Thoughtful, long article here by Alex Massie at the Spectator on the real and presumed issues surrounding Islam and the UK, and whether some commentators on the subject are seeing phantom menaces:
“To my commenters and the others worried by the “Islamification of Britain” I would ask only this: why are you so afraid and why do you lack such confidence in this country and its people’s ability to solve these problems? Perhaps my confidence is misplaced but I think we can probably do it. This is, in many ways, a better, more tolerant place to live than it has been in the past and, unless we blunder, it should remain so. The annoyances of idiotic council regulations about Christmas trees and crucifixes or inflammatory articles in the press ought not to distract us from that fact. The open society is an achievement to be proud of – for conservatives and liberals alike – but the most likely way it can be defeated is if we allow ourselves to be defeated by our fears and, thus, in the end by ourselves.”
“Diversity need not be a threat, though diversity cannot work unless all are equal under the law. But Britain is changing and doing so in often interesting ways. It is, in general, a comfortable, tolerant place made up of people with complex identities that make it a more, not less, interesting and decent place. Yeats’ famous lines do not quite apply here. On all sides, the worst may indeed be full of passionate intensity but the best do not lack conviction even if we don’t shout about it. Perhaps we should do so more often.”
Definitely worth reading the whole article. I think one point to make straight away is this: if we have more confidence in the resilience of Western civilisation and the virtues of a post-Enlightenment, pro-reason culture, and encourage support for such things in our places of higher learning and in the opinion-forming world, that in itself might encourage more moderate-minded Muslims in the West realise that the long-term trend was not on the side of the Islamists. Showing a confident front to the world is not bravado – it helps us to win.
It may be true that confidence will help us win, but that is exactly what we don’t have.
For the last 40-50 we have taught our children that all cultures are equally good except for Western Civilisation which is uniquely bad and evil. That white people are inherently racist and that all men are rapist and wife beaters.
That isn’t the type of stuff that breads confidence. Instead of being proud of who they are and what their forefathers achieved our children apologize for the West’s never ending litinay of sins and mouth empty platitudes like “Diversity is our strength”.
As one of Massie’s ‘reverse Cassandras’ who believe that the West is in a serious, possibly existential, conflict with Islam, I see the ‘Victory Mosque’ as a deliberate provocation. However, it is certainly arguable that this is not the case, so I shall confine my comment on Mr Massie’s article to a few minor carps.
First, he describes the building as a community centre with a prayer room, rather than a Mosque. What does he think a Mosque is? It’s a Mosque Alex.
Second, he says that the building is not on the site of the WTC, but several blocks away. True, but the current building was badly damaged in the 9/11 attacks, so I think some may not notice the difference.
This will be seen by many around the world as a great example of Western tolerance, however a great many more will see it as a mark of weakness. I really hope it doesn’t inspire an Bin Laden style ‘weak horse’ moment.
I fear that Mr. Massie is living in a fools paradise, already Sharia law is creeping into our Country whilst our politicians turn a blind eye. The “protest marches” promising death to infidels are not run by budhists or Christians. We regularly hear that muslims stay in their own enclaves and do not integrate. Our culture is ignored whilst that of Islam is boosted, at our expense. Yes there are educated muslims, most came to escape the harsh rule but are now being faced with the same rules here, but they do not speak out.
AS far as I can tell, the Mafia are still in Sicily and Naples, still wrecking civil life there, and were, and perhaps still are, big in the States for a long time. There are not very many of them. How many thugs in a network does it take to terrorise a community? How easy is it to ‘deal with them’? I think it is easier to ‘tolerate them’ and hope that you can avoid them until you get a chance to move out. Other than that, you may have to join them.
Islam is incompatible with civilization. End of story.
“Showing a confident front to the world is not bravado – it helps us to win.”
Perhaps. Or maybe you’re just whistling past the graveyard.
