A Muslim lawyer in Canada is trying to use the profoundly illiberal notion that ‘contempt and hatred’ should be criminal offences (which are by definition ‘thoughtcrimes‘), to silence Mark Steyn for his critical remarks about Islam. Bizarrely, the move to sanction Steyn is being billed as a ‘human rights’ action. That said, I suppose it is indeed a ‘human rights’ action in the perverse sence that the intention is to abridge Steyn’s human right to express his opinions in favour of allowing Islamists to have a veto over anyone printing anything they dislike.
Well, that sort of fascistic behaviour makes me both hold the likes of Faisal Joseph and the Canadian Islamic Congress in utter contempt and to hate them. I suppose I better give my lawyer a heads up then. Or then again, as it is their behaviour which makes me hold them in contempt and hatred, can I sue them for making that happen? Would that actually be any more unreasonable than what they are doing?
Just askin’.
Of course do not kid yourself that thoughtcrimes do not get prosecuted in Britain, or that it is only something Islamofascist lawyers do to us non-believers, because sadly nothing could be further from the truth.
Samina Malik’s Web site sounds creepy, and its content certainly makes her seem like a loathsome person. But criminal penalties? Isn’t punishing people for having the wrong beliefs one of the things that show that a lot of Muslim-ruled societies are uncivilized and totalitarian? I don’t see that it suddenly becomes all right when a Western nation does it.
Mr Stoddard
I may be going out on a limb, but I suspect that Mr de Havilland was trying to suggest that.
Cheers
Yup. That was indeed the whole point of my article.
OMG, that is totally logical in a fucked up kind of way! If they can prosecute Steyn for making people hate them because of what he said, why can’t you prosecute them if it was what they said that made you hate them? After all, if making people hate and feel contempt for others is the actual “crime”…
Screwy in an insanely great kinda way.
In my bad moments I dream of the day when one of our arrogant, ignorent, elitist overlords gets carted away and banged up for slagging off the yanks.
Of course it would be a terrible blow against freedom and all but it would be nice to see that old petard thing work for a change.
The Canadian Islamic Congress states the article is “flagrantly Islamophobic” and implies Muslims are involved in a global conspiracy to take over Western societies.
1, There is no such thing as Islamophobia.
2, Regarding the conspiracy, have they read the Koran? Have they studied the Hadiths or Sirah? This is a fundamental of Islamic theology.
Intolerant hatemongers. Is it any surprise these people are becoming more and more despised?
About one of the few good things to come out of the recent teddy-bear nonsense in the Sudan is that it has increasingly made Islamists a joke. Some of them are starting to realise this fact, at long last. Being regarded as utter loons starts to become a bit annoying after a while.
Steyn can look after himself, of course, but you never know; he is an extremely effective analyser of what is going wrong with Islam. But on that basis, these fuckers will probably try and sue Bernard Lewis, the historian of Islam, as well.
In my bad moments I dream of the day when one of our arrogant, ignorent, elitist overlords gets carted away and banged up for slagging off the yanks.
How about the hatefilled, intolerant and ignorant rants against freedom, choice, free enterprise capitalism, and those sensible enough to support them? Is that also not a somethingorotherophobia?
What about Mad Maddie Buntings incomprehensible dislike of all things enlightenment?
A good post Perry.
Yet again it is showed that a conception of “human rights” that is not based on the private property conception of the non aggression principle undermines basic liberty.
If I violate the body or goods of someone else that is an aggression, if I say I do not like them or regard their opinions as utterly absurd this is not an aggression.
I may “harm” someone by hurting their feelings, for example by saying the founder of their religion was a rapist and a murderer, but this “harm” should not be a matter for the criminal law, nor is it a tort for civil action.
A conception of “human rights” that says otherwise is both “harmful” in its self – and absurd.
That was indeed the whole point of my article.
That certainly was the most likely reading, given the reference to “thoughtcrimes” at the start of the paragraph. My intent was to express agreement with it and to make the grounds of the agreement explicit.
I often wonder how we get to the stage where too much ‘respect’ for the law causes us so many problems.
Mark Steyn is unlucky enough to be targeted by a fascist prick, but is possibly in the more fortunate position to be able to put up a legal fight. What happens when action is taken against those who aren’t as well known and don’t quite have a war chest for legal defence? I do not have much to my name and am not in a position to obtain Legal Aid, so what should happen to me should I somehow incur the wrath of some beardy twat who doesn’t like what I say about his Imaginary Sky Fairy friend? Putting the charitable nature of som people aside for a moment,ow am I to defend myself on my own? In fact, how would I resist the summons to defend myself- if I was to ignore it, surely I would be found in contempt of court? Either way, expense, time and effort of my part has to be incurred merely going through the mechanics of it all- forgetting that I do not know much about the legal system at all, anyway.
