I particularly liked this paragraph:-

“It came as a surprise to commentators over here … that Europe’s most liberal country could be the most antithetical to Islam. A fabulous misapprehension: Holland was the most antithetical to Islam because it was the most liberal. Its people looked at the corpse of van Gogh and saw what Islam could be like. ‘Education by death’ is how one liberal Dutch commentator wryly described it to me.”

Enjoy:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5592733/p…

Off-topic FYI: In case you missed it, a couple of nights ago Stephen Gash of the SIOE wrote a belated reply to you on the “Secular Muslims/open letter” thread:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6595#co…

And I wouldn’t feel so paranoid about this if I trusted our institutions. You have remarked yourself of how, for some reason, we are reluctant to challenge or criticise the “extreme” beliefs of Muslims in the public and political platform. The day I see this happening will be the day I cease feeling so fearful.

I agree that there is a double-standard when it comes to bigotry, and that's something that needs to be rectified. And that there are a several factors that explain why this is.

In this debate, Random Guy asked, “what do you think is the percentage of Muslims who have been killed for apostasy in the last…oh, the last year or so?” I responded not many, but the threat is sufficient. And if you asked me “how many people have been killed for challenging the “extreme” beliefs of Muslims, I’d say not many. But a number of those who have live in fear of assassination. That’s enough to silence much of the debate that needs to be had.

What proof do you have that people are afraid of assassination? By the way, if 70% of the population say they support the death penalty, does it mean that they believe they should assassinate people they believe commit certain crimes?

I believe that all revealed religions have the capacity to become malevolent and, given a modicum of power, that capacity is almost always actualised. I think history supports me in this. Many people would claim that religion is a force for good, I would say that that is the case only when the religion in question is without even a jot of temporal power and even then I would be very doubtful. The Quakers, maybe.

In my view, History also shows that *any* fundamentalist belief in a position of power has been tyrannical. Communism and Nazism in the 20th century were not driven by metaphysical gods, but they were responsible for the biggest genocides, well, ever. The implication here is that the main culprit is fundamentalism which leads to imposing a particular belief to the masses (see any totalitarian regime), and not the belief or the religion itself.

As for the debate on whether religion can be a force of good, we need to wait until someone creates a thread on the subject.

THE CLIMATE CHANGE REFUGEES ARE A-COMING!

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/12/here-they-come-right-…

Mind you, if the Arctic IS warming up, Spitzbergen and Baffin Island and Novaya Zemblya may be quite agreeable in the VERY near future!

Right on cue:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/…

'UK should open borders to climate refugees, says Bangladeshi ministerEurope and US should also be responsible for millions who will be displaced by climate change, says Abul Maal Abdul Muhith'

'He called on the UN to redefine international law to give climate refugees the same protection as people fleeing political repression. “The convention on refugees could be revised to protect people. It's been through other revisions, so this should be possible,” he said.'

I do understand, of course, that Islam is not a race. Perhaps I should have made myself clearer, the overwhelming majority of moslems are moslems by accident of birth – I doubt that converts comprise any significant proportion. Being born into a moslem family in a moslem country/community and raised & schooled in Islam means that it would be rare indeed for such a child to even conceive of an alternative. Only once a certain level of education and cosmopolitan awareness has been reached does apostasy become an option. A child born into a racist family, on the other hand, will be aware from very early on that this attitude is widely challenged and is subject to social disapproval.

…you wouldn’t believe that all ideologies are morally equivalent. You’d accept that Nazism is different to communism, capitalism is different to socialism, and democracy is different to totalitarianism.

How is it such an intellectual leap for you to acknowledge that Islam is different to Catholicism or Judaism?

I would agree that the Islam you describe is diffferent to Catholicism or Judaism, but you are describing a (no doubt real enough) version of Islam which is far from universal and, as we seem to have established, is in fact a minority version. Your conclusion, that Islam is inherently different and far worse than other religions does not follow from this. The best conclusion it can support is that there is a current strain of Islam which is qualitively different from most current strains of other religions.

Catholicism was, for by far the greater part of its history, as violent, oppressive and malevolent as any extremist group can be. If we go back far enough, so was Judaism. Judaism long since grew out of that, but we can still discern many of those malevolent traits within the current Catholic church.

You mentioned communism. One could very easily make the case that the communism of Pol Pot was vicious, murderous and utterly destructive, In fact, you would need to be Noam Chomsky not to make that case. But you could not reasonably from that conclude that the communists in 1920's Glasgow were also vicious, murderous and utterly destructive.