I think Massie is overlooking the elephant in the room. He writes:
But isn’t that precisely the problem or, rather, assuming it away? Such protests generally are not peaceful (or, at best, contain an underlying threat of incipient violence), and the Islamists always demand that they “not be offended”. Chip shops can’t sell pork products for fear of causing offense; jokes about Islam or Muhammed are verboten; and of course publishing any drawing of Muhammed could get you killed. Indeed, isn’t it the complete lack of reciprocal respect on the part of Islamists which is the core of the problem? If they adhered to Massie’s approach we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. I think he’s merely projecting his own fantasy.
The banning of Christmas trees and crucifixes ought not to distract us from the ‘fact’ that this is a more tolerant country than in the past.
What crap.
And it overlooks the point that it is multicultural secular government which is implementing the bidding of global jihad.
No it is not ‘crap’, it is actually half right… and half very wrong.
In many ways we do indeed live in a era of tolerance… provided you are not a smoker or drinker or shooter or all manner of other things that it is ‘acceptable’ to discriminate against.
But we also live in an era of forced acceptance for things we have a right to discriminate against, which is something else entirely… indeed the very word ‘discrimination’ is held to be ‘bad’ whereas in fact it is an entirely morally neutral term and to be ‘discriminating’ can be a very good thing indeed.
No Laird, the core of the problem is the complete lack of respect towards our own cultural and moral values on the part of our own lords and masters. The very serious problem we are facing vis-a-vis Islamism is a mere symptom of a much more serious, home-grown disease. Look at the big picture.
That said, the construction of that Mosque is an abomination, and should not be allowed to pass.
why do you lack such confidence in this country and its people’s ability to solve these problems?
First day on the internet, Alex? I lack confidence because I’ve seen British police driven through the streets like frightened sheep by Islamists. I lack confidence because when the police aren’t running in terror from Islamists, they’re standing as bodyguards to men holding “Behead those who insult Islam” signs. Because when the British government takes a break from infringing on the liberties of its citizens and looting on a scale that would make a conquistador blush, it’s only to forbid entry to a member of a sister parliament of an EU nation who has criticized Islam.
I lack confidence because the penalty for murder in the United Kingdom is given a significant discount if the crime is committed in bulk, and at the behest of an Islamic government.
I lack confidence because the message that Islam is preferable to Christianity comes from every institution of British society from the schools to the BBC to the government to the monarchy to the Church itself.
I lack confidence because Massie’s belief that the millions of Muslims who make no public statement or display must take his side against the many thousands of Muslims who do, makes no sense.
But Alisa, isn’t that “complete lack of respect” by your betters the consequence of the lack of Islamic respect for other cultures? Perhaps we’re saying the same thing, but it seems to me that were it not for endemic Islamic intolerance (and penchant for violence) your “lords and masters” wouldn’t be put in the position of having to publicly display their utter lack of courage or character through constant genuflection to Islamic radicals.
Bgates: very well put!
Laird, thank you so much for asking, as my whole point is that it is precisely the opposite. When I wrote ‘look at the big picture’, I meant that all the infringements on our liberties (personal, economic, you name it) that we are discussing here, day in and day out, as well as the dire straights in which all of our economies find themselves right now – all of these things are intrinsically connected with the problem we are facing vis-a-vis Islamism, and all of them, including the latter, are the result of the said disrespect by our own “betters” towards our culture, our moral values and indeed, towards us, the people.
The core problem with Islam is its in-built violent contempt for outsiders, and for the insiders, a harsh, intolerant, highly- prescriptive regimen for their daily lives, one with violent retribution specified for non-conformance. The Muslims are indeed the ‘first victims’ of Islam, but its goal is to make victims of all of us one way or another. Intolerable barbarity has been defeated in Europe in the past, but at considerable cost. Alex Massie seems to think we can talk our way out it this time. Would that he were right.
bgates: absolutely.
I believe Alex Massie lives in the Scottish Borders. In the 2001 census Muslims comprised 0.14% of the population of that region. That must be the Muslim on which Massie bases his opinions – alright – the Muslim and his family. He probably runs the corner shop.