A legal professional such as this man concerned must clearly know that such a vexatious case stands a reasonable (emphasis there) chance of eventually going nowhere, but I suspect that the incentive for him must be to provide a platform for his agenda (and the limelight that goes with it) and to financially penalise Steyn, who undoubtedly must go to some expense with money, time and effort in fighting a case that should not even be answered.
As I said, I am not overly familiar with the law, but how does somebody who values freedom of expression protect themselves from such vexatious litigation, without penalty?
I’m not sure about that loathesome Lyrical Terrorist person. There is a perfectly reasonable legal category called “accessory before the fact”. If she is putting useful Jihadist info on the web, and some jihadist reads and uses it, that’d make her an accessory and/or instigator. But it’s hard to prove something like that on the web.
It’s rather like not doing anything about swastikas or hangman’s nooses because nobody was gassed or hung. There’s a consistent argument against doing anything, but there’s a decent argument for doing something, too.
Have a peek at this link
Surely if Madame Lyrical Terrorist (cringe factor 10) was up for accessory before the fact then the authors and distributors of that collection would be to.
…actually try putting in “Anarchist cookbook” in the search field to get a better list.
It is NOT a reasonable legal category the way you are defining it. Adults are solely responsible for their own behavior – which is to say, they are responsible for making sure that whatever is “influencing” them is something they actually, rationally agree with. Any action a terrorist takes is his own legal responsibility, regardless of where he got the inspiration. This woman becomes a terrorist only then when she herself destroys property or kills bystanders in the name of Islam.
Just to be contrary, where do we stand with regard to conspiracy laws.
If this person takes no physical part in an operation, but does take part in the planning she can get done for conspiracy, (even if the operation never takes place).
If she takes part in the planning by e-mail she can probably still get done, but if she suggests on her website that such-and-such an event would be a good target and some terrorist bombs that event with great loss of life, is she guilty? And if they try to bomb it but fail, is she guilty? And if no-one tries to bomb it?
The legal system will sort out guilt or innocence in these circumstamces, but what about the political and moral questions?
Me too.
Wrong.
There is such thing as incitement to commit a crime, and that is not protected free speech.
Besides, this woman says she herself also intends to commit acts of terrorism, beside urging others to do the same.
You can say: “I hate A, b, or C” – that’s ok, that’s free speech, but saying: “I’m gonna kill A, B, or c” – that’s more like a threat, and threats aren’t protected free speech.
countingcats
Good luck with your “somethingorotherphobia” lawsuit, but the Buntings of this world will walk away as free-speech heroes from that sort of action.
However, racially aggravated whatever can work in the British courts, as can be attested by the guy who got done for calling a Welsh woman an “English bitch”.
Good luck with your “somethingorotherphobia” lawsuit, but the Buntings of this world will walk away as free-speech heroes from that sort of action
Not advocating such a lawsuit, merely pointing out the absurdity of those who advocate hate speech laws. So often they use speech which, by their own logic, should see them caught up in the teeth of any such laws. Unless of course, their own pet intolerances are excluded from coverage.
Jacob: You can say: “I hate A, b, or C” – that’s ok, that’s free speech, but saying: “I’m gonna kill A, B, or c” – that’s more like a threat, and threats aren’t protected free speech.
There’s necessarily a fine line between the two. What if someone says “A, B or C deserve to be killed”?
For something to be a legal threat in a civilized country it has to be issued against a specific target, and there has to be good independent reason to believe the person intends to carry it out. I do not see that either of these conditions obtain here.
That may well be what it says on the statute books, but we are talking about “reasonable legal categories,” not what the laws actually are (after all, what Steyn writes in his columns may actually be against the law in Canada – which is ghastly if true). I do not believe that incitement to commit a crime is a useful legal category – and especially not in the case of someone who posts speeches on the internet that go on to inspire someone to do something violent. The reason I do not believe it is a useful legal category is because – as WalterBoswell strongly implied in his comment – there doesn’t seem to be a good way to tell what is “incitement” under this definition and what is simply political speech. I do not support systems which allow the government to ban political speech it finds inconvenient on whims.
The confusion that would result from the system you are proposing is unintentionally admitted in your own comment when you say “that’s more like a threat.” No good. We cannot arrest people on something being “like” something that might be against the law.
No, she is not.
“There is no such thing as Islamophobia”
Nonsense, of course there is. There’s a very big difference between
a) extreme dislike for crazy Islamic extremists and fundamentalists (not to mention terrorists) and the desire to minimize their presence in civilized societies,
and
b) the convction that_all_ Muslims are crazy extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists.
The first person isn’t islamophobic, the second is.
This guy prints an anti-muslim article in his magazine, so the Muslim group sues him, thus giving him a story for another anti-muslim article.
That’s real smart of them.
Incitement to commit a crime is a reasonable, and good legal category. If you say to someone “go kill A” and he goes and does it – you are guilty. It must be proven that what you said had some influence on the killer, but, if it had, you are guilty. If it can be proven that you said what you said with the intention of making him kill, you are guilty.
