You are, as always, clear minded, honest and truthful. And your evaluation is right.
I had begun a much longer post, but it is useless, because you said it better than I could ever have.
Yes, it is for Muslims to push back against Islamism, and they do not, unfortunately, do it either enough or well -- the reason lies in part in the identitarian fever that has infected the whole world, in part in the long-brewing ethno nationalist sentiment that colonialism only made worse, and in part the pressure of community taboos and fear of retaliation.
It is certainly not easy for Muslims to speak out among their own, to promote a personal, different interpretation of the sacred texts or the idea that these may be allegory and not factual truth; it may carry the risk of ostracism, violence and physical injury or death. I do understand this. Christians have had the same problem for 20 centuries. But if Luther and the others managed it, knowing they risked torture and death (no matter how many of their own the Protestants then put to death for heresy), so should, after all, the good-thinking Muslims be able to.
Because unless they do denounce the fundamentalist views of Islam and those literal religious principles that empower them, and unless their non-Muslim friends press them to do so and be clear, there will come a time in which we in the West will discriminate on the basis of religion, for our own safety, and it will be soon.
I think this is a bit of a problematic view. I agree that Muslims should be denouncing fundamentalist extremism and, for the most part, they do - most people just don't see it. Islam is a bit complicated in its structure because there is no one leading authority. In Christianity, there is the pope who can speak for a population - there is no such equivalent in Islam. Muslims, at best, have imams which lead mosques and are small community leaders but their power and reach is very limited. In the UK for instance, we have the Muslim Council of Britain who are seen as the body that represents Muslims and their interests. You'll find that they always expressly condemn Islamist terrorist attacks. Most Muslims do not have the platform to be condemning this and it be reached. All Muslims that I know - which is a lot - always condemn it but the reach is limited.
Islam is complicated in its structure, in a way like many Protestant denominations are (not our Catholicism light Anglican Communion). It does not prevent people from expressing collectively their opinions.
And I am very well aware that The MCB has condemned Islamist terrorist attacks. Unfortunately terrorist attacks are not the only expression of Islamism, and in speaking out against less openly violent forms of Islamism the MCB has been often lacking, with some of its officials stumbling badly on occasion, even denying, in the eagerness to downplay the Holocaust on account of Israel, the seriousness of the Armenian genocide that (by pure chance, surely) was committed by a Muslim state. And the MCB constantly plays the islamophobia card in response to most critiques of Islam, by non Muslims as well as Muslims.
The MCB does, I am sure the best it can. But the problem is part of the identitarianism that has affected a large part of the world. It is very difficult for many individual Muslims to speak out, or do so in an organised way, against any cultural tendency of their religious community and what aspects of their religious tradition they perceive as flawed, because they are seen as traitors, and they face objective risks as well. Not unlikely, for example, LGBT people who object to some aspects and practices of trans activism.
I do not know whether you were alive during the Troubles, but there is a similarity in attitudes, fears and identitarian stiffening, with the situation among the Catholic and Protestant populations in Northern Ireland in those times. Most of the people condemned the murderous militants, but yet... they were their own people. A sense of loyalty to one's own kicked in, and the feeling that the "others" were worse, and speaking publicly against, not the murders, but the ideas that produced the murders, was a form of betrayal of your own people, because others could never understand.
For each of us individually, not just for ordinary Muslims, the reach is limited. This is why we organise and speak, and discuss, and state clearly, repeatedly, every time a line is crossed, our objections. Again and again, because it is a work that never ends. I do not see many Muslim organisations coming up to do this. For the time being, any critique of the principles that the Islamists hold so dear, even if the violent support for it is not embraced, receives the islamophobia treatment. See the reactions to the critiques of Jihab Day.
That is a very perceptive analysis of Islam and violence. And I agree with your solution. Reforms from within. Unfortunately, while change by violence can happen overnight, reform by moderates through persuasion can take a couple of hundred years. In the mean time, I need to protect my family today. I don’t know what the answer is but multi-culturalism is not among them, not when there are cultures / religions that do not believe in co-existence.
Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity. 600 years ago, Christians were fighting unending wars between Catholic and Protestant countries, and the Inquisition was in full swing. It only ended about 200 years ago.