Laird, I think you are being unfair on Mr Massie. He makes it pretty clear that the rule of law must be applied equally, and that includes the kind of stuff you talk about, such as the issue of threats, etc.
Mr. Massie’s article is vacuous bordering upon childish and can be summed up as follows:
1. I, Alex Massie, am a nice, reasonable chap.
2. I think everyone should be a nice, reasonable chaps.
3. If everyone agrees to be nice, reasonable chaps then everything will turn out just fine, you mark my words.
Trite to the point of sophistry.
Well I’ve made my position on this well enough known by now, most recently over on CCIZ, suffice it to say, I second every word of TTs comment above.
Massie is symptomatic of the attitude of our whole Western Ruling Elite.
Everytime I hear someone say…
We must talk to the Taliban…. I somehow get a picture of Dr Dolittle popping into my head.
I would have expected nothing less of you, Jonathan. You are a dhimmi gladly walking, in a reasoned way, of course, into dhimmitude.
Did you read a nice book about islam once and thought it was a nice cozy religion? Mohammad married a six-year-old girl, pulled from a child’s swing, in error?
Give me Simon de Montfort!
Alisa, the trouble with the West is that we repudiated too thoroughly the Nazi legacy. Instead of their wild intolerance, we embraced wild tolerance. We have become frightened of even minimal standards, incase someone, somewhere, calls us racist.
The cure to multicultophilism would be to insist on a minimum standard of conduct from everyone- we could call this the law of the land. By insistence, I mean INSISTENCE! Don’t let in any loophole. If you don’t like the laws, work to change them. If you don’t want to do things that way, LEAVE!
I think it’s a time for a tougher culture in the west- one that allows divergence, but only on its’ own terms. One that has a spine of steel, not silicone.
I responded to Massie on his bizarre web page, saying, effecively what the chaps and chapesses have said above, but it didn’t make it through the intense scrutiny of the muslim website police.
Thank heavens for Samizdata!
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth(Link)…
Nuke Gray; It is not that we have repudiated NAZI legacy which was a rather good thing. The tragedy is that we have repudiated the so called “common sense”.
We have also repudiated a true democracy. A true democracy is the system that doesn’t allow the PARASITES to outvote PRODUCERS and steal the results of their work.
The existing system has nothing to do with the democracy. It could be described as a “PARASITOCRACY”. The tragedy is that we are accepting that nonsense.
Even more tragic is that the WORD, ARGUMENT and REASON are no loger sufficient to win back and rebuild the fundaments of true DEMOCRACY.
THE TIME OF THE GUN HAS ARRIVED…
Johnathan, that was entirely my point: the rule of law should be applied equally, across the board, but in the real world it isn’t. Massie is living in a fantasy land and, as I said before, is assuming away the problem. Sorry; won’t work. (What TT said.)
Laird, I think any honest reading of Massie’s article makes it clear as crystal that the rule of law should be applied. He’s hardly defending existing half-hearted practice or saying everything in the garden is fine, nothing to look at here, please move along, etc.
And to those who complain, like Verity, that I am some sort of “walking dhimmi”, I’d point out that in the past, for instance, I have attacked the idea – put about by the idiot Archbishop of Canterbury – that Shariah law should be officially recognised in UK law, etc. My track record in criticising the worst aspects of Islam is fairly solid, I’d argue. (Not that I want to get into some silly chest-beating exercise).
Being a libertarian, however, I don’t support such things as forced repatriation of Muslims – including those living here for many generations – forced closuure of their mosques (if they are private property), state controls on dress codes, etc. And believe me, these are the sort of ideas I have come across from some so-called “libertarians”.
