Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Enlightened intolerance(economist.com)
economist.com
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Enlightened intolerance
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/04/ayaan-hirsi-ali
4 comments
Don't forget -we are in America- that islam seeks to re-introduce slavery. Another one of those non radical positions (America forced most islamic states to give up slavery in 1950 or so, and they haven't really done so [1], only legally abolished it).
Oh and islam denies equal rights to muslims as well. Members of the state apparatus are also elevated, and one of the rights they have is to kill anyone they please. Also islam prescribes death for freedom of expression, for singing (yes, really), ... [2]
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari... [2] a search for 'asma bint marwan' will quickly yield the rules for this
The problem is that the moral values the world currently has are distinctly Christian values. Yes people like to pretend they are atheist values, "humanist" (you'd think scientific education would prevent people from thinking moral values are associated with a natural object like that, but I guess not) ... yet they defend equal rights for all people, equal rights for the sexes, protecting the weak, they go very far in the rights of children, pro-adoption, anti-war (in the sense that they are against war unless in defence), they defend freedom of trade, ... All very much Christian moral positions (well, especially that specific combination is distinctly Christian. E.g. islam does have freedom of trade, as it is mostly based on Roman law), distinct from other religions. If you judge any other religion by this modern standard it will fail badly. Especially equality is rare.
The problem is that islam is just a very bad example of a religion, but it is not special. It is not the worst (certainly natural religions are far worse), but none of it's rules are exceptional at all.
The norm in human history, and likely the majority position of all humans worldwide is what one would consider bad religions' positions. Death for gay people, or generally any sex outside marriage. Death for freedom of expression. Death for sex outside marriage. Religious or physical leaders get to execute people. No separation between church and state. Neutral or pro position to slavery. War as the default position due to religious or ethnic "eternal" conflicts or "holy" wars. These things are the norm, not the exception.
So what does one do ?
Oh and islam denies equal rights to muslims as well. Members of the state apparatus are also elevated, and one of the rights they have is to kill anyone they please. Also islam prescribes death for freedom of expression, for singing (yes, really), ... [2]
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari... [2] a search for 'asma bint marwan' will quickly yield the rules for this
The problem is that the moral values the world currently has are distinctly Christian values. Yes people like to pretend they are atheist values, "humanist" (you'd think scientific education would prevent people from thinking moral values are associated with a natural object like that, but I guess not) ... yet they defend equal rights for all people, equal rights for the sexes, protecting the weak, they go very far in the rights of children, pro-adoption, anti-war (in the sense that they are against war unless in defence), they defend freedom of trade, ... All very much Christian moral positions (well, especially that specific combination is distinctly Christian. E.g. islam does have freedom of trade, as it is mostly based on Roman law), distinct from other religions. If you judge any other religion by this modern standard it will fail badly. Especially equality is rare.
The problem is that islam is just a very bad example of a religion, but it is not special. It is not the worst (certainly natural religions are far worse), but none of it's rules are exceptional at all.
The norm in human history, and likely the majority position of all humans worldwide is what one would consider bad religions' positions. Death for gay people, or generally any sex outside marriage. Death for freedom of expression. Death for sex outside marriage. Religious or physical leaders get to execute people. No separation between church and state. Neutral or pro position to slavery. War as the default position due to religious or ethnic "eternal" conflicts or "holy" wars. These things are the norm, not the exception.
So what does one do ?
I'm sorry, you can't argue that enlightenment values are by nature Christian. Various Churches fought for centuries in opposition to them.
They burned people to death for owning Bibles in English, that is, Bibles they could actually read. Homosexuals were executed during the 19th Century and persecuted during the 20th. Slavery was A-OK for quite a while, too. Female priests? Not until recently, and far from universally even now. Contraception? Right now in Africa a humanitarian tragedy is unfolding due in no small part to the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception.
They burned people to death for owning Bibles in English, that is, Bibles they could actually read. Homosexuals were executed during the 19th Century and persecuted during the 20th. Slavery was A-OK for quite a while, too. Female priests? Not until recently, and far from universally even now. Contraception? Right now in Africa a humanitarian tragedy is unfolding due in no small part to the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception.
No ? The law that the government that is generally identified with the enlightenment movement was my object of study for almost a year. Half of it matches canon law article-by-article, word-for-word. Right down to the freaking wording, and let me tell you, word-by-word latin-to-french translation does not exactly make for clear reading.
If you don't realize the reason for no female priests, knowing that priests are supposed to be missionaries, including deep in "enemy" territory. If that doesn't clarify matters, I don't think you will ever realize why that won't happen any time soon.
