Although it would be awesome if you would read something by a respected Muslim scholar. — Mongrel

There is an organisation called 'Muslims for Progressive Values: http://www.mpvusa.org . They make very clear statements against child marriage, fgm and in favour of women's and lbgt rights.

How are we to act? I read the Koran as a teenager and was shocked and appalled. But I was already agnostic, brought up without religion, and I read the Old Testament at the same time and was shocked and appalled by that too. (I'm not disagreeing that the two have different religious status, I'm just remembering how I felt)

Still, what is written in Holy books is not how people act. People act for present day reasons with present day values out of present day concerns. I live among Muslims and chat with them every day, they are workmates and friends of my wife's, they are fellow-students of mine at uni from faraway countries as well as Dewsbury and Leicester - how am I to act?

I just act in a friendly egalitarian fashion, while remaining true to my principles and opinions. I'm not going to debate hadith with the local shopkeeper, but the state of Pakistani and English cricket. When the moment comes to oppose, say, violence by British Asians, or fgm inflicted on British women, then I will and do. (I'm retired, my wife is a lawyer dealing with such cases alongside Muslim practitioners)

What I dislike about lists of what's wrong with the Koran, or generalized critiques of Islam, or indeed vague liberal affirmations of equality, is that they are so often silent on what action should be taken. What more is to be done other than to be a good citizen? The implication of silence by critics of Islam seems to me that we should oppose and restrict other people just because of their religion. I oppose that. I prefer the dangers of egalitarianism to the dangers of exclusion.

One of the salt of the earth Iraqis I've known and loved got old and finally died. Is it really news to you that the US is full of Muslims along with everybody else on the planet?

How should you act? Per your nature. It's in my nature to ask endless questions. The only sort who can't accept that are Japanese. Muslims will tell you anything you want to know.

Yep. The blame for an act of violence is on the perpetrator.

But when we take a break from judgement and try to understand, it's meaningful to ask how what gives rise to terrorism. How would you answer that?

Yep. The blame for an act of violence is on the perpetrator.

But when we take a break from judgement and try to understand, it's meaningful to ask how what gives rise to terrorism. How would you answer that? — Mongrel

Terrorists (Islamist and otherwise) act for any number of reasons: political, ideological, religious, military, etc. In some cases an extreme, violent interpretation of Islam gives rise to terrorism, which is a running theme in this thread.

But when we take a break from judgement and try to understand, it's meaningful to ask how what gives rise to terrorism. How would you answer that? — Mongrel

This Imam has the answers:

This Imam has the answers: — tom

And he's like the Pope so every Muslim should think this. Oh wait...

I didn't even watch the video because it's obvious it will state whatever your narrow views can take in without getting an epileptic seizure.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is in Australia. She is a Somali who fled her home country and religion and is well-known for her critical views of Islam:

"I see radical Islam as an ideology that is hostile to individual freedom. It’s an ideology that seeks to govern the relationship between the individual and God, between men and women, between believers and unbelievers, and it’s got very rigid lines about what people should and should not do. It’s an ideology that’s really hostile to free societies.

Since we [western leaders] have officially refused to link violent extremism to its roots in Islam, we have pretty much made a choice not to want to understand the problem."

Hirsi Ali’s central argument is that the liberal, democratic west, especially its political leaders but also western Muslims, have made a dangerous mistake in insisting, for well-intentioned reasons, that the rise of Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

She rejects the notion that the “root causes” of Islamist violence are issues such as poverty and corrupt governance and argues that its key tenets are derived from the foundational texts of Islam. She points out that many Muslim-majority countries, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, insist on a rigid and misogynist form of sharia law, incompatible with western notions of individual freedom and religious tolerance.

Her tour has attracted a lot of protests, with many Muslim activists describing her platform as 'hate speech':

“What we all disagree with is that Islam is the enemy of the west, it is not,” says Assafiri. “There is no clash between western democracy and Islam, and Muslim women do not need to be liberated or empowered from their Islam.” Her view is that the oppression of women in some Islamic countries is due to misogynistic male leaders and their rigid interpretation of texts.

I find Ayaan Hirsi Ali's arguments reasonably persuasive, and I think her opponents are at best looking at the issue through rose-coloured glasses.

//ps// Actually not in Australia and forthcoming Australia visit now cancelled due to security concerns.

It would be silly to call Hirsi Ali's statements 'hate speech', and I regret that some people do that. It makes it difficult to have a constructive discussion.