It is not permitted to cause, indirectly, a crime, by inciting other people to commit it.
Well, the case of the “Lyrical Terrorist” person can be debated – was it a real threat or a metaphorical one ? Was it incitement or just “lyrical” musings ?
What I say is: it’s not such a clear-cut case of absurd abridgment of free speech as Perry maintains. Maybe the jury, after considering the exact facts of the case, (which I don’t know) were right in their verdict.
Unfortunately this method has been used in the USA as well. It is part of the “hate crimes” movement that attempts to criminalize those who might be troublesome without having to specify what exactly differeniates it from normal crime.
Inthe USA, the MSM attempted to turn a shooting in a suburb of Houston into a hate crime instead of explaining the law and providing the details that would have enabled the public to mke a complete and accurate judgement. Turns out Texas law allows someone to defend their property with deadly force and the two men killed turned out to be not blacks but rather illegal Columbian career criminals who were black. Turns out that the supposed homicidial racist, lived in a crime plagued area with 2.5 times the crime rate of NYC and the home he was attempting to protect was owned by Vietnamese legal immigrants.
So much for the MSM spin. The abuse of authority through the courts isn’t limited to certain groups, in the USA the Duke University case demonstrates how ambitious politicians in league with powerful interests (the leftwing staff of Duke and the black population) attempted to railroad innocent individuals despite proof that they could not have been guilty of the crimes they were accused of.
The British system is far superior to the US system where the legal system can be used by those with big pockets to bankrupt individuals. Loser pays is a vital component of any legal system if such abuse are to be curbed.
So you do everything people tell you then? Well, you’re in the minority, but I don’t mind: give me your credit card numbers. All of them.
See how that works? I told you to do something, your brain processed it and decided it was a bad idea, and you refused.
Now, if only people knew they could apply that same amazing technique to situations where someone is telling them to commit a crime. I wonder how we can get the message out…
You see, not everyone has a brain, some people are influenced by incitement, and while it doesn’t exonerate them, the inciter is also guilty.
You are arguing in vain.
I think it’s a well established rule that incitement to crime is a crime, and it’s also reasonable one. It might be necessary to define what exactly is incitement, and under what circumstances does it apply. (I’m not familiar with the exact legal definitions). But you can’t argue, on principle, that there is no such crime as incitement.
I think you’re right. I also think, as I stated before, that we’re not talking about what the law is but rather what it should be.
On what basis is it reasonable? I explained my reasons for thinking it unreasonable; kindly explain yours for thinking it reasonable.
“Might be?” Oh, gee, where to start…
In this one case, that’s actually a good thing, since we’re not talking about what the actual established legal definitions are. We’re talking about what they should be and why.
Take a stab at it, Jacob. On what basis do you justify “incitement” as a crime, how do you distinguish between “incitement” and “just talking” and under what circumstances do you think the law should apply?
michael farris,
Can’t agree with the definition of Islamophobia you are using.
Islamiphobia is an irrational fear of Islam – while I don’t acept that any fear of Islam is irrational. The majority of Muslims in the UK wish to see Sharia imposed on the rest of us, and that is REALLY scary.
Islamism is based on a precise and exact interpretation of the Islamic texts, and is based on traditions which go back to Mahommeds own actions. I certainly don’t believe that every Muslim wants me converted, submitted or dead, that is absurd, but there is no question that Islam does.
I repeat – There is no such thing as Islamophobia.
More to the point, as an athiest, rather than a follower of a religion with a book detailing the revelations of a known prophet, submission is not an option offered to me.
The choice Islam offers me, as an athiest, is conversion or death.
There is no such thing as Islamophobia.
You all might want to visit Mark Steyn’s website and read some of his other columns.
http://www.steynonline.com/
Canadian Islamist lawyers’ mommas all wear army boots and make wide right turns!
After all: islamist lawyers pull petty juvenile bullshit. Their ideology requires that they and the entire human race did whatever a seventh-century kiddy-fiddler did. That means Muhammad played petty juvenile bullshit. And we must all emulate Muhammad.
Oh, and Perry? If this post means that you get arrested for hate speech the next time you visit Canuckistan, sorry, my bad. I’ll bake some bolt cutters into a birthday cake or something.
countingcats is 100% right. I’m an agnostic and if someone slags off my belief system (and they do and I don’t just mean the religious, militant atheists like Prof Dawkins despise me) I have no legal recourse. Nor should I. Frankly, I don’t care. By the same token Muslims shouldn’t either. I believe that Muhammed was an unmitigated turd of the first water. I am perfectly happy to debate this with a Muslim and I wish the moderate wing of that faith (which I’m not sure exists in force anymore) would honestly take me up on that offer. Seriously, I would like to hear them either dispute or justify the crimes of their founder. Because sex with a nine year old is a tricksy one to get away with.