I’m with Jonathan – western civilization is not going to be defended by banning the construction of a goddamn mosque. I don’t like it, even if the Cordoba project is run by Sufis, but there are far more important targets to attack and trying to do something about those is going to require putting a stop to endless compromises of principle.
bgates (07:07)
A comprehensive answer to Massie’s condescending assertions. You should repeat it on his blog. I urge readers who might be impressed by Mr Massie’s disingenuous nonsense (from past reading of his blog he isn’t actually stupid) to read a recent book by P David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry which collates evidence of the activities of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood of which it is an important cadre. It is not a literary masterpiece by any means, but it has the goods on the people behind this latest middle finger of derision towards the families and friends of the 9/11 victims and the memory of those massacred by this barbaric ‘religion of peace’.
Perhaps I should have given the title of Gaubatz and Sperry’s book and link:
http://www.amazon.com/Muslim-Mafia-Underworld-Conspiring-Islamize/dp/1935071106
Why was my comment not posted? Free (political) speech?
[Editor: This is private property and you have no right to free anything here. Whatever you write in this blog’s comments section is at the sufferance of the owner as the only one with any rights here *is* the owner… all you have is a privilege that is revocable upon any grounds we want.
And as a matter of policy we do not publish anything we think may be defamatory, gratuitously insulting, a gonzo conspiracy theory or a racist screed (I am sure you can figure out which category your comment was deemed to belong to) as we think they are a waste of pixels and they have a habit of derailing more worthwhile discussions.]
“He makes it pretty clear that the rule of law must be applied equally, and that includes the kind of stuff you talk about, such as the issue of threats, etc.”
That is crap because rule of the law was build for another civilization, another culture. For messianic types, those that don’t care if they go to jail or even die if they advance an inch their power that rule of law doesn’t have the same dissuasion power.
Against enough number of attacks the law doesn’t have power against medieval messianic behavior unless the law turns itself medieval.
I should add, as an addendum to my previous comment, that I don’t have a problem as such with things like shariah financial products – such as interest-free loans – being respected as contracts in UK law provided there is no duress involved. My reason for opposing the acknowledgement of shariah “arranged marriages” on the same basis under UK law is that these marriages are, by definition, carried out often without the meaningful consent of the bride and groom, and hence I presume that a degree of coercion was involved.
A question that some of Mr Massie’s critics cannot or will not answer is what happens if, say, a mosque is constructed on privately held land, with no public money involved? It seems a bit odd for defenders of property rights – like in this blog – to want to overule that sort of thing. Does this mean that any “non-western”, or somehow dubious, use of private land that we don’t like should also be made illegal?
I am with Jonathan and Mike.
The Rule of Law does need beefing up and the ability for fragile souls who are “offended” to be given the bird when someone mocks religion.
In fact I think robust humour and ridicule are powerful weapons. First up, it would be good to see the media using one of the translations of al-Qaeda, “the Camp”.
How can you act like a bunch of hard nut hombres when people say you are one of “the Camp”?
I’m not having any of this “rule of law” bollocks mind. On the evidence of what I see of that “rule of law” in the news every week in both Europe and the U.S.S.A, that is the last thing I want. The “rule of people by other people” is at least a potentially honest phrase.
Mike:
Most probably – unless you are a New Yorker, or even just an American, or a friend or relative of some other national who was murdered there. I think at least some of those people have the moral right to have a say in the matter.
Going on about how tolerant and diverse our ‘open society’ is self-congratulatory rubbish. Many muslims in Europe and America correctly see such ‘tolerance’ as slave morality, and therefore walk all over us. PC westerners no doubt believe themselves to be saints for letting this happen.
And if Massie thinks the Great Britain of 2010 is the ‘open society’, well he can shove his precious ‘open society’.
Mike writes:
I think I know what you mean, but obviously we do need laws, preferably of the basic “protection of life, liberty and property variety”.
Alisa: “Most probably – unless you are a New Yorker, or even just an American, or a friend or relative of some other national who was murdered there. I think at least some of those people have the moral right to have a say in the matter.”
Obviously if any such mosque being contemplated is built on public land or being funded by the US taxpayer, the obvious course is to say no. It gets a bit trickier if it is not. For instance – I speak as someone who lost colleagues on 9/11 in the WTC – does this mean that all Muslims, or anyone vaguely resembling one, should be banned from lower Manhattan lest their appearance proves upsetting?