The enlightenment law (well, it's direct offshoot, napoleonistic law, to be pedantic) is by far the most-used law system worldwide. Hell, it's the law in Mecca (outside of "family" disputes, and even then), Paris, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo, and pretty much everything in between. The "other" law system, English Common Law, is merely a slightly earlier offshoot of the same biblical law (and frankly, common law is much more medieval, local "rulers" have much more power under common law than they have under napoleonistic law), which applies in Delhi, West Africa and Washington.
Which of these would you call the enlightenment values ? Because either version is definitely based directly on the Bible.
In other words, the enlightenment values (the actual ones, used in courts today) 30-40% of them, are sentence-by-sentence copies of a Vatican bible interpretation manual (ie. "canon law"). The rest are copies "in spirit".
It is not the case that enlightenment itself is still in force. You wouldn't want that either, there are plenty of enlightenment values (meaning values of the enlightenment government) that are no longer practiced. This is a very good thing, Google "Robespierre" and start reading. I guarantee that your respect for the enlightenment will drop 50% before you get through half the wikipedia page and you'll be forever thankful that the enlightenment itself ended as quickly as it did.
If you don't realize the reason for no female priests, knowing that priests are supposed to be missionaries, including deep in "enemy" territory. If that doesn't clarify matters, I don't think you will ever realize why that won't happen any time soon.
The enlightenment law (well, it's direct offshoot, napoleonistic law, to be pedantic) is by far the most-used law system worldwide. Hell, it's the law in Mecca (outside of "family" disputes, and even then), Paris, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo, and pretty much everything in between. The "other" law system, English Common Law, is merely a slightly earlier offshoot of the same biblical law (and frankly, common law is much more medieval, local "rulers" have much more power under common law than they have under napoleonistic law), which applies in Delhi, West Africa and Washington.
Which of these would you call the enlightenment values ? Because either version is definitely based directly on the Bible.
In other words, the enlightenment values (the actual ones, used in courts today) 30-40% of them, are sentence-by-sentence copies of a Vatican bible interpretation manual (ie. "canon law"). The rest are copies "in spirit".
It is not the case that enlightenment itself is still in force. You wouldn't want that either, there are plenty of enlightenment values (meaning values of the enlightenment government) that are no longer practiced. This is a very good thing, Google "Robespierre" and start reading. I guarantee that your respect for the enlightenment will drop 50% before you get through half the wikipedia page and you'll be forever thankful that the enlightenment itself ended as quickly as it did.
As long as there are still people who derive their 'wisdom' from religious texts that they do not test or criticise, the enlightenment will continue.
You say "enlightenment values as values of enlightenment government" but what you mean is the values of government in the period of the start of the enlightenment movement. But as we all know, the process of replacing faith with reason was not something that was decided upon and implemented.
Even now countries that claim to be enlightened, like the U.S., tolerate openly Christian leaders. That's a sign the enlightenment is far from done. And proof that any enlightenment government is not likely to actually exhibit full congruence with enlightened philosophy.
An enlightenment value is one that has been tested to reason, regardless if it has been inspired from a bible. After all, the values of the bible once sprang from a reasoning human too didn't they?
You say "enlightenment values as values of enlightenment government" but what you mean is the values of government in the period of the start of the enlightenment movement. But as we all know, the process of replacing faith with reason was not something that was decided upon and implemented.
Even now countries that claim to be enlightened, like the U.S., tolerate openly Christian leaders. That's a sign the enlightenment is far from done. And proof that any enlightenment government is not likely to actually exhibit full congruence with enlightened philosophy.
An enlightenment value is one that has been tested to reason, regardless if it has been inspired from a bible. After all, the values of the bible once sprang from a reasoning human too didn't they?
> You say "enlightenment values as values of enlightenment government" but what you mean is the values of government in the period of the start of the enlightenment movement. But as we all know, the process of replacing faith with reason was not something that was decided upon and implemented.
I think you need to go back to the history books. That's pretty much what happened during the French revolution. Religion wasn't the only factor, of course, there was nobility + state versus poor + merchants class warfare involved. But religion was seen, in France, to be solidly on the wrong side, with "laicite" as the result.
Problem is that they proceeded to place lots of people with no affection whatsoever to the religion, or the nation, or anything outside of themselves really, in control of the state. They literally threw out the existing people (usually after separating head and body of the individuals concerned), and replaced them near-wholesale. The result, as we all should know, but don't, was a monstrous, valueless, cruel and unlivable state, very quickly resulting in another revolution (generally referred to as "stage 2" or "stage 3" of the french revolution itself), which brought Napoleon to power, who was very much part of the wrong side in the previous stage of the revolution. People were clamoring for religion, values and the like because the valueless, morale-less bureaucrats behavior.