Now, Muslims can wiggle over Aisha (or as has happened, threaten to kill me after buggering me) and whilst there is a certain school of Islamic thought that she was somewhat older the fact remains that the female age of consent in the Islamic Republic of Iran is 9. Muhammed died 1400 years ago. He’s a quasi-mythical figure but Iranian law is very real, very current and very nasty.
I would also like to ask a Muslim about the incident following the siege of somewhere (forget where) Muhammed ordered the slaughter of every male in the town old enough to have pubic hair. This is almost exactly the same as what the Serbs did in Kosovo. That was the most disgraceful thing to happen in Europe since WWII. I am sure Muslims would agree with me that it was an outrage. What is their opinion on their founder (and the most perfect man who ever lived) doing pretty much the same thing?
I would like a reasoned debate because I would sleep far more easily if I felt that nearly a quarter of this planets population weren’t loathsomely evil or completely demented.
I think I’m unlikely to get it. I think I’m more likely to be threatened again with the dramatically haram act of buggeration and death for bringing up the skeleton’s in Muhammed’s closet.
Think about it. Male homosexual acts are seriously prohibited by Islam. Criticism of the Prophets (in actuality only Muhammed but they like, in the West, to big-up Jesus too) is also seriously prohibited. How does it make sense to threaten to commit an act punishable by death by the code of your religion for criticizing the founder of that faith unless you are both a sociopath and clearly divorced from logic.
I would like to hear them either dispute or justify the crimes of their founder
What is their opinion on their founder (and the most perfect man who ever lived)
Yep, Mahommed is the most perfect man who ever lived. He is the “Moral Exemplar”. His actions are not just acceptable, they are to be admired and emulated.
Mahommed was a brigand, a violent and vicious thief who simply took what he wanted from non muslim caravans, killing anyone who resisted. When he could get away with it.
The religion he founded holds that a violent, mass murdering, thieving, oath breaking, misogynistic paedophile, who advocated slavery and rape, condoned lying and political assasination, and freely indulged his galloping satyriasis, is THE moral exemplar who’s every action should be admired and not just emulated but exhulted.
And they try to claim that people who don’t agree are irrational!!!
I am supposed to respect and trust people who want me, personally, dead, and who’s belief system encourages them to lie about their intentions in order to achieve them?
Sorry, but there really is no such thing as Islamophobia.
the female age of consent in the Islamic Republic of Iran is 9
Yep, and not only that, but there is a school of opinion that a girl not only could be married at nine, but that she should; that any female should, in all morality, be removed from her fathers house (married off) before she starts her period.
It’s easy to define in some clear cut cases where the incitement actually causes the crime to be commited. For example: a father orders his son to kill someone, knowing that the son usually obeys him. Or a demagogue inciting a crowd to, say, commit a lynch – knowing that the crowd (or some members of it) might really do it, or intending to make it happen.
When a direct link can be established between the incitement and a crime, then the incitement itself is a crime too.
Even in a case where no crime has yet been comitted, when the incitement is of the nature that it could, reasonably, result in a crime – then it is a crime.
That is a definition, not a justification. I asked you for a justification. And this:
is just absurd. If any society were to incorporate this latter into its list of “crimes,” virtually all “objectionable” speech would be prohibited. Such a society might function, but it could not reasonably claim to protect its citizens’ speech rights.
However, this at least answers my last two questions. On the subject of what you consider to be the difference between “incitement” and “just talking,” your answer is “there isn’t one,” and on the question of when you think the law should apply, your answer is “in all situations where someone is speaking against the status quo.”
Moreover,
if one knows about a crime that is probably going to be comitted and fails to take reasonable measures to prevent it (like telling the police), one is culpable as an accomplice.
Incitement is a more severe case of involvement than mere casual knowledge.
The justification is obvious: if your speech (incitement) is part of the cause that made the crime happen, then you’re guilty. You contributed to the crime.
Now, for the case where there is no crime: if one shoots and misses – he still comitted a crime. Same with the incitement.
I agree that it might be tricky, in many cases, to assess to what degree the incitement contributed to the crime. But in other cases the link is obvious. So the crime of incitement cannot be logically dismissed, you cannot argue that incitement never causes crime.
Re incitment see this(Link) which I wrote on the topic some time ago
countingcats,
The Quran is somewhat contradictory. I know you know about abrogation so I won’t go there. Except, the founder of, say, Christianity was a brave man who said what he thought straight. He was killed for it. He didn’t fuck off out of it to another town when he’d managed to piss off his tribe and only return home when he had an army behind him. I am not a Christian but there’s a hell of a difference and while I can respect Christ (from what I know) I have zero respect for Muhammed. I dunno how it plays in the land of Oz but when I was a kid a standard technique of come-back was to tell the other kid, “Yeah, you and who’s army?”. People would take me extremely seriously if I had an entire army of desperados backing me up. Christ was brave, Muhammed was a weasel.
The sexualization of young girls in Islam is a sodding disgrace. The weird thing is the Western dhimmis (like our, but probably not your King) who think Bratz dolls and Barbie and whatever sexualize Western kids don’t even realize that their beloved “spiritual” Islam is much, much worse.