But it is also silly of Ali to say, as per your quote:

'the liberal, democratic west, especially its political leaders but also western Muslims, have made a dangerous mistake in insisting, for well-intentioned reasons, that the rise of Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.'

To say it has nothing to do with Islam is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church, or a Christian abortion-clinic bomber, has nothing to do with Christianity. Of course they have something to do with their respective religions.

But whether roots for anti-social behavior can be found in a religion is irrelevant. Roots for anti-social behavior can be found everywhere, even in the most benign forms of philanthropy. You'd understand that better than most, given your familiarity with Nagarjuna and the notion of Dependent Origination (Nothing happens in isolation from anything else!). The relevant question is (1) does somebody belonging to that religion of itself make it likely that they will be violent or abusive and (2) if so, what do we want to do about it?

Neither Ali nor anybody else has provided any evidence of 1, nor have I seen them make many practical suggestions about 2. The only practical suggestion I've seen from Ali is that Western governments ought to promote Christianity as a defence against Islam. Personally I think that's a terrible idea, but if anybody here seriously wants to back it, we could try to discuss it dispassionately.

To credibly argue the path taken by the West is a mistake, she needs to outline what alternative action she would take. Has she done that, other than the Christian thing? If so, what prescriptions has she made that you like? Suggesting we 'talk about how Islam is the problem' is not a prescription. Talk is cheap, and is not a public policy stance.

The only practical suggestion I've seen from Ali is that Western governments ought to promote Christianity as a defence against Islam. Personally I think that's a terrible idea — andrewk

I don't see how this would improve things either, particularly as the most violent countries in the world, as I mentioned before, are Christian, and in Africa where Ali comes from according to the same set of statistics I quoted earlier the top ten most violent countries in Africa are all majority Christian. Both Rwanda and Burundi are Christian too. Need I go on. I don't think these countries are violent because they are Christian, but Christian critics of Islam who claim that that religion is more violent than theirs either need to readjust their prejudices or be hoist with their own petard.

I do agree with Ali on much of what she says above about radical Islam. It's the conflation of radical Islam with Islam that I have a problem with.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is in Australia. — Wayfarer

Are you sure?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-39475462

Another victory for the "Religion of Peace".

I did add a note to my post later to say she'd cancelled. I had assumed she was already here because she was scheduled for a live TV show tonight.

I find Ayaan Hirsi Ali's arguments reasonably persuasive, and I think her opponents are at best looking at the issue through rose-coloured glasses. — Wayfarer

Hirsi Ali has been in public for a long time, but I have noticed that there a real niche for her kind of talkers: Muslims or former muslims that speak about how dangerous and evil Islam is. They are basically in the limelight to enforce the islamophobia and outright racism of people. After, what better to have than a former muslim talking about the perils of Islam.

I remember one of these speakers going as so far to defend and lie about the Crusades. But the people loved it, especially when she said that Jerusalem was only finally liberated from Muslim control By Israel (and forgetting what happened during WW1) the crowd started to cheer. Tells a lot of the crowd.

But anyway, you speak the things you get the money. And hence people talk what the public wants to hear.

They are basically in the limelight to enforce the islamophobia and outright racism of people. After, what better to have than a former muslim talking about the perils of Islam. — ssu

What do you mean by this? I take it to be an insinuation that ex-Muslims or moderate Muslims who criticize Islam or Islamism are merely Uncle Toms, bolstering basically racist prejudices. Is that right?

Do you think it is fair that vociferous criticism of Islam and Islamism coming from people from a Muslim background is repeatedly trashed, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been trashed by (especially Dutch) Leftists and liberals? Do you think moderate Muslims who would like to see an end to Islamic extremism or conservatism (like, for example, most French Muslims, according to surveys) are helped in any way when those who speak against Islamic extremism or against Islamic conservatism are vilified by the liberal cultural mainstream and the Left (as they are by the Islamists and Islamic conservatives themselves)? Is there any possibility of supporting moderate Muslims and allowing them to speak out and begin to turn the tide of contemporary Muslim ideology when liberals like you shoot down Muslims and ex-Muslims, accusing them of so-called Islamophobia?

If criticism of Islamic practices by Muslims and ex-Muslims is used by the Right--by those who peddle the Clash of Civilizations narrative, for example--doesn't this indicate, not that the criticisms are wrong, but that liberals and Leftists ought to be supporting them also, but from a different point of view? The fact that the Right has done quite well in monopolizing the criticism of Islam is not an argument for a liberal or Left defence of Islam. On the contrary.

