UKH

Why?

In reply to Bojo:

Complicated?

In reply to Phil1919:

Indeed and I'm only too aware that many other similar cases, some with worse outcomes, give rise to the same question.

In reply to Bojo:

As is usual in these cases there will be a strong element of mental disturbance involved. What is wrong is that evil men with power weaponise social disaffection and psychiatric disorder for destructive ends.

It happens here. Never forget Jo Cox. 

Satanic Verses whilst not being a towering monument like  Midnight's Children is still a very good insight into political life in Pakistan. It's also very funny. Much less blasphemous than Life of Brian. Makes you appreciate the heroism of those women demonstrating for their rights in Afghanistan. 

In reply to Pete Pozman:

An IBM rep once gave me a copy of Satanic Verses as a 'joke' when I'd slagged off one of their products! Never got past the first few pages though. 

I thought Rushdie dealt with the fatwa with extraordinary grace and courage. Let's hope he makes it all the way to a peaceful death in his bed, a good way into the future.

In reply to Bojo:

Author Stephen King with an astute and in depth analysis...

https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1558165241388752897?

In reply to Bojo:

Because Islam! not complicated

In reply to Bojo:

The 'fatwa' has never been officially revoked by Iran.

In reply to climbercool:

The spin : Islam is a religion of peace and this is the work of a lone madman.

Bull hooks.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I’ve read some Rushdie but not Satanic Verses. His books need at least a passing knowledge of South Asian culture and politics, and are definitely improved if you know some Hindi/Urdu. Such a wonderful writer. 

In reply to Rob Parsons:

https://twitter.com/aa51_ansari/status/1558418289210138624?s=21&t=MT9Fp...
 

Good thread on that aspect here. 

In reply to climbercool:

Do you actually know anything about Islam. May I suggest reading Ed Hussains book The House of Islam.

Terrible news about Salman, and it is time more people in the UK made an effort to try understand what a significant and growing minority of the UKs population believe in.

In reply to Bojo:

Have you read it?

In reply to Godwin:

Er ... what's your point? 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I guess that having some knowledge of Islam is a good thing? Looks like an interesting book.

In reply to Godwin:

Why should anybody have to learn about Islam?

Im not particularly interested in it. And would find attempting to understand it rather tiresome. It's a load of guff, just like all the other fairy stories.

The attack on Rushdie is much easier to understand, it's been on the cards for decades, ever since an Islamic leader issued a fatwah and put a price on his head.

In reply to birdie num num:

...because in a book nobody had then read, there was apparently a phrase or two that could be construed as 'disrespectful'.

Not that Kholmeini knew, he never read it.

Islam is the most bonkers 'religion' in the world, except for all the others which are equally bonkers, (though not always so lethal.)

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Presumably that tarring every Muslim with the same brush as violent fundamentalists is hugely corrosive to a multicultural society.

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Violent fundamentalists are highly corrosive to a multicultural society 

In reply to Stuart Williams:

The non fundamentalist Muslims haven't exactly boycotted the mosques in protest at the fatwa. They dare not to you'll say, why, because they'll be punished by the peace loving religious leaders?! 

In reply to birdie num num:

Yes. Which is why it might be helpful to understand who they actually are rather than just labelling huge swathes of innocent people as evil.

In reply to Stuart Williams:

It's the religion that is evil, not the broad mass of adherents.

"For good people to do bad, that takes religion" -- Steven Weinberg. 

In reply to rxqm:

That's a seductive quote, but I think I'd take some issue with Weinberg. How would he square that opinion with, say,  the 2021 storming of the US Capitol?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

There are lots of happy clappers supporting trump because he said the right things, look at the recent abortion rights reversal. There were plenty saying trump had divine rights sent by God.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Every religion has its dangerous fanatics. We might not see that from here, but that’s our blindness. 
 

As for the poster that didn’t want to “learn about Islam”, there is a difference between learning about a religion and learning about the cultural or political milieus associated with that religion. The difference between say religious jurisprudence and religious architecture. The later is vital if you want a handle on a society (including our own). If you don’t want to learn about Islam then that is perfectly fine but on that case why comment about it?

In reply to seankenny:

But it would be very wrong to argue that all religions are equally prone to generating violent fanatics.   Of the major religions in the world today, one of them is vastly worse at that than all the others put together.  