You have repeatedly described me as a moral relativist, but I don't believe that I am. I prefer to think that I am careful not to make hasty generalisations just because they might agree with my gut feelings. In fact, the more something feels right, the more I tend to examine it.

As a secularist and an atheist it would actually feel comfortable for me to say 'Islam is an outdated and barbaric belief system which has negative consequences wherever it becomes a significant force.' It seems to me, however, that your argument (explicitly or implicitly) adds the words 'uniquely' and 'inevitably'. It is there that I disagree with you.

I believe that all revealed religions have the capacity to become malevolent and, given a modicum of power, that capacity is almost always actualised. I think history supports me in this. Many people would claim that religion is a force for good, I would say that that is the case only when the religion in question is without even a jot of temporal power and even then I would be very doubtful. The Quakers, maybe.

But more than any of that, I believe that the basic principles of democracy and hard won freedoms must be paramount. I think you have more than once shown that in your personal and often emotional hostility to this specific religion you would be willing to compromise and even abandon those principles. Hence the question I asked you and to which you replied.

I understand that you believe that Islam per se threatens those principles, but you do not defend a principle by dumping it when convenient.

“As long as it is 8 out of 47, you can't say it is a fundamental part of Islam.”

Okay. I get your point. It’s a valid one. Whatever I or anyone else believes, it is wrong to say “fundamental part of Islam”. I recognise that Islam can have an almost infinite number of interpretations.

It would be better to write, “A fundamental part of Islam as it is currently being interpreted by a significant number of leading Islamic scholars and believed by a significantly large number of Muslims.”

Would you accept that statement?

“Yes, consternation to these Islamists and yourself, who seem to think they know better about the fundamentals of Islam.”

Fair point. I’ll accept that I and millions of Muslims throughout the world have misunderstood the intention of the various sura and hadith that appear to support killing converts. (This isn’t sarcasm, I’ve thought about this and am trying to see things your way).

“I get your point that 33% of Muslims thinking they people should receive capital punishment for converting shows that there is a considerable disconnect from the society they live in.”

This has nothing to do with a “disconnect” and everything to do with those people’s understanding of Islam. Support for killing converts exists among significant numbers of Muslims throughout the world. The challenge is to persuade those people that it is un-Islamic. And this can only happen if everyone who believes in freedom, whether Muslim or not challenges Islamic scholars, leaders and institutions to publicly denounce the killing of apostates and seek to prove to Muslims everywhere, that those attitudes are not Islamic, if that’s what we’re saying is the case.

“I do not think though that you made a convincing case that this particular point is a fundamental part of Islam, when a small minority of countries (20%) and our Muslim population (33%) accepts it as such.”

Okay. But it is a view shared by a significantly large part of the Muslim population as to be very worrying.

“What is relevant is how people interpret it. And it is a fact – not an opinion – that in the Muslim world, you have different interpretations, and an on-going debate between reformists and conservatives, pretty much like what we had in Europe during the Reformation. “

I accept your point. However, there is no evidence that the reformists are or ever will win the debate. The opposite appears to be the case. But we can help the reformists, by refusing to be silenced in our criticism of the various intolerant and violent interpretations of Islam currently being preached, supported and believed within our Muslim population.

“You say that Islam only leads to the same interpretation as the version of Osama Bin Laden. Funny how you give more credibility to extremists than the majority of Muslims.”

I say that the extremists have some powerful, often theologically convincing, arguments that can be difficult to counter in an Islamic context. I’m not convinced that they will ultimately lose the argument.

Don’t forget that the late Ayatollah Khomeini is not seen as being an “extremist” by many millions of Shia Muslims, despite the very “extreme” interpretation of Islam he advocated. On the contrary, he continues to be revered and respected by millions of Shia Muslims throughout the world, whilst the reformist I mentioned earlier, the Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, languishes under house arrest.

However, let’s continue go with your faith that the reformists will ultimately win this argument, and the “extremists” will wither and die over time.

Do you believe that there is anything that we as a society can do to help the reformers? Surely our reluctance to expose, confront, challenge, criticise or even acknowledge the “extremist” views held by many so called “moderate” Muslims is hardly helping the reformists.

Let’s put those Guardian darlings, Inayat Bunglawala and Tariq Ramadan on Newsnight and give them the ‘Nick Griffin’ treatment.

“Under what conditions do you believe that it is acceptable to kill a convert, a homosexual or a woman who has sex outside of marriage?”

And let Paxman keep pushing and pushing until he gets a straight answer.

“An interpretation that makes Muslims eternal enemies of the West and the kuffar, who ultimately want to Islamify and subjugate Europe. This is just paranoia, and a deep distrust of the strength of our liberal democracy and our institutions.”

