I live in an area with a fairly high proportion of Muslim residents, in the UK, though not in one of the cities generally thought to have an integration problem. There’s a madrasa on my street, three mosques within a 10 minute walk, and women wearing burqua are not a rare sight. I’ve noticed a definite push this year from the local Muslims for more integration and openness with the non-Muslim community. I’ve had invitations to mosque open days, there was a community iftar open to everyone (after sunset meal during Ramadan, which was one night held on the street, with a general invite to all), and people from the closest mosque even went round the local area knocking on doors, and gave every house a box of chocolates for Eid, with a card written by the kids (they were good chocolates too).
I’ve been living here a few years; there was a mosque open day last year (when the new, very pretty, mosque was built), but otherwise no attempts to reach out to non-Muslims. It definitely seems like the Muslim community has decided there is at least the perception of an integration problem, and is trying to remedy that. Friends from other UK cities have mentioned getting Eid presents from neighbours this year for the first time as well.
No, but we’d be discussing people’s actions and judging them based on their consequences, legality, etc. There’s nothing wrong with that. In this hypothetical, if the Mormon Nawaz stood up and said “This isn’t enough, there’s a problem with Mormonism itself and we need to reform Mormonism”, I would expect the following:
People agreeing with him and buying his books.
Mormons would cease to trust him because he doesn’t seem to be talking to them, but to this other audience.
Nothing much useful accomplished from anything he said or did.
We already have the tools to counter terrorism. Our government uses them all the time. A vast majority of the time these tools are successful. Leiter, based on his successful experience, suggested we build trust among Muslims and fight the means by which extremist messages are obtained by impressionable kids. That’s primarily via the internet. He had a number of other funding suggestions as well. These seem like rational approaches with proven results.
But I don’t know what to do with “The problem is Islam itself - it’s a political ideology and a religion”. Whether the statement is true, I don’t know what there is to be gained by spending a lot of time discussing it.
Uzi, if you have a point to make, just make it.
Filbert, that sounds great! I just mentioned Leiter and his point about building trust, I guess it can be viewed as a two-way street and what you describe is a great way to do it.
Firstly, it was difficult to parse your sentence. Secondly, I get the impression, knowing somewhat of the two authors mentioned, that given what they are saying then any criticism of the religion makes someone a charlatan. Do you consider that true? What level of criticism is then acceptable especially from those who have suffered at the hands of the ‘Religion of peace’?
Any religion can be problematic if bent to political ends, just as any other ideology can be. The degree to which Islam (or any religion) is bent to that purpose is absolutely a topic of key importance.
You seriously don’t think there is any benefit in discussing it?
Thank you all for your thoughts thus far. I am a bit pressed for time right at this moment so I will respond in more detail to other posters later, but I did just want to make one point that i think is important.
I think there are two issues here. One is violent activity in the name of Islam. The other is “extremist” beliefs (which I personally consider to be the idea that democracy is incompatible with Islam and that Muslims should avoid interaction with non-Muslims to whatever degree is possible) within certain Muslim communities in the UK, and the segregation and mistrust that those beliefs bring, even if these beliefs do not lead to violent activity.
Of course there is some link between violent activity (terrorism) in the name of Islam, and extremist thoughts. But the number of people who become violent are an acknowledged tiny minority, while it seems like the number of people who harbor radical viewpoints may be much larger.
Is the possibility that large numbers of the muslim British population harbor these beliefs a problem? Is the fact that they are largely segregated from the rest of Britain, partly on the basis of these beliefs, partly for other reasons, a problem? If so, how do we go about remedying it? Or, even if it seen as a problem for whatever reason, should we not take any particular action, and assume that it will self-correct with time?
There is. The important thing is to distinguish between the way in which a religion is used (or misused) and the fundamental tenets of the religion itself.