In reply to ExiledScot:

If you are equating fanatical support for Trump with a religion, I think you're off beam.

I have some sympathy for the Weinberg quote, but equally I think it misses the point.

In reply to seankenny:

What? You don't think we see those crazies at abortion clinics, or 'Christians' advocating death penalties?

All religions have their crazies; Islam happens to have any number of States - Saudi, Pakistan, increasingly Turkey, that are ruled by them.

Coincidence? I think not.

In reply to rxqm:

Sure. The prospect of the two largest nuclear powers being run by regimes that claim Christian ideals is terrifying. 
 

But if you seriously think this then you are very ignorant of the Hindutva movement, which seems excellent at creating violent fantatics. Or you ignore the fact that the very few majority Buddhist societies are also extremely violent, far more so than our own.

I think we can agree that the Quakers get a pass on all this shit of course. And my comments above should in no way be construed as not being appalled and horrified by the attempted murder of Salman Rushdie. 
 

In reply to rxqm:

Not according to the FBI

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.upworthy.com/amp/a-troll-demanded-a-muslim... 

In reply to birdie num num:

I would suggest an interest and trying to understand ones fellow citizens is a good thing for Society.
Ultimately we all chose to believe in something, Capitalism, Money, Socialism, Catholicism etc etc, they are all Social Constructs.
As this is UKC, let us look at that myth. Climbing is pretty pointless, but people devote their lives to it, name routes up rock, get passionate about grades, bolts, clubs and styles of ascent. But if you step back, it is all a myth.

So, just try and understand people, no one says you have to agree with their point of view, but everyone, except a few mentally ill people, have had a journey to their personal rational perspective, and hey, shock news, you may even find they are correct and you are wrong. Now that is a shocker.

In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:

Do you only count the ones that happen in the US? Seems a little parochial.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

India is ruled by religious crazies every bit as awful as Saudi and Pakistan. They work from a very similar playbook and engage in violence, intimidation and general thuggery. Your breezy “Coincidence? I think not.” is really just an invitation to another orthodoxy, one that ignores the complexity of very foreign countries and cultures. This is not to make an excuse for Islamists, who I loathe. Although they can be extremely charming; I say this as someone who once had to talk his way out of being converted to Islam by a member of the Taliban. 

In reply to Godwin:

No, climbing is definitely something that happens, it's not a myth.

Well some of them must be wrong.

In reply to seankenny:

Any other religions put a $3,500,000 bounty on anyone's head? (or any bounty at all)

I just Googled "Muslim protests at Rushdie fatwa". Can you guess the result?

In reply to Godwin:

Sure. I can understand that they believe in a particular fairy tale, and that this shapes their life, and that nothing I can do will awaken them to objective reality.  Given how endemic this is, I fully support making sure society does not exclude people based on a specific fairy tale.  I’ve spent a lot of time doing exactly that on an EDI role.

It doesn’t mean I need to engage with their specific fairy tale.  I don’t have the time in my remaining life to understand them all.  But I can accommodate them all within the bounds of the law and universal human rights.

I don’t “believe” in any of them.  I believe what I can prove. I recognise pros and cons in all of those.  None of them are worthy of “belief”.  They’re interpretations, not reality.

Me, wrong?  You really have gone off the deep end…

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Possibly the religion of Capitalism has killed more people, going back to the Slave Trade, British and other Empires, and the worlds obsession with Oil, have killed an awful lot of people. Then take a look a WW1 and WW2, a lot of people killed there, and that was not down to Religion.

I have seen a person nearly explode with rage over a bolting issue, their eyes almost out on stalks. 

Though personally I am not religous, there is much good in Islam, sadly certain sects, not always, but often funded by Saudi Oil money, have corrupted to something far removed from the original message.

In reply to wintertree:

What does EDI mean?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

No, but he tapped into the same methods that usa evangelism leaders use, told them what they wanted to hear, pretended to be God fearing, took their vote as opposed to their money. He appointed the recent happy clappers to be federal judges. It's the same methods. Religion is all about power, control, wealth. 

Religion is just the means to condition people to do things collectively they may not have rationally otherwise done, safety in numbers. You see it with football hooligans too.