Well Ravi, there are plenty of Muslim leaders and Muslim’s themselves who subscribe to that point of view, although these days, most talk of conquering Europe through demographics rather than war.

And I wouldn’t feel so paranoid about this if I trusted our institutions.

You have remarked yourself of how, for some reason, we are reluctant to challenge or criticise the “extreme” beliefs of Muslims in the public and political platform.

The day I see this happening will be the day I cease feeling so fearful.

In this debate, Random Guy asked, “what do you think is the percentage of Muslims who have been killed for apostasy in the last…oh, the last year or so?” I responded not many, but the threat is sufficient.

And if you asked me “how many people have been killed for challenging the “extreme” beliefs of Muslims, I’d say not many. But a number of those who have live in fear of assassination.

That’s enough to silence much of the debate that needs to be had.

Well as long as it’s only 8, then we shouldn’t be concerned should we?

As long as it is 8 out of 47, you can't say it is a fundamental part of Islam.

If you hadn’t noticed, the majority of Muslim majority countries don’t apply Islamic law to its full extent much to the consternation of what we call ‘Islamists’ throughout the world.

Yes, consternation to these Islamists and yourself, who seem to think they know better about the fundamentals of Islam.

Well I’d say it is as demonstrated here:
“A poll conducted by the Policy Exchange last year suggested that over a third of young British Muslims believe that the death penalty should apply for apostasy.”

I get your point that 33% of Muslims thinking they people should receive capital punishment for converting shows that there is a considerable disconnect from the society they live in.

I do not think though that you made a convincing case that this particular point is a fundamental part of Islam, when a small minority of countries (20%) and our Muslim population (33%) accepts it as such.

If you really believe that Islam is fundamentally ‘moderate

As I keep telling you, I do not try to interpret what Islam or Christianity are. Because it is not only irrelevant, but can lead you to the wrong conclusion – which is what you are doing. What is relevant is how people interpret it. And it is a fact – not an opinion – that in the Muslim world, you have different interpretations, and an on-going debate between reformists and conservatives, pretty much like what we had in Europe during the Reform.

You say that Islam only leads to the same interpretation as the version of Osama Bin Laden. Funny how you give more credibility to extremists than the majority of Muslims. An interpretation that makes Muslims eternal enemies of the West and the kuffar, who ultimately want to Islamify and subjugate Europe. This is just paranoia, and a deep distrust of the strength of our liberal democracy and our institutions.

It is interesting though how humans are so obsessed with 'cultural symbols'. What's a minaret? nothing..any religious person ought not be obsessed with materialisms, as 'god' is everywhere. Its funny that the Swiss would think this to be such a problem that they need to go and hold a referendum on it.

Bunch of traditionalist conservatives on 'either' side. Who cares about symbols and tradition? They do. Who likes to ban things if they think its not 'part of their group's heritage'? they do! Muslims are always going on at Hindus for worshipping 'idols' in temples – and call them idol worshippers, yet they are perfectly happy to hang on to their 'icons' and throw stones at “devils” and go around black cubes. Everyone thinks their 'group' and their 'tradition' is better than someone else's – and now we are seeing this 'clash' manifest itself as 'we' got here first, so our group can impose its idea on individuals, over your 'group's idea.

Indian style communalism seems to have infected everyone. What we need to stand up for is individual liberty, and stop seeing individuals as 'group A' vs. group B. the leadership of both groups are trying to control individuals/.

“Reza, do you renounce unequivocally, the killing or punishment of all innocent people in all wars perpetrated by or instigated by Western powers since the beginning of the 19th century?”

Yes I do. I believe that most people would. With respect to your caveat “innocent”.

“Do you also renounce unequivocally, the racism and colonialism exhibited by the British in the early parts of the 20th century?”

Racism yes. Colonialism belonged to another time. One can no more renounce British colonialism of the early parts of the 20th century then they could renounce the Persian, Roman or Austro Hungarian empires.

However, it is possible to renounce, unequivocally, colonialism today. That I would do.

“And the neo-imperialsim of the early years of the 21st?”

If you are speaking of the campaign to force Western ideas of democracy onto unwilling peoples such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, then I unequivocally renounce it.

“How moderate do you think your own ideology is?”

Well clearly it is not very moderate within a left-wing multiculturalist blog. However, I oppose killing anyone for anything and certainly not for ‘thought-crimes’ such as changing religions or ‘sex-crimes’ such as sex outside of marriage or homosexuality.

“Oh and one more question – as a proportion of 1.6 Billion people, what do you think is the percentage of Muslims who have been killed for apostasy in the last…oh, the last year or so?”