There is no excuse, even 1400 years ago for a 53 year old (I think that was his age) screwing a 9 year old girl. This is not a 17 year old American getting a blow-job from a 15 year old and being done for statutory rape. Anybody adult who is attracted to a pre-menarch girl is not only depraved but also bizarre. I’m 34 and the idea of having a girlfriend, let alone wife! who couldn’t be served in a pub or didn’t have pubic hair is beyond my mortal comprehension. Admittedly Mo wasn’t a big fan of booze or pubes but I mean… It’s an outrage. He’d get 10 years in chokey now for that.
Islam’s bizarre (in many ways) take on sexuality is also beyond my comprehension. It’s nuts – it manages to be simultaneously depraved and deeply conservative – you can marry a kid yet you can get beaten for holding hands. My wife shared a flat when she did her MA with an Iraqi. He knew she had a boyfriend (me) and he bought her lingerie! Oddly enough the two of us bumped into Hussain in Manchester a coupla years ago and he refused to shake hands with her because it was Ramadan and (is this right?) she might have been menstruating. If she hadn’t even had her first period he would have probably screwed her. He had a wife with him and a kid, a kid that was clearly born before the lingerie incident. I utterly fail to comprehend.
I just can’t get my head around it.
That isn’t obvious at all – in large part because you haven’t spelled out how speech can “cause” a crime. If people are rational agents (and any reasonable legal code will assume they are), then they are not merely automatons who do whatever they are told. They process the information they get and act on it according to their own personalities and moral codes. As far as I can tell, speech rarely, if indeed ever, has enough causative power to be associated with a crime in the way you are suggesting here. People are responsible for the decisions they make.
If we were to adopt the standard you seem to be suggesting here, which is that the speech in question was somehow involved in the person’s decision to commit the crime (by giving him the idea or actively encouraging it or spelling out a “justification for it or whatever else), then we open ourselves up to a whole host of other liabilities.
For example, a woman who gets raped may have been teasing the man who did it. Maybe she’s led him on to think she’s going to sleep with him and at the last minute decides she won’t. Is she punishable for the crime that surely wouldn’t have happened without her behavior? I would say no – he is responsible for controlling himself. Just as any adult is responsible for knowing what is right and wrong and acting accordingly.
Likewise when we hear “inciting” speech. We are responsible for controlling ourselves.
I can and am. Criminals commit crimes. Others may inspire them to do so, but the actual criminal alone bears responsibility.
Look, if I read a stellar self-help book, and I go on to found a useful corporation which makes me scads of money, do I owe any percentage of my revenue to the author of that book? He is, after all, the one who inspired me. My thought is that no, I don’t. All the actions of building up the corporation are mine and mine alone. His inspiration is valuable, but only because I am the kind of person who took his message to heart. The same book, given to someone else, might have failed to inspire. You can say that the book “caused” me to do what I did only in the weakest possible sense. It would be a confused and unjust legal system that went out plumbing the minutiae of everyone’s psychological makeup and assigning blame for what they did in the way you are suggesting.
The same is true of any exhortion to violence. Someone shouting to people on the street to rise up and kill Whitey, for example, will have more effect on some bystanders than others. But the only people who will actually go out and do kill white people as a result are people who were already in a mental position to do so. They do it because of the kind of people they are. His speech on this particular day might have been what “caused,” in some absurd sense of the word, them to do it, but it was a trigger, not an inevitability. It is not a cause in the same sense that pulling a trigger will cause a gun to fire or dropping a block will cause it to fall. Speech can only cause a person to commit a crime if they themselves are already of a criminal mindset. Those of us who are not of a criminal mindset do not commit crimes on mere suggestions.
For this reason, I cannot see any workable definition of “cause” that would allow speech to “cause” a crime to a certainty that would allow us to criminally prosecute the speaker. So I can and do dispute that incitement ever “causes” crime in a sense that should fall under the purvey of law. Speech inspires crime, certainly, but it is never the direct “cause” of it.
The woman we are talking about was writing inspirational verse. Anyone who acts on her poems is alone responsible for the terrorist acts he commits, and that is so because he is the kind of person who chooses to act in this way in response to a poem. Wishing is not doing.
Well, many people are already of a criminal mindset. And many are unreasonable, or dumb, or illogical, or lacking self restraint. Many people are influenced by incitement. Maybe it’s a flaw in their character – but it exists. So, you should refrain from incitement, because those feeble people might actually go and commit a crime because of your speech. That their feebleness is a contributing factor does not exonerate you. You should know the possible consequences of your speech, under realistic conditions, and exercise discretion and responsibility.
As to the provocative woman: if a provocative conduct is proven – it often impairs her credibility – and often a rape case is a “he said – she said” case. So, yes, a woman should know that there are flawed men with weak self restraint, and should act cautiously.