In reply to Godwin:

Ww1 and capitalism, expand?

In reply to Godwin:

Equality, diversity and inclusivity. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

The East India Company in the pursuit of trade, forced China to accept Opium via military force, which made many Chinese into addicts, to balance trade for Chinese goods such as Tea and Porcelain. 

WW1, sorry not with you there. It killed a lot of people, and it was not a war of religion. What do you not understand?

In reply to ExiledScot:

In this context, the question is whether or not that's what Weinberg meant when he used the word 'religion' in his quote. I don't think he did - but, since he's dead, we can't ask him.

In reply to Godwin:

Well perhaps I'm just being obtuse for the purpose of this thread. It isn't necessary to study another's beliefs in order to afford them the same respect and humanity that you would any other person on the planet. It's a basic rule that should apply regardless of religion. A starting point.

And generally, that's what the majority do.

In reply to Stichtplate:

The Christian fundamentalists in the United States have indeed talked about using bounties to enforce their abortion laws. Admittedly not to murder the women outright, merely to bring them to “justice”, but some of their anti-abortion laws come very close to legalised murder in my view. These are of course hardcore Protestants, from a very similar tradition to our own state religion whose clerics sit in our Parliament. 

Of course I can. I’ve seen those sorts of protests myself in the flesh. 

In reply to wintertree:

I would say that you need to go back to EDI School then, if you chose to use the phrase "fairy tale". Faith is a very strong concept, and for anyone of Faith, it defines their life, and I do not think you appreciate this. 

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Of course not. I'm just about to go and get stats from every country in the world so I can post them here. 

Sarcasm aside, obviously they're not global stats, but they do demonstrate the point that not all terrorists are Muslim 

In reply to Godwin:

You blame capitalism. Men, food, money, land, power, water, religion and more cause wars... very rarely is it only one factor. Wars are obviously complex. 

In reply to seankenny:

That'll be a No then.

Any links cos I've seen F all

In reply to Godwin:

But that doesn't make fiction into fact. Millions of kids love unicorns, but they aren't real. 

In reply to birdie num num:

Trolling then. You are obviously an intelligent and possibly well educated person, and this is an interesting discussion, which maybe you could add to, rather than being deliberately obtuse.

In reply to seankenny:

Interestingly I believe the UK and Iran are the only countries where there are government positions for unelected clerics.

In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:

But why pick the US? Why not pick Iraq, or Australia, Chile or France? 

I don't think anyone has claimed that. But from the stats you did provide, not many Islamic terror attacks, but what proportion of deaths from terror attacks derive from religions other than Islam? 

In reply to Stuart Williams:

I don't think uk bishops ever put a bounty on the head of John Cleese etc... for making Life of Brian. The church did unsuccessfully try to block it. That's democracy or freedom of speech. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

Money is Faith, just as much as any religion. Take a £20 note out of your pocket. The only value it has stems from the belief people have in it. Do you not believe me, take £1,000,000, fly out into the Amazon Jungle and offer it to some Tribes People, to get you back to civilisation.

Scotland, its a Myth, tales of Tartan and Bonny Prince Charlie, all a Myth. Nation States, those borders, a Myth. Land Ownership, its a Myth. Get enough people to believe in the Myth, and it makes them real, but they are just Social Constructs.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Right. So Christian fundamentalists specifically use bounties to enforce their laws outside their jurisdiction and you can’t see the similarity with - checks notes - an Islamic fundamentalist group using a bounty to enforce its laws outside its jurisdiction. I don’t think you want a discussion of how this behaviour manifests itself in other contexts, rather you want a lot of emoting in the approved way. 
 

Where have I seen that before?

Sorry I thought you meant protests against Rushdie, not supporting him. Is this the time to point out that lots of very brave writers in non-western counties with weaker law and order systems do speak out against fundamentalism and some have paid a very high price for that. We live in a safe country where it’s easy to speak out - our talk is cheap.

In reply to Godwin:

I just had a check back, and yes, I think I have added to the discussion.

Religion cannot be lumped into the same category as capitalism or socialism or money or politics. It's a more primal, mumbo jumbo form of mass control that transcends any rational thought. That's why bigots such as Khomeni can influence outcomes decades in advance.

In reply to Godwin:

You think money doesn't work in the "jungle"? Don't be silly. 