Firstly: there are an awful lot of qualifiers being used here in order to extrapolate an argument that there is a “possibility” that “large number of Muslims” “may” hold extremist beliefs, followed by questions which assume that all those things are actually true. Yes, if the vast majority of UK Muslims hold the sort of extremist beliefs you mention, there is a problem. But they don’t.
Second, the ghettoization of recent immigrant populations is a millennia-old practice which not only tends to resolve itself eventually but does it more quickly if and when those groups are able to assimilate themselves into the larger population without negative pressure from the population into which they would assimilate. There are natural pressures of inclusion (wanting to live near people with similar cultural backgrounds) and exclusion (being made to feel unwelcome by people with different cultural backgrounds) which contribute to this ghettoization in the first place; the first is mitigated by time as succeeding generations identify more and more with the ‘new’ culture, while the second is mitigated by acceptance as the wider population gets used to the newcomers over time. Yes, there are people within and without the Muslim community who discourage assimilation out of fear of change and “otherness”. Their views will lose out in time. They always do.
The fact that violent extremism within Islam is a relatively recent trend resulting from the rise of a small Wahhabist fringe indicates that violence is not in itself inherent to all Islam, and the fact that other religions have gone through similar periods indicates that extremist religious violence is not unique to Islam alone. Yes, there remain dangers from extremists, but let us not make matters worse by jumping to unwarranted conclusions and penalising people who could be our greatest allies in the fight.
In the past three decades UK cities have been bombed by Catholics, Muslims and at least one Neo-Nazi nutjob. All of them had their reasons and their supporters. None of them represented more than a tiny subsection of society. None of them achieved their aims, and neither will the latest wave of idiots.
We will persevere and, as long as there is tea, we will endure.
Minnesota, where I live, had a lot of German immigrants, and a lot of Finns up north, plus many others. There were newspapers in those languages well into the 20th century for those people and their children. I don’t believe there are anymore.
The Irish suffered a lot of persecution, discrimination and ghettoization in this country. That doesn’t happen anymore.
Catholicism was a major issue in the 1960 Presidential Election. It isn’t an issue any longer.
Hmong started coming to Minnesota in the 1970’s. Today; “The 2010 U.S. Census stated there were 66,000 ethnic Hmong in Minneapolis-St. Paul, giving it the largest urban Hmong population in the world.” Their children are entering political office, becoming police and social workers and are a good and productive part of our local society.
I guess the question is whether UK Muslims see themselves as Brits, or as displaced persons. Eventually, as with the Indians and African immigrants, they will come to see themselves, and be seen as, Brits.
It’s not they are criticizing a religion. It’s a combination of things.
First, when I listen to them, I feel like they are selling a simple view of a very complex topic. At the Senate Hearing, Ali offered up the idea that Islam is spiritual or political/militant and that we need to be on the alert for militancy. Nawaz says there isn’t that great a difference between the conservative thought in Islam and the terrorists. Nomani brought some book she picked up in a Muslim bookstore in Virginia that supported beating one’s wife. The message is Islam is a threat if we’re not careful. I don’t see it simply. I vaguely see these simplifications, but it doesn’t seem like anything more than the expression of one’s faith we see in Christianity or Judaism, and probably all the others.
A charlatan often offers a simple answer to a complex question: “Drink urine to treat cancer!”.
Second, they have a message that appeals to their audience. I believe the message is that Muslims need to take some criticism. They are not being responsible with their religion or something. Of course, this message isn’t for Muslims, it’s for people who are wary of Muslims. Their mistrust of Muslims is due to a lack of any meaningful experience with Muslims, except maybe the extremism on the news.
A charlatan offers a message his audience wants to hear: “My treatment will heal you and save your life! Spare you from the terrors of chemo and radiation!”
Third, these authors have come under a lot of criticism for lying. Ali was kicked out of the Netherlands for lying. Nawaz is often accused of lying and when I read some of his stories it pegs my bullshit meter. Instead of addressing the lies, they seek to obfuscate, often by making their own accusations against the accuser.
A charlatan often says they are unfairly targeted by Big Pharma because their cure will destroy their profit margins.