I agree Jonathan, but even if it is being constructed on a private property, under minarchist/anarcho-cap conditions there are many ways to make the lives of both the landlords and the tenants unpleasant, without resorting to violence or any other illegal action. For example, you could refuse to provide them utilities such as power and water, or any other goods or services, for that matter. A real threat of such measures ahead of construction could well make those pushing such a project forward reconsider. Of course, the city of NY and the US in general are not anywhere near min/a-c conditions, and that is precisely why this monstrosity is being pushed forward in the first place. Like I said above: the big picture.
Well Alisa, it would be interesting to see if Mayor Bloomberg would take the course you recommend. For instance, if the group looking to build the mosque is as supposedly nasty as is claimed (I have no idea), then presumably their access to public facilities, including sewage, water supply and the rest could be, er, interfered with.
It would be nice to think that the landholder(s) could insist on some sort restriction on land-use by potential tenants to ensure good standards of behaviour.
But then again, that should apply to other groups that might have some sort of malevolent agenda, such as if a white supremacist group decided to rent a building next to say, a Synagogue.
The “rule of people by other people” is at least a potentially honest phrase.
Not when I use the term. I mean Property rights, due process, equality before the law without fear or favour (note that), adversarial trial by jury of peers, presumption of innocence, habeas corpus etc. Most definitely NOT “rule by men”!
I was going to say “yes, and airborne swine too”, but I worry about my car:-)
As for the rest, I did mention that my scenario is under conditions totally different from the existing ones. In our reality, both the landlords and the tenants are presumably paying taxes, and so I doubt they can be denied utilities by the city. Ridiculously enough, they probably cannot even be denied regular business by private citizens, not without all kinds of crappy racial-discrimination suits against the latter. Still, at least (for now) we are allowed to scream ‘bloody murder’.
Yes, Jonathan, I was going to say “yes, let’s hope for that and for airborne swine too”, but I worry about my car:-)
As for the rest, I did mention that my scenario is under conditions totally different from the existing ones. In our reality, both the landlords and the tenants are presumably paying taxes, and so I doubt they can be denied utilities by the city. Ridiculously enough, they probably cannot even be denied regular business by private citizens, not without all kinds of crappy r….l-discrimination suits against the latter. Still, at least (for now) we are allowed to scream ‘bloody murder’.
Alisa: colour me “just an American” – even though I’ve never set foot in the U.S.S.A. It amazes me that through all this “news coverage” there is barely a mention of Stephen Pomerantz, the man who decided to sell the building to the Muslim company in the first place. He owned the building, but did he own the land or is that owned by the Port Authority of New York? If so, then the issue of who gets what say is somewhat complicated, but I would still come down on Mr Pomerantz’s side; property rights are property rights, no ifs ands or buts.
Tim: sorry, I like your product but trying to sell any of that under the brand name “rule of law” is false advertising. Consider the consequences; people who are taught to value this current iteration of “America” in terms of “freedom” and “rule of law” will support the most reprehensible violations of freedom carried out with the most unnecessary and arbitrary on-the-spot decisions of police officers. Example: local police swat teams break into a guy’s house because he has a bit of marijuana and murder the family pet in front of the kids. That sort of stuff is going to get called “rule of law” whether you like it or not (and I know you don’t). So I say it’s better to draw your distinction without relying on that tired old sleight of hand phrase.
First of all, the city cannot deny utility services to this building. Forget about it; can’t happen. And Bloomberg wants this monstrosity there, so he’s certainly not going to to anything to interfere with it.