LoT's Of cApItal leTTErs dON't meaN yoU'rE makIng sEnse. 

In reply to Godwin:

No, I understand quite well how strongly their belief influences their life.

To me, it’s a fairy tale.

As a logical, rational scientist I can’t view all deeply held beliefs as mutually compatible.  Therefore either most, or all, have to be wrong.  AKA “fairy tales”.

But I recognise their absolute importance to many people and the utter imperative not to discriminate on belief so long as it remains within the law.

You say we should take time to understand Islam.  But I’ve worked with people who believe in a dozen other systems.  I don’t have the life left to understand all those systems.  So why should I prioritise one? I should not.  I should endeavour to make sure the parts of the world that I have influence on do not treat some worse than others based on something - it happens - I don’t give a single shit about.  

 

In reply to Godwin:

I think you're over-egging the pudding there. Money is assuredly complicated, but it's more of a legally-binding promise than it is a myth. (And, until relatively recently, was, of course, backed up by the gold standard.)

Now we're off-topic ...

In reply to ExiledScot:

Of course they didn’t. But the point is surely that the U.K. is one of the most secular countries in the world yet we can’t free ourselves of clerics making laws!* I would very much like bishops out of the Lords, but it’s not that easy. Turns out changing society is hard and religious people have and enjoy keeping power over others. 

* slight exaggeration for rhetorical purposes here

In reply to seankenny:

Any links to other religions putting bounties on the deaths of blasphemers? 

Dunno? You seem to have seen lots of stuff no one else has.

I was quite clear.

 

Cool. Any links to Muslim protests against the Rushdie fatwa in the U.K. then?

In reply to seankenny:

I agree, they should be long gone.

In reply to Godwin:

Money is a token, tell those tribes people it makes it easier to sell 3 hens in one village, then take those newly acquired tokens to another village and buy an axe, suddenly your 1million tokens have value and they'll watch you boil in a pot while counting it. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

You asked for another example of a religion using a bounty and I gave you one. Be a gent and either argue it’s totally different or say thanks and move on.  
 

Yes, I have. I am sorry if that makes you feel uncomfortable. 
 

Yes, entirely my misreading. 

No, I think British Muslims are in general wrong to be silent on this. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

If we regard them as a useful reminder to ourselves that challenging the entrenched political power of religion is a very long term project then perhaps they serve a purpose after all.

In reply to birdie num num:

100% this.  Uncle Derek seems to have a limited ability to understand the viewpoint of others - perhaps like us - which is ironic given they’re arguing towards recognising views of a different group.  I can simultaneously regard religion of all sorts as a fairy tale, and take professional and personal pride in helping my organisation not to discriminate based on religion.  I don’t need to invest my time learning about one specific religion out of of many religions (as uncle derek suggested) to understand how widespread and deeply held faith based belief systems, are and to recognise that an accepting society is stronger, fairer and better than an excluding society.

But there’s Ying and Yang.  Uncle Derek wants me to accept that many people believe in Islam.  I do accept that, and I have literally, professionally, worked to make sure they are not discriminated against.  What about my right to view all religious belief as “fairy tales”?  Uncle Derek wants to send me back to EDI school because I dare to have my own opinion, or belief.  Somehow my opinions is less worthy than that off others.

Uncle Derek is a total, rank hypocrite.

Uncle Derek doesn’t understand how horrifically religious intolerance shaped my life, I do.  The hundred of religions out there are not in any way mutually compatible.  Recognising this means recognising that most have to be nonsense in many ways.  I would argue that embracing this view is one way to accepting the need to be fair and just to all, to not discriminate and to protect the rights of people to believe, worship and live to any belief system that adheres to universal human rights. 

In reply to seankenny:

Any links so we can judge just how comparable? I can provide a tonne of links on the Rushdie bounty if you like?

Not in the least. I'm well used to navigating the delusional beliefs of others. 

Cheers

But "We live in a safe country where it’s easy to speak out" you did write that just half an hour ago, didn't you?

In reply to Stichtplate:

This has been well reported in the US and U.K. media. I’ve explained why I think the cases are broadly similar (applying religiously inspired rules outside of one’s own jurisdiction), if you want to construct a counter argument then that’s up to you.