Fourth, they do these big stunts. Nomani voted for Trump, then wrote an op-ed about it, then a book, then went on Bill Maher, etc. etc. She’s selling something in all this. It’s obvious to me. Ali goes before Congress and then writes the seriously flawed op-ed we are discussing in this thread. She helped make the video with Van Gogh. She calls for marches against genital mutilation but does she arrange them? Nawaz makes a ton of noise over being on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Islamophobia list but doesn’t address anything with the SPLC itself. He was criticized by one of the most reputable civil rights organizations in the world, and his response is to act like the Muslims he is criticizing. He’s generating news and attention, but is he publicly addressing why the SPLC has such a screwed up perception of him?
A charlatan will make big news off their critics if given the opportunity. former-Dr. Wakefield being an example.
Religion is bent to political ends everywhere it exists. What’s so special here that I need to worry about and what can I do about it that doesn’t violate my fundamental beliefs and the Constitution of the United States of America?
The problem is when an immigrant based minority group does not fit with the cultural values of the nation it immigrates to.
Such is Islam.
If you practice Sharia law, women are not equal, gay’s/lesbians are shunned, and can be put to death in some other governments, and anyone who leaves the faith is frowned upon.
Okay, so if you’re a woman, an LGBT minority, or Jewish / Christian, or a person who converts out of Islam, you might have a problem.
And if you’re man friends or related to any of the above Islam, as it is written, does not welcome them.
Moderate or peaceful Islam out of the Middle East should make denounce this…yet they do not.
There are over 80 courts of Sharia Law in the UK, mostly family variety and growing.
The “80 courts of Sharia Law in the UK” are more akin to church counselling groups than a legal court. Only those who agree to have their disputes decided by an Imam, usually civil issues within the community, just as members of a parish may want to have something worked out with their Pastor’s guidance.
Show me where these are being used otherwise, please.
Sounds remarkably like US law or practice within my memory.
In areas of high Pakistani Muslim populations, there is no integration, no shared commonality; that particular group of Muslims is inclined to create a separate, wholly distinct society.
Sharia doesn’t operate instead of the law but in parallel to it. As has been established, on occasions they literally try and take over schools - in reality there can only be one motivation for that, their parallel society.
So you can be ‘British’, you can also be ‘displaced’ (they’re actually mostly economic migrants), you can be a whole bunch of things - including imperious to the values and practices of the greater society .
In that sense, they seem to share the determination of Mormon, Amish, etc.
American liberals view Christian conservatives as their outgroup, not conservative Muslims. Liberals use conservative xenophobia to make allies of immigrants, which is politically useful. If both conservative groups worked together to fight liberalism you might expect the rhetoric to change.
That’s what you see when a group faces massive discrimination. Saw it (still do, to a large extent) in the US with black folks. In neither case is it helpful to blame the victims of the discrimination.
If you practice Sharia law, women are not equal, gay’s/lesbians are shunned, and can be put to death in some other governments, and anyone who leaves the faith is frowned upon.
You must be old then. But we are talking 2017. Islam isn’t for any of what I said above.
Where I’m from people who believe that are considered bigots among other things, so, by all means, please defend this view that Islam has and tell me Dr. what place if any does this have in a democracy like the UK where the values are opposite?
As for the Shira courts, they back up the crap I mentioned…some fair court, eh?
And what then would we have to say about ‘white flight’ from neighborhoods when blacks started moving in? That the whites were insular and preferred to live among their own kind?
Don’t treat it in a special way, just give it the same scrutiny and oppose it with the same force that you would any other belief system. Don’t give bad or hateful ideas or intolerance a free pass just because they come from a religious background. Bigotry against gay people should be challenged whether it comes from the christian right, the catholic faithful, muslims or nazis. Nothing in such a challenge need, or should, violate the constitution.
In the UK at least I’d expect the government to guard against allowing such ideas to seep into state schools under the guise of religious doctrine.