I think the enlightenment, if you look at actual history is very much a lesson in both how a religious based society doesn't work, and a religion-less society doesn't work either. Not that these lessons apply directly today, but I do think it's fair to say that France demonstrated very clearly to everyone that you can't live dominated by a religion, but you can't live without religion either.
You probably think that this "anti-religion" movement is something new, but I think once you study history, you'll find yourself to be on the very moderate anti-religious side of this argument (compared to the beginning of the 19th century). I think you'll also read about what happened when policies like the ones you're suggesting are actually implemented, and I think you'll agree that "enlightened" is certainly not universally better than what you'd probably call "stuck in the middle ages". Read about the rash of revolutions in Europe, how religion was involved, and what happened.
I think you need to go back to the history books. That's pretty much what happened during the French revolution. Religion wasn't the only factor, of course, there was nobility + state versus poor + merchants class warfare involved. But religion was seen, in France, to be solidly on the wrong side, with "laicite" as the result.
Problem is that they proceeded to place lots of people with no affection whatsoever to the religion, or the nation, or anything outside of themselves really, in control of the state. They literally threw out the existing people (usually after separating head and body of the individuals concerned), and replaced them near-wholesale. The result, as we all should know, but don't, was a monstrous, valueless, cruel and unlivable state, very quickly resulting in another revolution (generally referred to as "stage 2" or "stage 3" of the french revolution itself), which brought Napoleon to power, who was very much part of the wrong side in the previous stage of the revolution. People were clamoring for religion, values and the like because the valueless, morale-less bureaucrats behavior.
I think the enlightenment, if you look at actual history is very much a lesson in both how a religious based society doesn't work, and a religion-less society doesn't work either. Not that these lessons apply directly today, but I do think it's fair to say that France demonstrated very clearly to everyone that you can't live dominated by a religion, but you can't live without religion either.
You probably think that this "anti-religion" movement is something new, but I think once you study history, you'll find yourself to be on the very moderate anti-religious side of this argument (compared to the beginning of the 19th century). I think you'll also read about what happened when policies like the ones you're suggesting are actually implemented, and I think you'll agree that "enlightened" is certainly not universally better than what you'd probably call "stuck in the middle ages". Read about the rash of revolutions in Europe, how religion was involved, and what happened.
since you cited sources, i went and checked.
Your first article is an expose on the wealthy class in Dubai, not a religious position. Granted, they speak Arabic, but almost no one believes what the ruling class in Dubai (or Saudi for that matter) does has anything to do with Islam.
Your second reference is to a story from the 7th century that historians believe is a fabrication. And, even if it was true, she was condemned to death for inciting violence, not for singing.
i understand that there is a lot of hostility toward what some Muslims do, and justifiably so, but that doesn't necessarily represent Islam any more than Warren Jeffs or Fred Phelps represent Christianity. And, there's no doubt that some won't agree with Islam's sense of morality, but at least disagree with the actual tenets of the faith, not corrupt foreign rulers and centuries-old gossip.
Your first article is an expose on the wealthy class in Dubai, not a religious position. Granted, they speak Arabic, but almost no one believes what the ruling class in Dubai (or Saudi for that matter) does has anything to do with Islam.
Your second reference is to a story from the 7th century that historians believe is a fabrication. And, even if it was true, she was condemned to death for inciting violence, not for singing.
i understand that there is a lot of hostility toward what some Muslims do, and justifiably so, but that doesn't necessarily represent Islam any more than Warren Jeffs or Fred Phelps represent Christianity. And, there's no doubt that some won't agree with Islam's sense of morality, but at least disagree with the actual tenets of the faith, not corrupt foreign rulers and centuries-old gossip.
Briefly - as I'm formulating an in depth reply - let's not trot out the "corrupt implementation" defense. Similar and equally invalid defenses have been made of communism over the years. Eventually one has to accept that the supposedly corrupt implementations of a philosophy are representative.
If the majority of Islamic countries interpret Islamic law a particular way, it's probably safe to criticize Islam on the basis of that interpretation, especially in the context of evaluating immigration from those countries.
If the majority of Islamic countries interpret Islamic law a particular way, it's probably safe to criticize Islam on the basis of that interpretation, especially in the context of evaluating immigration from those countries.
> ...let's not trot out the "corrupt implementation" defense... If the majority of Islamic countries interpret Islamic law a particular way, it's probably safe to criticize Islam on the basis of that interpretation...
That's the reason I've stopped getting into arguments with people over the internet regarding Islam; I don't agree with you there.
Governments of Islamic countries and their laws influenced by politics and foreign military powers don't make for an accurate source of Islamic law in my opinion.