That’s right – their feebleness isn’t what exonerates you. It’s their responsibility for their actions that does.
Yes, but should they be criminally liable for having “inspired” him to this crime? You seem to be saying “yes.” Let’s have it clearly then. Do you, in fact, think that scantily clad women are criminally liable in their own rapes?
The British system is far superior to the US system where the legal system can be used by those with big pockets to bankrupt individuals. Loser pays is a vital component of any legal system if such abuse are to be curbed.
Alas, that was last advocated in the United States by Dan Quayle, and the general reaction was to dismiss it as further proof of Dan Quayle’s idiocy, so far as anyone noticed it at all. I thought it actually sounded like a good idea; it improved my opinion of Quayle.
I am supposed to respect and trust people who want me, personally, dead, and who’s belief system encourages them to lie about their intentions in order to achieve them?
For a lot of history, that was the position atheists like me were in vis-a-vis Christianity. See not merely the Spanish Inquisition but the statement of Aquinas, a brilliant and learned man, that heretics should be burned to death to prevent them from exposing other people to their beliefs. The fact that a fair number of Christians don’t advocate such things now is not a result of Christianity being a more decent religion but of the Enlightenment’s drawing its teeth. Unfortunately the movements within Islam that might have been the seeds of an Enlightenment got forcibly suppressed seven or eight hundred years back. But I don’t view Christianity as a good religion and Islam as a bad one; they seem a lot alike to me.
William H. Stoddard
I would agree with you, albieit with reservations.
Individual Christians lie, but one of Satans titles is Prince of Lies. To Christian theology a lie is a sin. Always. In all circumstances (but me no buts on this one). To Islamic theology, a lie can be a virtue if told in the advance of Islamic interests. And don’t forget, Islamic interests cover what we would consider the secular or the profane.
This can result in a completely different worldview. How much reliance can you place on the word of someone to whom a lie is a religious virtue?
William H Stoddart,
A Christian chooses Christ as his saviour.
A Muslim submits to Allah.
Muhammed was a violent, depraved peadophile. This is explicit from Islamic scripture. This is something freely admitted.
Jesus was a peaceful carpenter. You want a sex-scandal about him? Well, the worst accusation anyone has come up with is in the Da Vinci Code and hardly substantial and boils down to “bloke 2000 years ago had a girlfriend who might have formerly been a woman of negotiable affection” so forgive me for not losing sleep over it.
These are big differences.
Right, but they are inconsequential differences from the point of view of someone whom both faiths would like to kill. As Stoddard points out, that meant atheists like me in past centuries for Christians too (it still means it for many Muslims today).
The point of Stoddard’s comment, as I understand it, is that both faiths have been hugely unkind to those they deem enemies. It isn’t what’s written in the Big Book that saved Christianity but the fact that Europe eventually got around to civilizing itself. When and if Arabia does the same, Islam as a whole will cease to be an immediate threat in the same way that Christianity did.
I take roughly the same view. All religions are silly. Christianity is a bit less silly than most, both as written and as currently practiced. But there is not now and never has been a reliable method of predicting, on the basis of their sacred texts, how adherents to any particular faith will behave. Christians have done their share of killing in the past – and this with only minor tweaking of what it all says in the Holy Bestseller. For people who are prepared to base their personal morality on a book of dubious authorship that relates events outside the laws of their daily experience with no proof that anything in it is true (indeed, with lack of ability to verify its truth held as a virtue) – any kind of action is possible, really.
Given the current state of both religions, I would much rather live in a predominantly Christian nation than a predominantly Muslim one. Aside from blue laws and annoying advertisements (and the occasional bit of junk science), Christians mostly leave me alone, which is all I ask of them. My point is that I don’t think this state of affairs is guaranteed by what it says in the Bible so much as by the evolution of European civilization. Best of all would be to get rid of both Christianity and Islam – which I do believe will happen. Not, unfortunately, in my lifetime.
I think it is. Not only that, but it’s what’s in the Koran that is holding the Muslims back. don’t get me wrong, I am not taking these books as anything that has its own existence. These (all) books were written by humans, and are read and interpreted by them. Religion and culture are like chicken and egg: inseparable, albeit impossible to put in chronological order.
From the Telegraph, HT Harry’s Place…
Note that’s young British Muslims who have by and large experienced a lot of European culture. I defy you to find anything similar if you interviewed members of Christian youth groups. I have known a good many folks with a Christian upbringing, and Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, whatever… who have changed or dropped their faiths and not one of them has been threatened with death.
This was in today’s Times. She’s almost certainly second generation as is the brother who SMSed a death threat to her. Exposure to British civilization doesn’t seem to have done him a bit of good. “Hannah” goes on to say this…
OK, she also says she doesn’t think every muslim would go through with it. No, only 36% and that’s enough to scare the pants off anyone because that means there is probably several hundred thousand people in this country who want to kill her. Joshua, are you seriously saying that this has nothing significant to do with what it says in the Qu’ran which is the final, perfect, unchangeable message from the Lord of the Universe to all people for all time?