So you’re calling me a liar for no particular reason. I have remembered that initiating a discussion with you is not rewarding and usually descends into something unpleasant, so I won’t be replying to you any more in this thread as it’s pointless. 

Yes, that’s why I said they are wrong in my view. You seem hellbent on finding a disagreement when I actually agree with you. That is silly. 

In reply to seankenny:

So that's a No then (I see a pattern developing)

Nope. Lots of free dictionaries out there if you're unsure what delusional means.

I don't agree with you. You think "We live in a safe country where it’s easy to speak out". I don't doubt there are lots of Muslims that would like to speak in opposition to the Rushdie fatwa, they're just too scared to and with very good reason.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Because it was the first one that I found from a seemingly credible source. Using your argument against you for a sec, if I'd have picked any other individual country then it would be just as parochial. Why did you only suggest those countries? Why not Russia, China, Tibet or Afghanistan? 

Whoever I replied to did say that the number of terrorists who claim to be followers of Islam vastly outnumbered every other religion put together. Or words to that effect 

In reply to the thread. 
I’ve never felt the want to reply to a threat as much as this one, have generally just used these forums when I’ve lost gear or wanted to buy something, but I do think it’s important to stand up to some of the comments on here that do seem to me to just have an air of (possibly unintended) bigotry and especially Islamophobia. I do think this does need checking as for the last 20 odd years this appears to have been used politically as a bogeyman of sorts in society and needs challenging. Often those who claim to have rational and liberal views can fall into a trap of real intolerance if unchecked and this does explain the high proportion of anti-Muslim hate crime in the UK. A very quick google search confirms that often these things spoke after events of Islamist terror e.g. https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/22/anti-muslim-hate-crimes-soa... 

For clarity, I’m not a Muslim, I am an atheist in practice (but go with the old adage of you can’t be 100% certain of anything) and most definitely consider myself a rationalist. I’m also an RE and Sociology teacher as I do see the Massive importance of educating people about culture both familiar and alien as that’s surely the way to acceptance.

There appear to be numerous people claiming that Islam is a special case when it comes to violence. This is patently not true. What is the case is that Islamist (not Islamic-they’re different things!) violence has posed a particular threat for the last few years and has also been the focus of both media reporting and government action. Terrorism and violence is far from unique to Islam ad others have pointed out, it’s present in every major religion, consider the KKK, abortion doctors being murdered, the action (or inaction) of the BJP in India, some of the fundamental views in Israel etc. Islam itself is a religion of at least 1.5 Billion people. A significant portion of these live the adage that the word Islam means “Peace and Submission to God” and the Greater Jihad is to develop yourself as a believer (The lesser Jihad being to defend Islam). However, Islamist organisations have also had support from powerful governments (Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.) which has furthered their causes and definitely emboldened individuals. Consider for a second though that Islam is 600 years younger then Christianity, and then consider what Christian regimes were up to 600 years ago. Inquisitions, Witch Burnings, imperialism and forced conversions in the name of Christ. I’m absolutely not trying to justify anything here, just point out that Islam is not a unique case by any means.

Secondly, some have seemed rather affronted by the idea that many things we hold true are Social Constructs in the same way that religion is very likely to be (I only say very likely as it’s theoretically possible that one religion is actually right…but very unlikely). Social Construct doesn’t mean made up, it means something that is very real but ultimately exists only by agreement of those who hold to it. Largely these also (like religion) tend to be unfalsifiable ideas. So much of our framework is a Social Construct and we are all beholden to many of them, Crime, Deviance, Wealth, Attractiveness, Ethics, Gender Norms are all Social Constructs. That doesn’t lessen their meaning, nursed or Paedophillia are no less abhorrent just because they’re Socially Constructed ideas. But we need to recognise that they are to fully understand them. Religion too falls into this camp and it’s worth considering religion in a particular way. I hear many non-religious people claiming a certain piety for not being religious, as if they’ve unlocked the great truth. They claim they can prove their belief and therefore they’re somehow more valid. This is a massive misunderstanding of rational belief. Rationalism is based on Falsification not Verification. I can verify any thing, you’d just reject my evidence. What I can’t do is falsify anything. I’m not a rationalist simply because I accept most of the evidence of scientific ideas, but because I know how in theory they could be proven wrong, and more importantly, that they haven’t been proven wrong yet.