That's the reason I've stopped getting into arguments with people over the internet regarding Islam; I don't agree with you there.
Governments of Islamic countries and their laws influenced by politics and foreign military powers don't make for an accurate source of Islamic law in my opinion.
Let's take a concrete example, capital punishment for apostasy.
"... in all the major schools of law in Islam (Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafii, Maliki and the Shiite Jafari school) there is unanimity that the penalty for apostasy is death. The difference is only whether an apostate is given the opportunity to repent or not, or whether he is given a certain number of days to repent. But it is a fact that Islamic Law demands everywhere that the apostate is put to death." [1]
Here is Dr. Mohammad Mukadam, (then) Chairman of the Association of Muslim Schools, stating in debate with Richard Dawkins that the penalty for apostasy is death:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qvWdWZq8To
Now, let's look at the treatment in law [2]:
* Afghanistan – illegal (death penalty, although the U.S. and other coalition members have put pressure that has prevented recent executions)
* Egypt – illegal (3 years' imprisonment)
* Iran – illegal (death penalty)
* Jordan – possibly illegal (fine, jail, child custody loss, marriage annulment) although officials claim otherwise, convictions are recorded for apostasy
* Malaysia – illegal in five of 13 states (fine, imprisonment, and flogging)
* Mauritania – illegal (death penalty if still apostate after 3 days)
* Oman – legal in criminal code, but according to the family code, a father can lose custody of his child
* Pakistan – illegal (death penalty since 2007)
* Qatar – illegal (death penalty)
* Saudi Arabia – illegal (death penalty, although there have been no recently reported executions)
* Somalia – illegal (death penalty)
* Sudan – illegal (death penalty, although there have only been recent reports of torture, and not of execution)
* United Arab Emirates – illegal (3 years' imprisonment, flogging)
* Yemen – illegal (death penalty)
So. There is complete agreement amongst all major sources of Islamic law that apostasy should be punishable by death; in many Islamic countries it is, and in others it is otherwise punishable.
Would you care to provide an "accurate source of Islamic law" that doesn't manifest this particular evil?
[1] http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/bassiouni_a...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Countries
"... in all the major schools of law in Islam (Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafii, Maliki and the Shiite Jafari school) there is unanimity that the penalty for apostasy is death. The difference is only whether an apostate is given the opportunity to repent or not, or whether he is given a certain number of days to repent. But it is a fact that Islamic Law demands everywhere that the apostate is put to death." [1]
Here is Dr. Mohammad Mukadam, (then) Chairman of the Association of Muslim Schools, stating in debate with Richard Dawkins that the penalty for apostasy is death:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qvWdWZq8To
Now, let's look at the treatment in law [2]:
* Afghanistan – illegal (death penalty, although the U.S. and other coalition members have put pressure that has prevented recent executions)
* Egypt – illegal (3 years' imprisonment)
* Iran – illegal (death penalty)
* Jordan – possibly illegal (fine, jail, child custody loss, marriage annulment) although officials claim otherwise, convictions are recorded for apostasy
* Malaysia – illegal in five of 13 states (fine, imprisonment, and flogging)
* Mauritania – illegal (death penalty if still apostate after 3 days)
* Oman – legal in criminal code, but according to the family code, a father can lose custody of his child
* Pakistan – illegal (death penalty since 2007)
* Qatar – illegal (death penalty)
* Saudi Arabia – illegal (death penalty, although there have been no recently reported executions)
* Somalia – illegal (death penalty)
* Sudan – illegal (death penalty, although there have only been recent reports of torture, and not of execution)
* United Arab Emirates – illegal (3 years' imprisonment, flogging)
* Yemen – illegal (death penalty)
So. There is complete agreement amongst all major sources of Islamic law that apostasy should be punishable by death; in many Islamic countries it is, and in others it is otherwise punishable.
Would you care to provide an "accurate source of Islamic law" that doesn't manifest this particular evil?
[1] http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/bassiouni_a...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Countries
Wikipedia is far from an "accurate source of Islamic Law", but you seem to be a fan, so here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Opposition_to...
Regardless of whether or not you decide to dismiss these positions as out of the orthodox, it's a logical fallacy to assume that because some Muslim-majority states implement some of the penal code describe in Islam, that any activity by these states is somehow part of or sanctioned by the religion.
Regardless of whether or not you decide to dismiss these positions as out of the orthodox, it's a logical fallacy to assume that because some Muslim-majority states implement some of the penal code describe in Islam, that any activity by these states is somehow part of or sanctioned by the religion.
Saleem, you are dodging the question. Every major school of Islamic jurisprudence agrees on the death penalty for apostasy. Certainly there is some opposition but it is far from mainstream, and in a distinct minority. The states that punish apostasy are clearly acting in accordance with Islamic law.