I’m afraid we have a long way to go before Islam moderates on its own.
This is fantastic. I believe cultures are defined by what they tolerate. Islam has been too tolerant, even if it's largely out of fear, of the hate and radicalism within the ideology and community. If cultures do not self police their own radicals, collectively denouncing and unaffiliating with their socially destructive members (whether they are violating laws or taboos), they can expect the whole culture to be painted with a broad brush.
The only way out of this mess is for more brave people, ideally within but also outside of the Muslim community, to vocally condemn the worst of Islam while encouraging the majority of moderate Muslims to do the same and align to moderation and liberalism.
This was such a brilliant post! I’ve been thinking along similar lines, yet I’ve struggled to find the right words to express my ideas clearly. Please keep writing! you make me a more thoughtful, more reflective thinker.
This was an outstanding essay. Thanks for your clear explanation of the difference between holding people responsible for their beliefs and actions, and judging them on immutable characteristics.
I like to say that I’m not an Islamophobe, or a racist. I’m a “behaviorist”.
"Believing one knows the divine will of God and what he wants for humans .."
The jaw-dropping bit here is that the people who claim that it is sacreligous to merely depict Allah with a brush or pen (on pain of death) also claim to know God's mind so surely that they can be judge, jury and executioner on his behalf. If they were to follow their own logic they'd dipose of themselves quick sharp. Maybe that's the answer.
Beautifully said… you are a very wise person! Yes the tragedy at Bondi Beach represent the worst and best manifestations of Islam. The ‘worst’ though is pretty terrible and frightens people, understandably so.
And yes, I agree with you that it would be helpful for Muslims to speak out … however, I understand their fear also.
Of course there are many decent individual Muslims living in western countries who ignore the fundamental instructions in the Koran and Hadith to do harm to non-Muslims , apostates, blasphemers, gays and women. However, there is not getting away from the fact that if we had zero Islamic immigration in western countries we would never be in a situation where we need a good Muslim to intervene to stop a fundamentalist on a murder spree. No other imported religion into western countries has a considerable cohort of its adherents who are anti-western supremacists with many willing to carry out acts of barbaric terrorism.
As a general observation, not confined to Islam, it is the fanatical minority who are relevant and the moderate majority who are irrelevant. Nazism, Communism, and Islam all have this characteristic. None of them operate on democratic principles. Only around 10% of Germans were members of the Nazi party for example. Yet they controlled the 90% of "moderate" Germans.
In the UK a number of opinion polls were conducted. Finding that around a quarter to a third of UK Muslims are pro-jihad. See:
This may be an under estimate, because Islam permits deceit, and some may not want to tell a stranger that they are in favour of murdering unbelievers.
I am grateful that the hero intervened. He did so due to his shared humanity.
However note well: according to the Koran, the two perpetrators are guaranteed paradise (Koran 9:111). And the one who refuses to fight against unbelievers (i.e. the hero) is going to hell. This is what the Koran teaches Muslims to believe. I do not myself believe this nonsense.
The term "islamophobia" needs serious reevaluation. It has mostly been used in bad faith by gatekeepers of public discourse to label contrary speech as offensive/hate/far-right/whatever.
When there is a consistent problem in one population is everyone else not permitted to notice? The course of the last 25 years would entitle anyone acting solely on evidence without prejudice to fear Islam.
It's necessary for people to hear this message as often as possible. There are good and bad humans. Unfortunately, neither category maps perfectly onto any ethnic, religious, or political category. So our attempts to stay safe by driving away and controlling "those people" won't work, and those attempts usually make us the bad guy to someone else.
Brave post beautifully put, hope you only get good attention as you deserve
You are, as always, clear minded, honest and truthful. And your evaluation is right.
I had begun a much longer post, but it is useless, because you said it better than I could ever have.
Yes, it is for Muslims to push back against Islamism, and they do not, unfortunately, do it either enough or well -- the reason lies in part in the identitarian fever that has infected the whole world, in part in the long-brewing ethno nationalist sentiment that colonialism only made worse, and in part the pressure of community taboos and fear of retaliation.