Incidentally, I notice that the basic point I'm making here and which I always make in these discussions, while it is not intrinsically subtle, has become subtle.

To say it has nothing to do with Islam is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church, or a Christian abortion-clinic bomber, has nothing to do with Christianity. Of course they have something to do with their respective religions. — andrewk

I really don't think the Westbro Baptist church are representative of anything beyond themselves. Anti-abortion activism is another issue, but the bombing of abortion clinics is again hardly representative of Christianity.

I don't know what 'public policy' to advocate, but I note that Ali is instantly stigmatised as 'spreading hate speech' by many commentators. I haven't read her books - I have heard her interviewed on various TV shows and read some in-depth articles about her, and I think what she says needs to be heard. It might not be right, but notice that when it is categorised as 'hate speech' then outright censorship is not far behind. (A lot of the pointless blather about the 18c amendment was about this very point.)

Philosophical point - I think there is vast confusion about the meaning of 'equality'. Does 'equality' mean that 'everyone's opinion is equal'? That's what it seems to mean, especially when deployed in the service of identity politics. Earlier in this thread, there was the view that Muslims deserved respect because, and only because, they're individuals - there are no actual "Muslims" as an abstract type, only 'individuals who practice Islam'. So the actual principles of Islam aren't important - what's important, is that people hold the principles to be true, even if we ourselves can't agree that they're true. In other words, they're correct by dint of individual opinion, not because they actually possess any intrinsic truth.

As I said before, this attitude in itself is part of a worldview that takes itself to be reality - namely, the viewpoint of secular individualism. But in saying that, it is blind to the sense in which it is also a worldview, because it so thoroughly takes for granted it's own suppositions.

But 'individualism', as a political philosophy, began with the Christian West, because of the Christian view of the paramount importance of every person - Christ died for all regardless of their ethnicity or character or whatever. That is still a Christian principle (uniquely so, it can be argued.) And that is the deep reason behind the absolute commitment to personal freedom in the West. But now the individual is no longer beholden to a higher law or moral principle; that part of the Christian dispensation has been in large part discarded. Now there is no higher moral authority than the individual; the idea that there might be a 'moral law' is almost universally disdained in secular cultures (it is almost axiomatically rejected on Dharmawheel, I've noticed, because, I think, most of the contributors are Western.)

So this underlies a lot the asymmetries in this debate. The Liberal West grants 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of religion' to Muslims - but with it comes a conception of human freedom, and human rights, which is quite alien to Islam itself. (That was the meaning of that NY Times opinion piece I referenced, by the Muslim, questioning the degree to which Muslims ought to accept liberalism - see Is Free Speech Good for Muslims?.)

So if you want to know what public policy I see coming out of this, I think it's called 'vast confusion', sautéed with equal parts political correctness, on one side, and xenophobia, on the other. Welcome to modernity.

What do you mean by this? I take it to be an insinuation that ex-Muslims or moderate Muslims who criticize Islam or Islamism are merely Uncle Toms, bolstering basically racist prejudices. Is that right? — jamalrob

Seems like an accurate precis to me! Interestingly, while Muslims protect their religion through violence, the Left defends Islam by labeling its critics is such a way as to permit violence towards them.

Do you think moderate Muslims who would like to see an end to Islamic extremism or conservatism (like, for example, most French Muslims) — jamalrob

France? A report on radicalism among the youth of France has been delayed until after the French Presidential election, over fears its conclusions will boost support for Marine Le Pen.

Here are some highlights:

32% of young Muslims in France adhere to 'fundamentalist views.'
33% believe violence for 'ideological' goals is acceptable.
24% of young Muslims do not condemn the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
21% do not condemn the Bataclan massacre.

https://lejournal.cnrs.fr/nos-blogs/face-au-terrorisme-la-recherche-en-action/une-vaste-enquete-sur-la-radicalite-chez-les

It might be that opinions among Muslims have changed since the survey I'm thinking of, which I think was from a few years ago. I may look it up later.

Meanwhile, let us spare a thought for this guy, sentenced to death for something he said on social media when he was 19:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/iranian-man-sina-dehgham-death-sentence-insult-islam-muslim-line-messaging-app-arak-prison-amnesty-a7658466.html

They are basically in the limelight to enforce the islamophobia and outright racism of people. — ssu

Please remind me when "Islam" became a "race." I must have missed that.