You can’t compare the rag-bag of prophecy, history and myth of the Christian Bible with the Qu’ran, the work of one exceedingly evil man. Christianity has had it’s reformation. Islam hasn’t (Bahai comes close but is seriously persecuted in it’s home nation, Iran) because you aren’t allowed to interpret it the way Christian scholars have for centuries. Also the Islamic concept of the Ummah totally precludes it from ever being a faith of personal conscience.
And I’m just talking and quoting here about England, a sophisticated, advanced, first world nation. I don’t even want to think about what goes on in the backward hell-holes of the former caliphate. It’s Muhammed’s fault to the same extent that WWII was Hitler’s fault and the horror of the gulags can be traced back to Lenin. And they were all authors too. Think about it, the Mid East is the cradle of civilization. I have seen in the British Museum equisite Babylonian carvings. They had civilization back when my ancestors were running around in woad and not much else and they blew it all by believing in Islam. The Jews didn’t and they came from the same neck of the woods. Wikipedia has (had?) a list of Jewish Nobel laureates and also a list of Muslim ones. The second is a very short list of three – and that’s including Yasser Arafat.
That last paragraph was a musing but let’s not forget that Islam to a very large extent keeps it’s troops in order by threatening death or some horror for apostasy, naming teddy bears, drawing cartoons, writing novels, getting raped, being gay, flying kites (according to the taliban), fornication, shaving your beard, having a “western haircut”, wearing make-up, not wearing a tent, listening to music, having a beer, or calling it intolerant. And it all comes straight from Chairman Mo himself. There is a reason Islam is different and it’s because it was invented by a deranged sociopathic pervert. How could it be any different? Try telling a muslim that and they will make (or carry out) the most luridly Sadean threats. They usually involve death and/or sexual violation. Hardly surprising when you consider the founder of their faith.
Fair enough.
However, I think it is also fair to say that we have solid evidence that at times in the past Christians – and that’s in general, meaning definitely Christian authorities and almost certainly the majority of the followers as well – have behaved in exactly the way Muslims are behaving now toward non-believers (real and perceived). Their Superbook didn’t dissuade them from this at those times in the past.
However, you may be correct that by slow process of cultural evolution the same book also led them to the current relatively enlightened attitude they have toward nonbelievers – that is, that eventually reading it for what it was brought them here. In which case there may indeed be little hope for Islam.
I myself am more inclined to believe that what happened was that people in Christendom slowly stopped taking religion as seriously as they had before, and so over time there was less at stake. But there is nothing inconsistent in your version, so I admit can’t reasonably dispute it.
Joshua, another point, and correct me if I am wrong: the historical misdeeds (there is an understatement for you) of the Christians were not consistent with their book, they were perpetrated despite its teachings, while it is the opposite with Muslims and their book.
I am not disputing that Islam is in a sorry state – just noting that the same has been true of Christians in the past – and this despite how our reasonable interpretation of their Holy Book would suggest they should have acted. For this reason, I am wary of drawing too strong a causal connection between religious writings and the behavior of their followers. I think Alisa’s point is right – sorting out the various influences of culture and religion to any great degree of accuracy is not possible. Your guess that Islam is forever doomed to barbarism may be right, but it is just a guess.
Joshua,
I know quite a few Christians who take their faith very seriously but are very tolerant towards others. That dog of yours won’t hunt. To be honest I couldn’t give a monkey’s about the inquisition or whatever other Christian iniquities occurred before the enlightenment. They don’t happen anymore and as the Good Book says, “God loves a sinner come to his repentance”.
Basically it comes down to this. I am not going to be blown up by a member of the radical wing of the Methodists or Opus Dei or Ukranian Orthdox militants but I just might cop a nail bomb from a Muslim. The 7/7 bombers weren’t (in a sense) nutters, they were otherwise normal people with jobs and families. They weren’t crazed wackos like unabomber. They were good footsoldiers for their one true faith. This isn’t about culture in a wider sense. This is about religion and religion alone. And not all religions are the same.
Round of applause for Nick M , CountingCats and Alisa there.
Our so called Liberal Laws are sytstematically being used against us. The schoolgirl Hijab case for instance.
Once again. Get rid of the Blasphemy Laws. Do not give them any fulcrum whatsoever, any chink they can legally worry at till they get their way. Sharia law.
We in the West, being so busy being godless consumers of sin and corruption, do not notice the long termism of the beards.
See for them the world was perfected in 360 AD.
But somehow the follow through to global domination has slowed up a bit.
No problem. They can wait. That’s the way they think.
I am not disputing this. See my comment earlier about much prefering to live in a Christian nation than a Muslim nation.
Yes it is – because there were times in the past that Christians behaved the same way (albeit before they invented bombs). If there were a strict cause-effect relationship between the written text and the behavior of the adherents of the kind you are suggesting, Christians should never have behaved this way. And yet … they did. And not just a few of them either.