Second, as I understand it this mosque is being built on private property, using private funds, so from a purely legal (and even libertarian) perspective Bloomberg et al are correct. But this is not purely a legal matter, it’s a matter of morality, of sensitivity to the reasonable feelings of others (and no honest person can claim that the feelings of New Yorkers impacted by 9-11 are unreasonable). Whatever the stated objectives of the promoters of this mosque, the fact remains that they are completely ignoring the sensitivities of their proposed neighbors. If they were truly interested in promoting goodwill they would abandon this site and move the mosque elsewhere, rather than getting off on such a bad foot. The fact that they aren’t leads me to believe not that they are merely tone-deaf (demonstrating, incidentally, that they are hardly the best persons to be trying to foster inter-cultural amity). but rather that they have an entirely different agenda.
But all that is a special case, and the whole Muslim problem isn’t as great in the US as it is in Britain, which was the subject of Massie’s essay. There, as I see it, the real problem is fawning solicitude by the government and the intelligentsia to the demands of Muslims, however unreasonable. And that’s the core of the problem with claiming that the “rule of law” should be equally applicable to all. Of course it should, but if it were we wouldn’t be having this discussion. In the real world any Muslim grievance, however trivial, irrational or even contrived, is treated with abject deferrence, whereas any Muslim offense against others is ignored (or even defended). It is Massie’s willful ignoring of this blatant double standard which is the reason I take issue with his essay. He lives in a world of airborne swine. Unfortunately, the rest of us don’t.
I knew you’d say that, Mike (in a best possible way). I also had the same thought about the non-coverage of the property owner. And, I’m also with you on your point to Tim.
Laird, you and I certainly agree on the facts. I do wonder though what would your proposed solution be?
[B]In the real world any Muslim grievance, however trivial, irrational or even contrived, is treated with abject deferrence, whereas any Muslim offense against others is ignored (or even defended). [/B]
Interesting point. I wonder if this is rooted in the mistaken belief, as explored in a previous thread, that morals require a religious backing. Thus, someone elses morals, based on religion, if you’re not going to be discriminatory, must be treated equally to your own and accommodated.
It must be made clear that Western values are applied, not because of any religious connection but simply because they are simply the best (that we have found so far) to live by. Come here if you wish, keep your religion if you wish but in public matters, you live by our rules. Not because we’re oppressing you religiously but because they’re the rules that we have fought and fought and fought for, generation upon generation.
So, people abuse and distort the term “Rule of Law” and that makes me somehow in the wrong?
Why do we have to keep conceding correct definitions to the hijackers on the Left and Right, ending up wordless or using homebrew terms that then sound contrived?
People who misuse the term “Rule of Law” can go boil their own heads and I call them out on that whenever I encounter it.
Next up – the hijacking of “Libertarian”…
Tim, morally you are certainly not in the wrong, but unless you believe in natural law, the problem is logically inherent in the phrase itself.
And funnily enough, natural law is where Mike and I part ways, in memory serves me right.
Alisa, my solution to what, the British Muslim problem or the NYC mosque problem?
The former.
Rule of law, fine, but we are all deceivable and brain-washable (by making some things comfortable and other things uncomfortable, it’s a simple as that) and we are up against some very clever people.
End runs around the rule of law are fairly simple, as luckylucky points out by people to whom death is no problem.
If the West does not get some intelligent people to reason out the way forward fairly soon I would say it is in serious trouble.
It is possible the clever people in the elites are letting things get way out of hand so that severe laws and intrusions into liberty, independence and privacy can be introduced sometime soon.
Like yesterday.
Sometimes there is a place for robust and courageous action when faced with consummate evil.
Tim: what Alisa said – your “rule of law” can only be conceived, planned and executed by fallible men (best case scenario) including men who disagree with you about what constitutes the “rule of law” (or as you say: “abuse” and “distort”). That old catchphrase is inherently dishonest – there is no getting around that, and it’s not particularly anybody’s fault.
Alisa: I think you may have that a bit wrong, but let’s not get into natural law just now; I have a road trip in a few hours – hours which I need for shut eye…
Sure, Mike – I’ll be here when you need me:-)
John: exactly what kind of robust and courageous action?
Yes, Alisa, that is the question.
I think it is answerable by full and complete honesty but a problem with that is that self deception can become extremely subtle, especially when it is worked on by those whose principle desire is to exploit and deceive.