I'll ask again: can you cite a school of jurisprudence that opposes the death penalty for apostasy?
I'll ask again: can you cite a school of jurisprudence that opposes the death penalty for apostasy?
So are we to understand that when your prophet did this, he was wrong ? That he is not part of your religion ?
How exactly does your argument work ? The islamic prophet killed people for apostacy. That's a fact, confirmed by both islamic and non-islamic historical sources. In fact he massacred an entire city for that.
So answer the simple question : was that wrong ? Is it okay to kill individuals or massacre cities for apostacy ? If he was wrong, then is there any islamic religion at all ?
How exactly does your argument work ? The islamic prophet killed people for apostacy. That's a fact, confirmed by both islamic and non-islamic historical sources. In fact he massacred an entire city for that.
So answer the simple question : was that wrong ? Is it okay to kill individuals or massacre cities for apostacy ? If he was wrong, then is there any islamic religion at all ?
You won't get a reply; Saleem is either a troll, or practicing taqiyya ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya ).
Thank God for the corruptness of islam's implementation. After all, the real islam was by the prophet. Who, amongst other things, is a genocidal massacrer, paedophile, a thief and a slaver. Feel free to pick any of those adjectives and write the traditional muslim defense "yes, he massacred, but only because God asked him to kill those Jews", which of course makes everyting ok.
Yes there is no relation whatsoever between the wealthy class in Dubai and islam. No relation whatsoever. Doesn't exist. Nothing. Nada. Zilcho. Rien. There is absolutely no relation between the facts that islam pushes slavery, slavery was only outlawed in that region under pressure from Christian states and the fact that they are having a movement to undo that external influence and go back to their roots. I cannot see any connection at all here.
Why do people keep making defenses like this ? Do you honestly believe what you're writing ?
I note that you never actually refuted any of the claims I made. Let's take a few, so you might actually feel inspired to respond :
1) islam is a law system that includes inequality
2) islam defends slavery
3) islam demands homosexuals be put to death (actually worse: islam demands that victims of homosexual rape be summarily executed )
And you're right, these things are in theory. They do not even necessarily relate to real muslims (who of course they do base their behaviour to some extent on that system). Why is a system like the above (and this is just scratching the surface of islam's depravity) not summarily outlawed ?
Civilized beings have no use for this despicable religion. It should be attacked until it is gone from the planet, then serve the rest of eternity, without followers, showcased as an example of just how bad a religion can be.
and yes, I've read plenty of Roman and Greek texts, enough to know that homosexual rape was actually reasonably common in the Roman empire. And if you lower the definition of rape like we have done these days, ie. you count sex without use of actual violence but without consent as rape, then that was very common indeed.
Yes there is no relation whatsoever between the wealthy class in Dubai and islam. No relation whatsoever. Doesn't exist. Nothing. Nada. Zilcho. Rien. There is absolutely no relation between the facts that islam pushes slavery, slavery was only outlawed in that region under pressure from Christian states and the fact that they are having a movement to undo that external influence and go back to their roots. I cannot see any connection at all here.
Why do people keep making defenses like this ? Do you honestly believe what you're writing ?
I note that you never actually refuted any of the claims I made. Let's take a few, so you might actually feel inspired to respond :
1) islam is a law system that includes inequality
2) islam defends slavery
3) islam demands homosexuals be put to death (actually worse: islam demands that victims of homosexual rape be summarily executed )
And you're right, these things are in theory. They do not even necessarily relate to real muslims (who of course they do base their behaviour to some extent on that system). Why is a system like the above (and this is just scratching the surface of islam's depravity) not summarily outlawed ?
Civilized beings have no use for this despicable religion. It should be attacked until it is gone from the planet, then serve the rest of eternity, without followers, showcased as an example of just how bad a religion can be.
and yes, I've read plenty of Roman and Greek texts, enough to know that homosexual rape was actually reasonably common in the Roman empire. And if you lower the definition of rape like we have done these days, ie. you count sex without use of actual violence but without consent as rape, then that was very common indeed.
In the UK, try to defend any of the points you make here bar in some publication nobody reads and you're likely in for a bucketful of trouble and a visit from the police. Best keep quiet.
This is because of the violence inherent in islam. The threats. Everybody knows this, but they choose to ignore this because they can isolate themselves from muslims. This will stop, for obvious reasons, and then we'll see what happens. But only one thing can happen.
I find it funny that people think that this is the first time this happens. In reality mass muslim immigration has happened many times in Western European history, and it has always started and ended the same way.