Not many. However, the few killings that are carried out, together with the very hostile attitudes that exist among Muslims with regard to apostasy succeed in terrorising ex-Muslims. This is similar the situation with ‘honour’ killings. You don’t need many actual killings in order to terrorise large numbers of girls into accepting forced marriage etc.

“I think you talk a lot of bs, to be honest, based more on conjecture than on hard evidence. I am sure if we stack up the number of people killed by the ideology you support, compared to the one you are so busy trying to stir shit up against, that reality will kick you in the ass.”

Please don’t presume that I am a Neo-con. For me, Neo-cons are the other side of the coin to multiculturalists and unconstrained globalisationists.

I believe that the West should take care of its own affairs, treat other countries with respect and allow them to find their own way forward in this world based upon their national culture and values.

“I think you are making a false equivalence between those who choose to form or join a group which is based on excluding or hostilty towards 'the other' and those who are defined by the religion into which they are born. By which I mean that one becomes a member of the BNP because of one's pre-existing hostility towards non-whites while one is a moslem by accident of birth.”

I think your argument is muddled here. Islam isn’t a race. It is a religion. An ideology. Someone (of any colour) can be born to ‘racist’ parents and raised a ‘racist’. That doesn’t mean that their views (if we have established them as being unacceptable) should be tolerated or appeased within society.

Anyone can choose to become a Muslim (although, according to a very large number of Muslims, a Muslim cannot choose to stop being a Muslim).

“No doubt you can cite chapter and verse in which moslems are urged to despise polytheists and kuffar, but I could equally cite personal experience of when I was young, dumb and reckless in moslem majority countries, where I would have been up shit creek big style had it not been for the hospitality, kindness and decency of countless (moslem) strangers. Who assumed I was a christian but who bailed me out anyway.”

I have similar experiences to you, in particular backpacking in Eastern Turkey. Indeed most of my relatives are ‘Muslim’ by birth. Most of my close relatives ‘nominally’ so (some loathe Islam as much as I do). Some on the other hand are quite devout. I’m actually related to this guy:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohsen_Araki

I reject any prejudice towards individual Muslims. However, I argue that Islam is fundamentally, a dangerous, intolerant and expansionist ideology.

“Prejudice” means to pre-judge. It is wrong to assume that a Muslim holds unpleasant or ‘extremist’ views just because they are a Muslim. On this I disagree with people like Stephen Gash from SIOE.

However, I believe that it is appropriate to acknowledge that certain problems exist explicitly and disproportionally within the Muslim ‘group’.

And whether or not those problems are said to be due to ‘misinterpretation’, it is acceptable to challenge Muslims (and in particular so-called Muslim leaders) to establish whether or not their views are “extreme”.

For example, if I were interviewing someone who introduced the fact that they were a practicing Muslim (this happens often) I believe that it would be appropriate to ask them how they would respond to the gay people we have working here. I would further like to ask them if they believed that, in an ‘ideal world’, homosexuals should be killed. And if they said “yes”, then I believe that it would be appropriate to refuse to employ them.

Now I’ll pre-empt an example of moral equivalence.

Some Christians may also have an objection to homosexuality. I would question them too. However, those Christians would believe that homosexuals will be punished in the next life and not this one.

Islam is different to all major religions in that respect.

Unfortunately, I’d be reluctant to ask these questions as they could leave me open to charges of discrimination and the risk of an unlimited pay-out at an industrial tribunal.

Now you would say that I should ask everyone I interview whether they thought homosexuals should be killed. That is after all the default mantra of a moral relativist. I would respond by saying that this would be ridiculous. Supporting killing people for sex outside of marriage (which is the main religious basis for killing homosexuals) is to all intents and purposes an Islamic monopoly.

“As an atheist I think the religion as such is just as much about being suckered by a charismatic con-man as Scientology or Mormonism and historically has been as bloody as Catholicism. But I would no more regard an observant moslem as being a threat or an enemy than I would an observant catholic or jewish person. Why would I? However much I might disagree with their world view.”

Don, as an intelligent person, you wouldn’t believe that all ideologies are morally equivalent. You’d accept that Nazism is different to communism, capitalism is different to socialism, and democracy is different to totalitarianism.

How is it such an intellectual leap for you to acknowledge that Islam is different to Catholicism or Judaism?

After all religions are also ideologies.

Finally Don, earlier in the debate, you asked me some questions here:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6701#co…

And I answered you here:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6701#co…

Oh and one more question – as a proportion of 1.6 Billion people, what do you think is the percentage of Muslims who have been killed for apostasy in the last…oh, the last year or so? I think you talk a lot of bs, to be honest, based more on conjecture than on hard evidence. I am sure if we stack up the number of people killed by the ideology you support, compared to the one you are so busy trying to stir shit up against, that reality will kick you in the ass.