It is certainly not easy for Muslims to speak out among their own, to promote a personal, different interpretation of the sacred texts or the idea that these may be allegory and not factual truth; it may carry the risk of ostracism, violence and physical injury or death. I do understand this. Christians have had the same problem for 20 centuries. But if Luther and the others managed it, knowing they risked torture and death (no matter how many of their own the Protestants then put to death for heresy), so should, after all, the good-thinking Muslims be able to.
Because unless they do denounce the fundamentalist views of Islam and those literal religious principles that empower them, and unless their non-Muslim friends press them to do so and be clear, there will come a time in which we in the West will discriminate on the basis of religion, for our own safety, and it will be soon.
I think this is a bit of a problematic view. I agree that Muslims should be denouncing fundamentalist extremism and, for the most part, they do - most people just don't see it. Islam is a bit complicated in its structure because there is no one leading authority. In Christianity, there is the pope who can speak for a population - there is no such equivalent in Islam. Muslims, at best, have imams which lead mosques and are small community leaders but their power and reach is very limited. In the UK for instance, we have the Muslim Council of Britain who are seen as the body that represents Muslims and their interests. You'll find that they always expressly condemn Islamist terrorist attacks. Most Muslims do not have the platform to be condemning this and it be reached. All Muslims that I know - which is a lot - always condemn it but the reach is limited.
Islam is complicated in its structure, in a way like many Protestant denominations are (not our Catholicism light Anglican Communion). It does not prevent people from expressing collectively their opinions.
And I am very well aware that The MCB has condemned Islamist terrorist attacks. Unfortunately terrorist attacks are not the only expression of Islamism, and in speaking out against less openly violent forms of Islamism the MCB has been often lacking, with some of its officials stumbling badly on occasion, even denying, in the eagerness to downplay the Holocaust on account of Israel, the seriousness of the Armenian genocide that (by pure chance, surely) was committed by a Muslim state. And the MCB constantly plays the islamophobia card in response to most critiques of Islam, by non Muslims as well as Muslims.
The MCB does, I am sure the best it can. But the problem is part of the identitarianism that has affected a large part of the world. It is very difficult for many individual Muslims to speak out, or do so in an organised way, against any cultural tendency of their religious community and what aspects of their religious tradition they perceive as flawed, because they are seen as traitors, and they face objective risks as well. Not unlikely, for example, LGBT people who object to some aspects and practices of trans activism.
I do not know whether you were alive during the Troubles, but there is a similarity in attitudes, fears and identitarian stiffening, with the situation among the Catholic and Protestant populations in Northern Ireland in those times. Most of the people condemned the murderous militants, but yet... they were their own people. A sense of loyalty to one's own kicked in, and the feeling that the "others" were worse, and speaking publicly against, not the murders, but the ideas that produced the murders, was a form of betrayal of your own people, because others could never understand.
For each of us individually, not just for ordinary Muslims, the reach is limited. This is why we organise and speak, and discuss, and state clearly, repeatedly, every time a line is crossed, our objections. Again and again, because it is a work that never ends. I do not see many Muslim organisations coming up to do this. For the time being, any critique of the principles that the Islamists hold so dear, even if the violent support for it is not embraced, receives the islamophobia treatment. See the reactions to the critiques of Jihab Day.
I can only hope it changes.
There is nothing in this that I disagree with. I think you provide a balanced view of the topic. Thank you and all the best to you!
That is a very perceptive analysis of Islam and violence. And I agree with your solution. Reforms from within. Unfortunately, while change by violence can happen overnight, reform by moderates through persuasion can take a couple of hundred years. In the mean time, I need to protect my family today. I don’t know what the answer is but multi-culturalism is not among them, not when there are cultures / religions that do not believe in co-existence.
Immigration policy that requires people who commit to basic liberal values is important, I'd say.
I agree.
Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity. 600 years ago, Christians were fighting unending wars between Catholic and Protestant countries, and the Inquisition was in full swing. It only ended about 200 years ago.
I’m afraid we have a long way to go before Islam moderates on its own.