Please remind me when "Islam" became a "race." I must have missed that. — Arkady

Here's another limelighting uncle tom:

the bombing of abortion clinics is again hardly representative of Christianity. — Wayfarer

It is also hardly representative of religiously-motivated terrorism, except by those who are deliberately obfuscating, or who are ignorant of statistics (and I'm not saying that you're one of them, mind you). This simply draws a false equivalency between the frequency and deadliness of Christian and Islamic terrorism.

To all those who believe that all religions are equally-violent, I invite them to participate in a little experiment. I will go to Salt Lake City, Utah and put on a performance of the musical The Book of Mormon. You go to Riyadh or Islamabad or Jakarta (your choice) and put on a performance of a new musical called The Muhammad Monologues. Then let's compare notes as to our respective experiences doing so (assuming that we're both alive to do so; there's a distinct chance that one of us won't be).

You go to Riyadh or Islamabad or Jakarta (your choice) — Arkady

Alternatively, you could just try to give a talk against FGM and violence towards women in AUSTRALIA and see what happens.

Terrorists (Islamist and otherwise) act for any number of reasons: political, ideological, religious, military, etc. In some cases an extreme, violent interpretation of Islam gives rise to terrorism, which is a running theme in this thread. — Arkady

I think all we can do is speculate based on what we know about human nature. Some have speculated that ISIS might have wanted to create anti-Muslim sentiment in the west so that western Muslims would come back home.

That may be bullshit, but I think it touches on the reason that folks who imagine that Islam will transform itself starting in the west are just ignoring the threat the secular west poses to Islam. It's called assimilation.

A religion is more violent in proportion to its entanglement with the state, given that the state has the monopoly on [so-called legitimate] violence. In the Islamic tradition (which is not to say that there are no Muslims nowadays who disagree with that tradition), the state is supposed to be "Islamic".

If we focus on the contrast between Christianity and Islam, this is one of the main distinctions between the Christian and the Islamic worldview (I'm comparing the traditional views here). Christianity took some centuries to develop political thought and to explore the interaction between the Church and the State, since the founding documents (Gospel + Epistles) are very neutral on the subject of "what the state should look like". Islamic founding documents are not neutral in that regard.

If we look at the matter from a more universal viewpoint, looking at other religions as well as C+I, we see the correlation doing well -- the more entangled the religious institutions and the state institutions, the more violent the religion (i.e., the more willing it is to use the power of the state to enforce its tenets), and the more violent are the reactions to that religion. We can look at Hindus x Buddhists in India, or at Communism x Islam+Christianity in China, for example.

The real problem with violence is at the level of the state, not of religions.

The real problem with violence is at the level of the state, not of religions. — Mariner

Do you think Islamic states kill apostates, kill atheists, kill blasphemers, kill witches, kill gays ... because they are states or because they are Islamic?

No doubt, because they are states. All it takes to establish that is to observe that Islamic minorities in non-Islamic states do not kill all of those people. In other words, statehood is a requirement for those killings; Islam isn't.

No doubt, because they are states. All it takes to establish that is to observe that Islamic minorities in non-Islamic states do not kill all of those people. In other words, statehood is a requirement for those killings; Islam isn't. — Mariner

Indeed. We can also observe that Islamic states kill people who simply are deemed to be enemy of the state, regardless of religious motive, and also that non-Islamic states have killed more than one hundred million innocent people for various reasons in the 20th century alone.

No doubt, because they are states. All it takes to establish that is to observe that Islamic minorities in non-Islamic states do not kill all of those people. In other words, statehood is a requirement for those killings; Islam isn't. — Mariner

Why is it that the only states that kill apostates, blasphemers, witches, gays, and permit child-marriage are Islamic?

Indeed. We can also observe that Islamic states kill people who simply are deemed to be enemy of the state, regardless of religious motive, and also that non-Islamic states have killed hundreds of millions of innocent people for various reasons in the 20th century alone. — Pierre-Normand

So killing atheists is fine because other people have done nasty stuff?

So killing atheists is fine because other people have done nasty stuff? — tom

No. It's not fine. I was merely reinforcing Mariner's point, which you ignored.

Tom, all of those events (killings and marriages) have been observed in many other kinds of states than Islamic ones, including Pagan, Christian, Hindu, Communist, etc. You are looking only at a very thin slice of reality when you restrict these events to Islamic states.

Remember that a Roman persecution against Christians (for example) was a "killing of apostates and blasphemers".