If you really thing that what you wrote was relevant, Fabian, then you’ve demonstrated that you’re incapable of understanding what I wrote in this thread. Let’s not waste each other’s time. It is annoying that people don’t limit their criticisms to posts that they have at least a minimal comprehension of.

Oh for 3001! It can’t come soon enough!

The singularity will come well before then, rendering all religions obsolet

The singularity will come well before then, rendering all religions obsolete

I hope it does, but what is more likely is a Richard Matheson-esque new dark age where Theists go on a The Family-style rampage and drag humanity back to the dark ages. We’ve already seen the portents of this in Afghanistan with the Taliban reaction to Meterologists.

And David T has just announced he’s on the side of the Theists. Disgusting.

Where are the Colonel Robert Nevilles when you need them?

Morgoth

“The default position in a post-Enlightenment technological society SHOULD be of complete hostility to theological irrationality”

Disagree. From what I can gather, you don’t choose whether or not you believe in a higher being aka God. It could happen to you, Morgoth. Read some Graham Greene. And once you have a faith, it is quite natural (though not inevitable) to seek the companionship of a religious community, and the commentary of a theology. Being highly personal, neither are de facto incompatible with Enlightenment values or secularism. What you propose is needless belligerence based on misplaced fear.

So, having dealt with the “theology” what about the “irrationality”? We’ll never get rid of that, and nor do we want to. Goodbye lust and love, differences of opinion, emotional responses to sunsets. Hello homogeneity.

It could happen to you, Morgoth.

It did. I got better.

Give it up Morgoth – Enlightment values don’t mean bragging about your own “rationality” and gratuitously insulting religions and the religious day and night like a very boring and idiotic stuck record

Who is your Enlightenment guru – Aleister Crowley ?

I hold no brief for any religions but not all the religious are idiotic fundamentalists. You label all religious people of whatever type as morons – which is patently ridiculous and false.

Actually Muslim spokesmen invokes the inevitably of demographic conquest as a reason for why Islam will be triumphant. Do most Muslims disagree with this?

‘This’ being a reference to a MEMRI page where a number of Muslim clerics talk about triumph over Europe…by force of arms or ‘not by the sword but by preaching and ideology.’ None of the clerics said anything about demographic conquest.

So where does this idea of Muslim demographic conquest come from? In the last fifty years, the chief promoter has been the Serbian Orthodox Church and used mostly against the Kosovars but also against Bosnian Muslims. After 1989, this mindset became Serbian state policy, leading to the genocide of the Bosnians and the ethnocide of the Kosovars. It has, in fact, little to do with religion as both groups contain non-Muslims and their difference with Serbs (the centre of contention) is chiefly ethnic. Even put as the view of all Muslims in Europe, it still relies on the fact that people of all religions in some substantial ethnic minorities have more children than people of all religions in the majority population. The argument is fundamentally racist.

I haven’t generalised about Muslims. I’ve generalised about what Muslim ideologues say Islam is and means and I’ve indicated that Muslims who sincerely believe in what those ideologues teach, necessarily believe in those things.

From a brief reading of the internet, I can find out that Christian preachers believe that homosexuals should be killed, that everyone who doesn’t share their views will be killed when the world is shortly ended, that Christians should do everything they can to bring about the end of the world and that killing doctors who practice abortion will bring particular virtue. They say you can’t be a Christian unless you accept these things as true. Christians who sincerely believe what these preachers teach necessarily believe those things. Some of the things said by Ovadiah Yosef have been judged pretty extreme too.

Our difference is that I believe that some people who represent tiny groups of people, however powerful, shout very loudly and are not representative of many other than themselves. Otherwise it is amazing that such a ‘totalitarian’ (a curiously modern word for a seventh century movement, unless you describe other ways of life such as Catholicism and Judaism in the same way) system survives when the great majority of its believers manage to get through their whole lives without having underage sex or killing anyone.

On reflection only ultramontane Catholicism counts. The rest of Catholicism is prepared identify Caesar as someone other than the pontiff. Otherwise, like Islam and Judaism, it is designed to regulate the life of the individual in the smallest deatail.

What a load of trite bollocks some people come up with. Flesh Everywhere or should that be All Flesh is Grass? Do you think it is necessary to possess a religious consciousness to appreciate the more lyrical or spiritual aspects of life? Ridiculous person!

Fabian, I state I am not a Christian but I grew up in a country where Christian instruction of the CofE variety was compulsory. As I ws coming back from the shops just now, I was turning the tale of the money lenders in the Temple over in my mind. I think the reason you have singled out this one small tale is because it is the one that was used to outlaw the practice of usury among Christians but it was one of the few trades open to Jews, although charging usuary is outlawed in Judiasm I believe, pragmatically some Jews became money lenders. Also, in a predominently peasant society, Jews were not allowed to hold land. The other day the blood libel came up. A few weeks ago I read an article that said that one of the few trades open to Jews in medieval Europe was bloodcollecting. Blood was used in some industrial process, not sure which, but probably dying or tanning. This article was proposing that this was partly the origin for the blood libel, that in the popular mind, Jews were associated with blood. You obviously feel angry because you fell that the story of Jesus in the Temple is the cause of anti-semitism. I don’t think it was, it might have provided an explanation for grievances but it didn’t create those grievances.