It starts with some abuse of muslims. Why ? Simple, because unscrupulous people bring in the first muslims, with the exact purpose of exploiting them as cheap labor (or worse, they're brought in as slaves. Given that muslim societies have slavery [1], this will often be an improvement of their situation). They don't care if they're muslims, just that they're weak and can be used. This goes on for a few decades. Does this have anything to do with racism ? No, it causes racism. If you look at it from the perspective of a normal worker in society, who sees his job being taken by masses of extremely low-paid and ill-treated muslims who do a shoddy job, but so much cheaper it's still worth it for the bosses, this will start to make sense.
This conflict with the poor, or lower class intensifies when the muslims' numbers grow. Because you can't compete with people who live like muslims do. So we get "tolerance". The reason for this tolerance is not some enlightened moral value, but because it is necessary to demand the same working conditions the non-exploited laborers get, to prevent society from degrading. To prevent a worker revolution (in the extreme case, which has never happened). So we get "tolerance". This is not a moral value, it is self-preservation of the poor, even if it can easily be mistaken for a moral value. Attacking tolerance as a social value is misguided. Fact is, as long as these minorities remain in society in significant numbers, racism must stop, or the lower classes must accept a huge pay cut.
Then the numbers start growing, and the threats and attacks start. Mostly you see the threats and attacks inside the muslim society itself, and sometimes at contact points (like intermarriages). Initially they are isolated groups, maybe individuals, attacking whatever they can attack because society rejects them. They are criminals at this point. The problem is that from a religious perspective they're right. They make the case in mosques that muslims should attack anything and everything around them, and their followers start to increase. They often get support from muslim institutions abroad. The attacks are necessary to attract attention, and to disable opposition and scare integrated muslims who do not share these ideas about their faith. Like always, the moderates will lose, they can't win through argument, and certainly they can't win the physical violence, when they're getting beaten up or killed (like islamic law demands they be).
This is the point we're at.
What's coming is a large scale "terrorist" act, not with a single perpetrator, but a large group of muslims (say 500-1000 or more) committing a large scale massacre in a large (probably) European city, after a while the local army moves in, because it gets no choice, and after the soldiers see the dead bodies "somehow" almost every muslim gets killed, including a couple hundred that weren't part of the "terrorist" act. (Ever wonder why there were zero female and/or children victims of the genocide at Srebrenica ?).
You have to understand the situation at this point. The population is not just mad at this point, it's furious. Both muslims and others. They are at eachother's throats. The government, however, is not weakened by these acts. The army is very nearly intact, and has zero hope of containing the situation. Also the army and the government are the only ones with an overview of the situation, so they at this point fully understand the situation : if they don't immediately act the slaughter will repeat in every city. So they do the only thing they possibly can ... Attack. They often don't take that decision immediately, they wait until it's made for them, resulting in a much bigger disaster.
Then the situation devolves into civil war. Here's the good news : muslims have almost never won such a civil war.
Needless to say, after this process minority rights are heavily curtailed.
This has happened dozens of times in European history, in various places, including places where you wouldn't expect it, like France, even Holland. It is simply happening again. Contrary to public opinion, history didn't die when the Berlin wall fell, it simply took a breather, because of oil, and frankly because America had both the chance, the military power and the will to make it happen for the last 3 decades or so [2], and history's resuming.
Muslims use scorched earth tactics. Their strategy is not to conquer, at least not directly. Their strategy is to destroy, and be the only ones left. In a primitive society where individual members are completely exposed to the most violent members of society, they will win. So they destroy everything until such a primitive society exists.
[1] in fact muslim societies are famous for how bad they treat slaves. Being a slave in the Roman Empire wasn't so bad (in fact everybody on hacker news who isn't a ceo, politician, soldier or -sometimes- consultant would have been a slave in the Roman Empire. Willingly. Read history to understand this). Islam is what gave slavery it's bad name (not that they were the only ones to treat slaves badly, but they were by far the worst)
[2] America, with the end of oil, is losing that power. Thanks to colonialism America managed to wield the power that oil gave middle eastern dictatorships (because their empire was militarily defeated and proceeded to collapse, to be taken over by Western powers in what is now known as "Colonialism". They have not rebuilt, and today there still is no viable candidate to resume where the Ottoman empire left off, plenty of contenders who want to, though). These days having America as an enemy is realistic for large states, and it will become positively easy when oil production really starts to drop (it started dropping in 2005, but so far only dropped something like 0.6% or so. This will accelerate a lot in the coming years even if shale oil has given America - but so far nobody else - a reprieve. It's nowhere near enough to bring America's power back to where it was 2 decades ago though. It is merely enough to keep America independant for a few years. This gives America the power to choose or refuse it's allies, a luxury almost no other large state has. For example China cannot choose it's allies or enemies)
I find it funny that people think that this is the first time this happens. In reality mass muslim immigration has happened many times in Western European history, and it has always started and ended the same way.