I think if people are left substantially free of motivated (agenda-driven) external persuasion and coercion, they can get a fairly clear idea of reality, what is needed in the circumstances and their own limitation to perceive.
I don’t think banning a legal building or dress code is really the correct way to go because it can lead to further deception, and may even be what the deceivers want.
But I think the whole consideration would be unneccessary if reality had not been thwarted at an earlier stage.
Take immigration into Britain. To ban immigration would not be neccessary if a whole load of unrealistic expectations of what is available in the country had not been brought about.
However all the unrealistic expectations have been fostered and so one would both have to deal with the results of those expectations, while removing the circumstances that had created them.
There is the perception that the West is a juicy sitting duck for whoever wants it, so that reality should be corrected if western civilisation wants to survive.
Absolutely.
To put this proposal for a Ground Zero mosque in context, can you imagine the outcry if an Orange Lodge was proposed for the site of the Bloody Sunday killings as a large gesture of the ‘open, tolerant’ society?!!
It is that stupid and far, far more insulting. What next- a Hilter Memorial next to the Centotaph?
Why the lack of confidence? How about the fact that they’ve made a facist, statist mess of the whole thing and are STILL completely unwilling or unable to get a handle on a large, vocal, and violent minority. No, it’s easier to harass 2 or 3 people trying to speak out peacefully, rather than deal with 300 waving signs about beheadings and such.
Talking about “resilience” and “confidence” is pointless when you have already failed, spectacularly, and in precisely the manner the Islamists intended and predicted.
“Come here if you wish, keep your religion if you wish but in public matters, you live by our rules. ”
You can’t say that to a sizable population. Your only options are to draw a new border or you have to live with the people you let inside in your country, or you expel them. Neither are pretty or nice. When people are too different the less worse solution is to stop them at door.
Alex Massie shows no knowledge of the basic nature of Islam – a nature that can sleep for awhile, but can NOT change.
The basic nature of Islam can not change because it is based on the life and teachings of Mohammed. How would a Muslim react to being told that Mohammed was a murderer, an enslaver and a child rapist? That his life was one of wars of aggression, based upon surprise attacks on people who had done him no harm – attacks based on lying promises of friendship and sudden treachery, followed by the butchery of helpless women and children and selling the survivors (when there were some) into slavery.
I know how I would react if I was even a nominal Muslim “these things can not be true – you must be telling lies”. But then EVIDENCE is presented (for example the various “holy” writings of Islam itself – exposed in the works of Robert Spencer and others).
Then the Muslim faces a choice – either he can go on screaming “lies” (in the face of all the evidence), or he can reject Islam. Not “become a nominal Muslim” or “reinterpret” Islam – rejecting the life and teachings of Mohammed is a lot more radical than that.
Does Alex Massie seek to bring the truth to Muslims so they reject Islam? OF COURSE HE DOES NOT.
On the contrary Alex Massie would say “do not upset the Muslims – you will provoke them into violence”.
I see so the first “interesting change” for Britain is going to be THE DEATH OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
And, of course, the death of freedom of religion (for if Christians, and athiests and ….. are not allowed to try and convert people, then “freedom of religion” is just empty words).
In any case Alex Massie’s “diversity” case is based upon nonsense – as even Putman (the “bowling alone” Harvard “liberal” sociologist) admitted (after YEARS of sitting on his reasearch) that as a place becomes more “diverse” so the sense of a general “community” breaks down. But leave that aside [people may think that a break down in community is a price worth paying for diversity.
But what is not a price worth paying is the end of freedom of religion and freedom of speech – and (in the end) the end of all other freedom.
Alex Massie refers to the Islamification of Europe as just an “interesting change” – it is hard to express just how stupid his position is.
What is needed is not a “war on Muslims” or other such stuff – what is needed is an honest and open effort to show Muslims the evil basis of Islam and offer them real alternatives to it (not sticking one’s head in the sand and hoping Muslims will stay quiet if no one bothers them).