“Therefore, it would be un-Islamic for a Muslim to kill an ex-Muslim in this country…”

Should have read:

“Therefore, it would be un-Islamic for a Muslim to kill a Muslim who converts, as an apostate in this country…”

(Is it possible to edit comments after they've been posted?)

“Fundamental part?”

Yes, according to the four major Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence as well as the major Shia school. I know that there are also prominent scholars who refute this.

“As far as I know, there are 8 Muslims countries (out of 47) that actually apply the death penalty to apostasy. I guess you need to tell the other countries that they are missing on the fundamentals of Islam.”

Well as long as it’s only 8, then we shouldn’t be concerned should we? If you hadn’t noticed, the majority of Muslim majority countries don’t apply Islamic law to its full extent much to the consternation of what we call ‘Islamists’ throughout the world.

“It is not really a problem in Britain, is it?”

Well I’d say it is as demonstrated here:

“A poll conducted by the Policy Exchange last year suggested that over a third of young British Muslims believe that the death penalty should apply for apostasy.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7355515.stm

However, it should be understood that many Muslim scholars describe the West as being the “Dar al-Amn” or “house of safety” with regard to Muslims living there. And as long as Muslims living there are allowed to practice their religion and are not driven from their homes, then there a covenant is deemed to exist. Muslims in those lands must not make war on their co-nationals in that land and they must obey the laws of that land. Therefore, it would be un-Islamic for a Muslim to kill an ex-Muslim in this country, (and it is also un-Islamic for British Muslims to blow British people up in Britain).

Unfortunately, organisations like SIOE do not understand these subtleties and subsequently weaken their argument, however much merit it may have in other respects.

Notwithstanding the above, I believe that the mere fact that a Muslim supports the killing of converts in other countries or envisages it as something desirable should Britain become a Muslim land, has to be considered as an “extremist” viewpoint.

“And there is an on-going debate in the Muslim world on whether the death penalty should be actually applied because it contradicts parts of the Koran.”

I know there is. Perhaps there’s hope yet.

In Iran, Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri has argued that killing converts is un-Islamic and that many aspects of sharia law should not be applied unless there is a pure Islamic world. And he believes that that world will only come into existence following the return of the missing Imam or Mahdi.

Nevertheless, in practical terms, scholarly interpretation is less relevant than the number of Muslims who believe something to be true.

If you really believe that Islam is fundamentally ‘moderate’, if you really believe that the “extremist” views of many Muslims come from a misinterpretation of Islam, then surely you of all people should support my wish to define “extreme” and “moderate” Islam then challenge leading Muslim scholars in Britain to confirm that they do not support what have been defined as “extreme” views, such as killing converts, here or anywhere else.

But persephone, I thought it was the accepted wisdom that the BNP are extremists. You know they’re extremists. I know they’re extremists.

What purpose would my writing to them achieve?

As for the SIOE, I have spoke to Stephen Gash years ago, when the organisation was first established in the UK. I discussed my view that SIOE must target the ideology of Islam and not individual Muslims. I also repeated that view to him here:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6595#co…

And he responded to me here:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6595#co…

As for the EDL, I’m not sure what they stand for. I’m not even certain that they’re an ‘organisation’ as such. Simply a group of disaffected people wishing to demonstrate their frustrations. If they had an intelligent leader then yes, I might write to them too, in the same vein as I wrote to Stephen Gash.

I have written to Muslim organisations and prominent individuals (and met with them) because I am aware that there is a hypocrisy and even ‘cover-up’ going on in the Islamic establishment throughout the West, which is being ignored by the liberal establishment. Stephen Gash would call it “taghieh” or “kitman”. In most of these contacts my fears have been vindicated.

Just as the BNP leadership have a policy of choosing their words carefully to try to hide their extremist views, so many Muslim organisations and prominent individuals do in order to play down the fundamental and extremist nature of Islam.

However much you may loathe my views, this is a very important issue, it affects us all, and is one that any true “progressive” organisation should take up.

The excellent questions PP put to the BNP and the subsequent analysis exposed that organisation for what it is.

Why couldn’t PP carry out a similar exercise with prominent Muslim organisations and individuals? Let’s find out just how “moderate” they are.

I’d happily help phrase the questions. As the PP BNP exersise demonstrated, it is vital that they are phrased properly.

“muslim asking for special treatment”

this kind of nonsense is what the bnp spout but oh of course your going to tell us next your not a racist and you have many black friends too i suppose!