This is fantastic. I believe cultures are defined by what they tolerate. Islam has been too tolerant, even if it's largely out of fear, of the hate and radicalism within the ideology and community. If cultures do not self police their own radicals, collectively denouncing and unaffiliating with their socially destructive members (whether they are violating laws or taboos), they can expect the whole culture to be painted with a broad brush.
The only way out of this mess is for more brave people, ideally within but also outside of the Muslim community, to vocally condemn the worst of Islam while encouraging the majority of moderate Muslims to do the same and align to moderation and liberalism.
Well done Helen.
This was such a brilliant post! I’ve been thinking along similar lines, yet I’ve struggled to find the right words to express my ideas clearly. Please keep writing! you make me a more thoughtful, more reflective thinker.
Very well argued. Nuanced and brave. The only objection I have is that your essays keep distracting me from the important task of writing fiction.
I am honoured to be so disruptive.
This was an outstanding essay. Thanks for your clear explanation of the difference between holding people responsible for their beliefs and actions, and judging them on immutable characteristics.
I like to say that I’m not an Islamophobe, or a racist. I’m a “behaviorist”.
"Believing one knows the divine will of God and what he wants for humans .."
The jaw-dropping bit here is that the people who claim that it is sacreligous to merely depict Allah with a brush or pen (on pain of death) also claim to know God's mind so surely that they can be judge, jury and executioner on his behalf. If they were to follow their own logic they'd dipose of themselves quick sharp. Maybe that's the answer.
Beautifully said… you are a very wise person! Yes the tragedy at Bondi Beach represent the worst and best manifestations of Islam. The ‘worst’ though is pretty terrible and frightens people, understandably so.
And yes, I agree with you that it would be helpful for Muslims to speak out … however, I understand their fear also.
Of course there are many decent individual Muslims living in western countries who ignore the fundamental instructions in the Koran and Hadith to do harm to non-Muslims , apostates, blasphemers, gays and women. However, there is not getting away from the fact that if we had zero Islamic immigration in western countries we would never be in a situation where we need a good Muslim to intervene to stop a fundamentalist on a murder spree. No other imported religion into western countries has a considerable cohort of its adherents who are anti-western supremacists with many willing to carry out acts of barbaric terrorism.
Thank you.
There is great confusion around this topic.
As a general observation, not confined to Islam, it is the fanatical minority who are relevant and the moderate majority who are irrelevant. Nazism, Communism, and Islam all have this characteristic. None of them operate on democratic principles. Only around 10% of Germans were members of the Nazi party for example. Yet they controlled the 90% of "moderate" Germans.
In the UK a number of opinion polls were conducted. Finding that around a quarter to a third of UK Muslims are pro-jihad. See:
https://hellish2050.substack.com/p/pro-jihad-attitudes-of-uk-muslims
This may be an under estimate, because Islam permits deceit, and some may not want to tell a stranger that they are in favour of murdering unbelievers.
I am grateful that the hero intervened. He did so due to his shared humanity.
However note well: according to the Koran, the two perpetrators are guaranteed paradise (Koran 9:111). And the one who refuses to fight against unbelievers (i.e. the hero) is going to hell. This is what the Koran teaches Muslims to believe. I do not myself believe this nonsense.
There is a much more straightforward but overlooked fact.
There is no such thing as a Muslim liberal democracy.
After 1400 years, liberal values have little to no influence in Muslim societies.
Islam as traditionally understood, is incompatible with the very basic and fundamental values of western civilization.
It's an unpleasant fact, but we need a serious discussion about this issue.
After 1400 years of Christian history, how much influence did liberal values have over Christian society?
The term "islamophobia" needs serious reevaluation. It has mostly been used in bad faith by gatekeepers of public discourse to label contrary speech as offensive/hate/far-right/whatever.
When there is a consistent problem in one population is everyone else not permitted to notice? The course of the last 25 years would entitle anyone acting solely on evidence without prejudice to fear Islam.
It's necessary for people to hear this message as often as possible. There are good and bad humans. Unfortunately, neither category maps perfectly onto any ethnic, religious, or political category. So our attempts to stay safe by driving away and controlling "those people" won't work, and those attempts usually make us the bad guy to someone else.