It starts with some abuse of muslims. Why ? Simple, because unscrupulous people bring in the first muslims, with the exact purpose of exploiting them as cheap labor (or worse, they're brought in as slaves. Given that muslim societies have slavery [1], this will often be an improvement of their situation). They don't care if they're muslims, just that they're weak and can be used. This goes on for a few decades. Does this have anything to do with racism ? No, it causes racism. If you look at it from the perspective of a normal worker in society, who sees his job being taken by masses of extremely low-paid and ill-treated muslims who do a shoddy job, but so much cheaper it's still worth it for the bosses, this will start to make sense.
This conflict with the poor, or lower class intensifies when the muslims' numbers grow. Because you can't compete with people who live like muslims do. So we get "tolerance". The reason for this tolerance is not some enlightened moral value, but because it is necessary to demand the same working conditions the non-exploited laborers get, to prevent society from degrading. To prevent a worker revolution (in the extreme case, which has never happened). So we get "tolerance". This is not a moral value, it is self-preservation of the poor, even if it can easily be mistaken for a moral value. Attacking tolerance as a social value is misguided. Fact is, as long as these minorities remain in society in significant numbers, racism must stop, or the lower classes must accept a huge pay cut.
Then the numbers start growing, and the threats and attacks start. Mostly you see the threats and attacks inside the muslim society itself, and sometimes at contact points (like intermarriages). Initially they are isolated groups, maybe individuals, attacking whatever they can attack because society rejects them. They are criminals at this point. The problem is that from a religious perspective they're right. They make the case in mosques that muslims should attack anything and everything around them, and their followers start to increase. They often get support from muslim institutions abroad. The attacks are necessary to attract attention, and to disable opposition and scare integrated muslims who do not share these ideas about their faith. Like always, the moderates will lose, they can't win through argument, and certainly they can't win the physical violence, when they're getting beaten up or killed (like islamic law demands they be).
This is the point we're at.
What's coming is a large scale "terrorist" act, not with a single perpetrator, but a large group of muslims (say 500-1000 or more) committing a large scale massacre in a large (probably) European city, after a while the local army moves in, because it gets no choice, and after the soldiers see the dead bodies "somehow" almost every muslim gets killed, including a couple hundred that weren't part of the "terrorist" act. (Ever wonder why there were zero female and/or children victims of the genocide at Srebrenica ?).
You have to understand the situation at this point. The population is not just mad at this point, it's furious. Both muslims and others. They are at eachother's throats. The government, however, is not weakened by these acts. The army is very nearly intact, and has zero hope of containing the situation. Also the army and the government are the only ones with an overview of the situation, so they at this point fully understand the situation : if they don't immediately act the slaughter will repeat in every city. So they do the only thing they possibly can ... Attack. They often don't take that decision immediately, they wait until it's made for them, resulting in a much bigger disaster.
Then the situation devolves into civil war. Here's the good news : muslims have almost never won such a civil war.
Needless to say, after this process minority rights are heavily curtailed.
This has happened dozens of times in European history, in various places, including places where you wouldn't expect it, like France, even Holland. It is simply happening again. Contrary to public opinion, history didn't die when the Berlin wall fell, it simply took a breather, because of oil, and frankly because America had both the chance, the military power and the will to make it happen for the last 3 decades or so [2], and history's resuming.
Muslims use scorched earth tactics. Their strategy is not to conquer, at least not directly. Their strategy is to destroy, and be the only ones left. In a primitive society where individual members are completely exposed to the most violent members of society, they will win. So they destroy everything until such a primitive society exists.
[1] in fact muslim societies are famous for how bad they treat slaves. Being a slave in the Roman Empire wasn't so bad (in fact everybody on hacker news who isn't a ceo, politician, soldier or -sometimes- consultant would have been a slave in the Roman Empire. Willingly. Read history to understand this). Islam is what gave slavery it's bad name (not that they were the only ones to treat slaves badly, but they were by far the worst)
[2] America, with the end of oil, is losing that power. Thanks to colonialism America managed to wield the power that oil gave middle eastern dictatorships (because their empire was militarily defeated and proceeded to collapse, to be taken over by Western powers in what is now known as "Colonialism". They have not rebuilt, and today there still is no viable candidate to resume where the Ottoman empire left off, plenty of contenders who want to, though). These days having America as an enemy is realistic for large states, and it will become positively easy when oil production really starts to drop (it started dropping in 2005, but so far only dropped something like 0.6% or so. This will accelerate a lot in the coming years even if shale oil has given America - but so far nobody else - a reprieve. It's nowhere near enough to bring America's power back to where it was 2 decades ago though. It is merely enough to keep America independant for a few years. This gives America the power to choose or refuse it's allies, a luxury almost no other large state has. For example China cannot choose it's allies or enemies)
I cite:
> Of course, Mr Wilders leads the farthest-right party in the Dutch political landscape, one with which most Dutch parties have refused to cooperate.