Back to the point, secularisation though only seems to happen under certain circumstances, I’d argue it’s where another construct has been able to replace the role that religion has played in someone’s life. Just in the UK as society began to heavily secularise in the 20th Century we saw the rise of both mass media and certain types of consumerism, both of which offer many of the same functions as religion used to. A sense of belonging, a certain moral code, the ability to judge your morals against a standard, something to do in your non-working time, a way to meet potential partners, guides on how to raise your children etc. This is far from coincidental and is why many might argue that football, music subcultures, even something like climbing are just 21st century religions. Are the arguments about the Ethics of Bolting crags really that different to the arguments about weather Bread and Wine become the physical blood and body of Christ when you eat them? 
 

Sorry for the essay (especially as it’s my first post not directly climbing related!) but lumping all Muslims in together is only feeding the problem. Ask yourself what drew people like Shabina Begum or the “Beatles” to ISIS and being “othered” by mainstream British society whilst welcomed into a group that offered a sense of identity and belonging will surely rate up there. Ultimately that’s my own main reason for challenging these comments and trying to educate about religion, it removes the fundamentalists recruitment tool! 
 

Cheers-was weirdly nervous about posting this but do like some healthy and constructive debate!

Rob

In reply to rxqm:

Easy to say but very hard to prove. What do you know about Buddhism-related violence in Sri Lanka and Burma for example? Or the extent of caste based violence in India? To what extent were the US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq the result of Manichean tendencies present in the politicised Christianity of the US? Do you want to unravel the connection between the established church and the horrors of British imperialism?

In reply to Rob Findon:

After all that forgot to add the crux-what happened to Sir Salman is awful and disgusting and needs to be stopped. To simply say “Islam” As the cause is to massively miss the point. If anything it just makes things worse.

In reply to seankenny:

It's basically how the Texas law works, hence the Uber driver who takes a woman to a clinic can be sued by a private citizen to gain the "bounty". Newsom in California is introducing a law on supply of guns that get used in crimes, that works in the same way. This is directly because the Supreme Court found the Texas law constitutional. 

In reply to wintertree:

I suspect that in affording a level of acceptance to religious views in general, you aren’t really in the category of people Uncle Derek was talking about/to.

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Well, he specifically told me to go back to school. I’m with num num on this - expecting people to learn the details of a specific religion in order to be tolerant is backwards.  We need to tolerate all reasonable belief systems, and few people have the time to learn about them all. Acceptance and tolerance has to be embraced at a personal level in a far more generic way so it can encompass all the other things we don’t have time to learn about.  

Re: their genera point of learning about Islam to become more tolerant; from my side the less I learn about a religion the easier I find it be tolerant…. It’s more important to understand that people can believe deeply in a faith (which I can understand) than to get drawn in to the texts or practices which just leave me baffled.

+1 for Rob Findon’s post. 

In reply to wintertree:

He did yes, I just wonder if there wasn’t a misunderstanding or two along the way there. I understood his initial comments being specifically in response to all of Islam being denounced as uniquely evil and, presumably therefore, fundamentally unacceptable in a way other religions aren’t. Anyway, I might be wrong, and he can fight his own corner if he wishes.

Edit: totally agree that an understanding of texts, practices etc isn’t necessary for tolerance, but I do think a basic understanding that there are “reasonable” interpretations of Islam is.

In reply to Rob Findon:

Snap! Although I now teach Politics as my main subject.

Oddly I haven't found that many schools where RS and Sociology are taught by the same people, but knowledge of both helps inform the teaching of the other. I'm always a bit nervous hearing people talk about the "true" message of any religion for example - as a sociologist (and an atheist), I'm not going to go beyond this is what "many" or "the majority" of Chrisitians/Muslims/etc. believe.

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick.  Wouldn’t be the first time…

Totally agree.  Most of the 3+ million adherents in the UK never make the news for their beliefs and related actions.  I think some of the more fundamentalist Christian groups active at some old UK universities would be perceived - and perhaps some even proscribed - if they were Islamic groups.  We have a group of old white Christian’s holding up graphic anti-abortion posters to the students at the roadside, it’s been going on for months.  They’re called “anti-abortion” protestors not “Christian fundamentalists”.  We don’t see what’s under our noses all the time.