In this Atlas shrugged.com shows a good road ahead.
However, a poster campaign to protect converts from Islam (remember Islam teaches that those who would leave it should be murdered) would be rather difficult in Britian (even more difficult than it is in the United States). This is because of the mind set of fools like Alex Massie.
Paul Marks, you made reference to “Atlas shrugged.com” but didn’t provide a link. When I typed in “atlasshrugged.com” it just takes me to a website about the novel itself, but there’s nothing there (that I can see) which discusses the Muslim issue. Am I in the right place?
Here, Laird.
Absolutely, Paul Marks. There needs to be logical consistency, indeed.
And, as I understand it, in the Koran, Islam (Submission) does teach that there are three alternatives for “unbelivers”: Convert; Submit; Die.
Those are the alternatives in situations where Islam is the dominant culture.
Thanks, Alisa.
My apologies Laird – and my thanks to Alisa.
Aren’t you two lucky to have me here?;-P
What hogwash.
Sorry, but if you continue importing Muslims especially from Pakistan, say hello to de-facto secession of progressively more territories – into no-go zones, sharia enclaves where your stupid PC “community officers” dare not venture.
Demography is destiny, and in case Mr. Massie has not noticed, Britain DOES NOT have cultural resilience anymore. Every one of its institutions is bending over backwards to accommodate Islam.
Nope. All it takes is for the vastly superior Western civil society to be allowed to do what it does so well… assimilate people from more primitive cultures… and it stops mattering how many babies ‘they’ have because all they end up doing is breeding more bourgeois westerners.
We just need to get the PC political class out of the way (for oh so many reasons, this being the least of them) and the ‘problem’ of Muslims in the west reverts to the non-issue it once was.
Undoubtedly true, Perry, but also undoubtedly a fantasy. They’re not going away. So what’s Plan B?
Throw the bums out. As Perry said, their enabling of Islam is the least of the reasons.
Perry I believe in assimilation (I certainly do NOT believe that Western Civilization is a racial construct) – I believe in people working to convert Muslims to other views of the world (just “leaving them alone” will not work – because a nominal Muslim may become an active one, at the worst possible time, IF PRESENTED WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT ISLAM).
Yet when I wrote a comment on the Spectator site they would not even put it up – no doubt because it was “anti Islam”.
Does that sound like a strong civil society to you?
The only nation in the Western world where there is any effort at all being made to convert Muslims is the United States – and even in America the education system, “mainstream” media (and so on) are totally AGAINST the effort.
Even the posters against killing people who convert (and offering protection to people thinking of leaving Islam) are savagely attacked – and not just by Islamists (but by the “mainstream” establishment also).
Yes even in the United States if you put up poster offering protection FROM MURDER to people who wish to leave Islam (not just for Christianity – but for athiesm also) you are the bad guy. The Islamic murderers are NOT the bad guys.
Again does that sound like a strong civil society? No wonder when the Islamists look at the West they (rightly) argue that one should look beyond the fighter aircraft, the tanks (and so on) and see that its heart it is decayed – it is the “weak horse”.
Remember one can not beat something with nothing – “letting sleeping dogs alone” (ignoring an expanding Islamic population – offering them no alternative to Islam) is really cultural suicide (contrary to David Hume and F.A. Hayek – a culture is PARTLY the deliberate creation of human beings, somthing they CHOOSE to develop and preserve, not just the “creation of human action, but not human design”, left without conscious human choice, belief and action, the principles of society decay).
Please no one come back and say “there is an alternative to Islam” and then show pictures of naked women (and so on) – that is making the Islamists point for them.
An alternative to Islam has to be a moral view of the world (religious or nonreligious) a set of principles – a foundation.
Just presenting vice will not do. People may indulge all sorts of vices – but, in the end, they will still want a framework of principles, a foundation.
Islam offers that – and if no altertative view is presented, then Islam wins by default.
Ha, Massie is Lucklucky. shouldn’t post under the name of your trust, bro.