There used to be a saying in this country (England) that ‘Trade follows the flag, and the flag follows the faith’. Missionaries were sent in to ’soften up’ non-European people and win them (or rather their chiefs, the populace just did as their chiefs ordered them) to Christianity. Once that was established, then military alliances could be made and then raw materials obtained and markets created. Religion was an integral part of Empire. Even Columbus, who is usually considered the first ‘European’ to ‘discover’ America was engaged on a religious quest, he was not searching for a new continent.

As for the future, I feel like I am living through the Fall of Rome. As Europe and America decline, we are seeing the rise of China which does not share all of the moral complexities that the working class in the industrial world have fought so hard to have acknowledged. The Middle East will not amount to much, they can’t even sit in a room with each other without arguing (ohh, aren’t I naughty!!!) so how are they ever going to provide stable societies for their inhabitants? I fear that the future for humanity is rather bleak. Sauve qui peut.

Steve F
As alway it depends where you look .

this paper states the Muslim birth rate is three times higher than the non Muslim one , what is your take on this ?

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/03middleeast_taspinar.aspx

Could I suggest that this problem also arises out of an increased cultural ignorance of the complexities and nuance of religion?

The result of people like Richard Dawkins spouting that religion should be judged solely on its dark underbelly then result in people applying precisely those principles to Islam. It takes a particularly hostile tone because that dark underbelly is more prominent and violent at this present turn in world affairs.

Likewise the hostility gets applied to Jews by associating the entire people with the behaviour of their co-religionists in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The problem is wider than just general hostility, but a manichean view of religions that forget there are good muslims and bad muslims, good jews and bad jews, and that religious texts can be selectively read to prove whatever point one wishes to make.

Steve F

maybe you should read this paper , for a balance opinion ?

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/03middleeast_taspinar.aspx

Enlightment values don’t mean bragging about your own “rationality” and gratuitously insulting religions

Ideas and ideologies can’t be insulted, only humans can be offended. It’s ridiculous nonsense that “intellectual” constructions can be offended.

Any ideology, communism, socialism, liberalism, capitalism, islam, christianity etc, shall be free game for any sort of criticism, deconstruction and ridicule.

Anyone have the right to propagate for ideologies and ideas. Personally I find it disgusting, almost offending, when I hear religious nutters propagate their superstitious nonsense claiming that their imaginary friend have spoken to some uneducated peasants in the dessert some thousand years ago.

But I have to live with that in a society that have tried to somewhat apply enlightment values.

I people fell offended and insulted if the is denied to control of the agenda in the public discourse it does testify of an almost unbounded self-righteousness and arrogance.

If ideas and ideologies exercise is in such a command of peoples emotional life that they have a need to restrict what other might say about their ideas and ideologies they should be offered help and treatment by society so they can be cured from this emotional disease that severely restrict their ability to functioning in the society.

“religious texts can be selectively read to prove whatever point one wishes to make.”

Text, shmext. Moses may have been a schizophrenic (probably was in my opinion) but that doesn’t change things too much for me in respect to my appreciation for Judaism. On the other hand, its not clear to me how Muslims could do the same with Islam if Mohammed came to be understood as a sociopath. Worshipping people is dangerous.

“I think the reason you have singled out this one small tale is because it is the one that was used to outlaw the practice of usury among Christians but it was one of the few trades open to Jews”

I chose that tale because, I was using the same bigoted argument against Christianity that Joshua applies to Islam. As most Christians would argue that what defines their religion is “love for your neighbor” or simply “love”, and that they try to follow Jesus footstepes “Imitatio Christi”, there is this episode in which Jesus behaves like a violent prick and that settles so uncomfortably with other episodes of his life that some antropologists have spoken about two different Jesuses…

But I could have chosen the Trinity as an example of the essential politeism of Christianity. And then built an argument like this: “you know why we have so much corruption these days? Because people make of everything a God (Drugs, Music idols, sex, etc). And this was made possible by the pervertion that Christianity introduced in the strict Jewish monotheism. Since you can have three Gods, why not a hundred?
Do you catch my drift? There is no end to the bigoted arguments I could build to denounce Christianity. But I only did that because I was trying to reason just like the bigot Joshua.
I don’t really care about Christian theology at all, except when it is used as a promoter of antisemitism.

“I chose that tale because, I was using the same bigoted argument against Christianity that Joshua applies to Islam.”

Why is it “bigoted” to criticize people-worship?

or proselyting?

JOSHUA SCHOLAR

It would be unseemly and disgusting to point out the extreme extent to which he was worshiped in his life, which apparently included his followers drinking his piss.

He was a shaman high on magic mushrooms? Similar has been said about Jesus (or, even, that he was the mushie).

SUE R

Christianity as you know, has always encourage business, especially the Protestant variety.

This is a spoof, right?

it was what enable Europe to build Empires based on trade.

Where was the trade with the Conquistadores?

Ooo, a new Niall Ferguson book is out.