True enough – but that was my point. Regardless of whether it was written in the Christian book, they very much did what they did in the name of their faith. It was their religious leaders that inspired it. That is why I do not feel terribly comfortable making predictions about the future of Islam based on what it says in their book. That is equally why I do not find it terribly comforting that the Bible says … whatever it says that is supposed to make me feel safe from a new Christian theocracy.
Don’t get me wrong – I DO feel safe from a new Christian theocracy, but not on the basis of what it says in the Bible. My reasons for feeling safe are entirely cultural.
Right, and that is why the culture is as much a problem as the religion – that was my point. I can only talk with any degree of knowledge about the larger ME culture, and more specifically about the Arab one – I don’t know about places like Indonesia, for example. Neither can i explain why Qatar seems to be pulling itself out of the swamp, at least economically, and Saudi Arabia isn’t. Maybe Nick is right, and it is only about religion. In any case, I still think that there can be no comparison between Islam and any other major religion.
It is true that there have been religious leaders who have claimed Biblical authority to commit violence in the name of Christianity.
Then people like Martin Luther come along and throw the book at them. Literally, these people commandeer the apparatus of religion and take it back to its true biblical teaching. It is called a “Reformation.”
Any reformation back to its roots in Christianity leads to a less violent, more forgiving, more honest religion.
A reformation back to Islamic roots of necessity results in more violence, less tolerance, and more deceit.
Wahabism is an Islamic reformation.
OK – so I prefer Christianity after it was “reformed.” There were large portions of its history where it was not. During those times, people who had read the Bible and were sincere in their beliefs did some pretty horrible things.
If an Islamic “reformation” makes them more intolerant, then let’s hope they stop it soon. Let’s hope that some of the less literal sects of Islam come to the fore.
Since both religions managed to drift away from their roots in the past, I don’t see why it can’t happen again. So I’m not sure where you’re going with this point.
Indeed, the Christians I find easiest to stomach today are not necessarily the “reformed” or “fundamentalist” ones, many of whom shout rather loudly to have my liberties curtailed in the name of God.
All of which is to say that there isn’t any great predictive power in the text of the holy book as to how the followers of a given religion will act.
Nothing to do with reformed Joshua.
The life and teachings of Jesus do not justify the perscution that some wish to carry out in his name.
Not me who thought of that – for example it was the position of the Emperior Valentarian.
He was a Christian and a very violent man – for example he burned draft dodgers alive.
But he did not use state power in religious matters – because that was against the example and teachings of Jesus.
Christians not able to agree on X, Y, Z – do not ask the Emperor to punish someone for having the “wrong” opinion.
People not wishing to be Christians – again nothing to do with the government.
Many Christians have used violence in religious persecution, but in so doing they directly go against both the example and the teachings of Jesus.
The life and teachings of M. were rather different.
Nick M.
Your last but one comment should be sent to the person persecuting Mark Steyn – he would be so enraged he would forget about Mr Steyn.
Well he would forget about the Steyn matter till after you were dead.
What RAB said re NickM, countingcats, Alisa.
Countingcats post @Dec9 12:37PM nails it. Islamists say it is hate and blasphemy to criticize Mohammed, yet since when is plain fact and the truth a crime?
Oh, forgot.
Neither do they prevent the carrying out of such persecution – which is the salient point for me.
Exactly the point I am making. The teachings of Jesus have been … oh, how to put it? … somewhat ineffective at stopping His Followers from doing some pretty horrible stuff in His Name for large parts of Christian history. For that reason, I do not place much stock in discussions about what it says in the Bible. If people like St. Thomas are able, after years of careful and sincere Bible study, to come to the conclusion that burning heretics was God’s True Will, then clearly “what it says in the Bible” (cf. “what it says in the Koran”) cannot be the whole or even the lion’s share of the explanation for how Christians decide what to do in the name of Jesus.
Clearly, the culture also plays a large and important role.
Equally clearly, there is a “chicken and egg” problem here of the kind Alisa described: yes, “what it says in the Bible” will have had an influence on European culture, and yes, European culture will, for its part, have heavily colored what people understand the Bible to have said. I defy anyone here to puzzle all that out.
I certainly do not think anyone here can puzzle it all out to the extent of being able to say with the kind of certainty that I’m hearing that Islam will always be as violent as it is today. Drop the Koran in a tolerant culture, and the tolerant culture will find a tolerant way to read it. Drop the Koran in Saudi Arabia, and we all know what you get. I don’t know that substituting copies of the Bible in that country would help much.
All of which is to say – there is no clear or predictable relationship between what a religion’s founder teaches and what its followers end up doing. Religion is, at its heart, fantasy. There is no way to check that you’re “doing it right,” and so people end up doing pretty much what they want. People who will base their moral codes on events they don’t even know are real and that flatly contradict their daily experience are capable of anything. Their holy books will predict their behavior only in the weakest possible sense.