False. The labour party announced a cordon sanitaire with them, but went on to propose legislation that this right wing party had described in their electoral programme, almost 4 weeks after the announcement.
The article concludes with:
> The fact that such statements are not welcomed in American public discourse is one reason why the American model of integration and tolerance works better than the Dutch model, and why the Netherlands continues to be wracked by tensions over Islam and integration—years after those tensions forced Ms Hirsi Ali herself to leave.
This is entirely nonsensical.
> Of course, Mr Wilders leads the farthest-right party in the Dutch political landscape, one with which most Dutch parties have refused to cooperate.
False. The labour party announced a cordon sanitaire with them, but went on to propose legislation that this right wing party had described in their electoral programme, almost 4 weeks after the announcement.
The article concludes with:
> The fact that such statements are not welcomed in American public discourse is one reason why the American model of integration and tolerance works better than the Dutch model, and why the Netherlands continues to be wracked by tensions over Islam and integration—years after those tensions forced Ms Hirsi Ali herself to leave.
This is entirely nonsensical.
So, American tolerance seems to be tolerance by religious towards other religions, where Dutch tolerance is tolerance by non-religious towards religions.
I don't respect religion, but I do respect your right to have one and exercise it. Just not to the point where you form a hazard to your surroundings.
I don't know if every Dutch person shares that attitude, and if that attitude is the reason that our tensions with immigrants are worse than the U.S.'s (or even if that is true.) But I do know that attitude reflects the kind of free thinking society I want to be a part of.
I don't respect religion, but I do respect your right to have one and exercise it. Just not to the point where you form a hazard to your surroundings.
I don't know if every Dutch person shares that attitude, and if that attitude is the reason that our tensions with immigrants are worse than the U.S.'s (or even if that is true.) But I do know that attitude reflects the kind of free thinking society I want to be a part of.
"Universities are no longer institutions of inquiry but ‘safe spaces’ where delicate flowers of diversity of race, sex, orientation, ‘gender fluidity’ and everything else except diversity of thought have to be protected from exposure to any unsafe ideas.
As it happens, the biggest ‘safe space’ on the planet is the Muslim world. For a millennium, Islamic scholars have insisted, as firmly as a climate scientist or an American sophomore, that there’s nothing to debate. And what happened? As the United Nations Human Development Programme’s famous 2002 report blandly noted, more books are translated in Spain in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years. Free speech and a dynamic, innovative society are intimately connected: a culture that can’t bear a dissenting word on race or religion or gender fluidity or carbon offsets is a society that will cease to innovate, and then stagnate, and then decline, very fast.
As American universities, British playwrights and Australian judges once understood, the ‘safe space’ is where cultures go to die."
Excerpt from: http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9187... (Hirsi and Brandeis are discussed in a larger context)
As it happens, the biggest ‘safe space’ on the planet is the Muslim world. For a millennium, Islamic scholars have insisted, as firmly as a climate scientist or an American sophomore, that there’s nothing to debate. And what happened? As the United Nations Human Development Programme’s famous 2002 report blandly noted, more books are translated in Spain in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years. Free speech and a dynamic, innovative society are intimately connected: a culture that can’t bear a dissenting word on race or religion or gender fluidity or carbon offsets is a society that will cease to innovate, and then stagnate, and then decline, very fast.
As American universities, British playwrights and Australian judges once understood, the ‘safe space’ is where cultures go to die."
Excerpt from: http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9187... (Hirsi and Brandeis are discussed in a larger context)
These are not 'radical' positions; they have been upheld by numerous schools of Islamic jurisprudence and are law in many Islamic states.
Gay? Lesbian? Atheist? Christian? Baha'i? You'd better hope that there is never a Muslim majority in your country, or you will watch your rights evaporate and, in some cases, your life threatened or ended. If you doubt this, track down some local Lebanese Christians or Iranian Baha'is, and ask them why they left.
Tolerance of evil - for how else would you describe a religion that prescribes the execution of those who leave it? - is no virtue. I'm saddened, but not terribly suprised, to see the pitchfork mobs skewer Eich, and refuse to support Ali. Here's the thing: anti-gay hatred is equally wrong, regardless of who expresses it, and why.