In reply to TobyA:

I’m trying desperately to do as much Outdoor Ed as possible-get out of the classroom!! 
 

I completely agree-there’s so much crossover and they do really compliment, but I’m the only one at my school who does both! The rest of the departments couldn’t be less bothered! 
 

again, I absolutely agree. I can see a tiny bit of a benefit to having an idea of the core of a faith, mainly for ks2 RE, but of all the Christian’s, Muslims, Baha’is etc in the world there’s always going to be so much disagreement, anything beyond majority views is just unhelpful and possibly exclusionary. A bit of vagueness when teaching about religion is massively helpful!

In reply to Rob Findon:

Really? I don't see that argument at all.

They are obviously completely different.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Mass media might not connect us physically but as a method for giving us identity and transmitting norms and values, and latterly for meeting potential partners etc. it’s been transformational. Think about the rise of subculture generally since the 1950’s, it’s media transmission that’s enabled this and consumerism that’s defined it. People began to give up on belief from the 19th century onwards, but didn’t stop going to church etc until something else replaced its function. Mass media provided that tool. 
 

point 2: I’m not sure they are that different. Both have incredible meaning to the groups that argue about them, but externally very little meaning at all. As your average non-climbing Jew (or insert any other non-christian) what they thought about either and I reckon you’d get a similar response 

In reply to Stuart Williams:

May already have been said - in which case apologies.

I would feel a lot more sympathetic to Islam in this circumstance if at least some prominent Muslim leaders (eg in Britain) came out with a statement condemning the attack on Rushdie. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that has happened.  I'm not sure we've even heard from political figures such as Sadiq Khan, though I may have missed it.

Martin

In reply to Rob Findon:

You could make the same general observation about the details of any specialist activity. But that is miles apart from equating all such arguments to 'religious' ones.

In reply to Martin Hore:

https://twitter.com/MuslimCouncil/status/1558140294293495809
 

It’s also worth pointing out that there is no “Islam” in organisational terms - no equivalent of the Catholic Church or Church of England. It’s very much not a monolithic entity in that respect, much more a very large ecosystem of competing and often contradictory groups. I think it’s easy for us as Europeans to project our understanding of how society is organised onto very different social set ups. This is particularly the case in South Asia where there is (or has been) very different concepts of the boundaries between different faith groups. 

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I didn’t mean to equate all arguments to religious ones necessarily. Simply that we are all affected by Social Constructs and all beholden to them. To anyone who doesn’t adhere to that particular construct often these ideas seem meaningless, trivial or just plain wrong. I was trying to make the point that to call something a Social Construct is not to diminish its importance. They’re actually really important as they govern our everyday lives all the way up to things that some would be prepared to give their life for. I do find some are quick to dismiss some Social Constructs whilst not necessarily seeing their own. Whilst I generally try to adhere to falsification, I do recognise many of my beliefs are held because of the era, location etc. under which I was brought up. My views on bolting are affected by learning to climb in the Peak and my cries on the Eucharist by not being a Christian.

In reply to Godwin:

Alternatively, I'd suggest Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. 

Then Heretic, Nomad, Prey, and The Caged Virgin. 

...all equally valid "learning about Islam"

Edit: for comparison with all current faiths, as people like to ("all the same,/ all have fanatics" etc.), I'd highly recommend Sam Harris's The End of Faith. 

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Important to delineate between criticism ("tarring") of Muslims and criticism of Islam, which is an ideology, and must stand criticism. 

In reply to Rob Findon:

"Islamophobia" is a propaganda word, that attempts to suggest that there is something improper about criticising Islam.  All ideas should be open to critical scrutiny. 

Out of interest, do you have actual proper statistics about anti-Muslim hare crime in the UK? That is, actual crimes, and compared to, say, anti-Semitic crime? 

No, wrong, that link is not about "hate crime" it's about "hate incidents".  The definition of  hate "incident" is "anything anyone claims is a hate incident", including Twitter posts that someone dislikes. 

Not a "special case", violence is not unique to Islam, but it is easily the least tolerant and most violent of the major religions today.  

"Islamism" is just an implementation of Islam, it is what you get when Islam tries to control society. 

Sure, Christianity was bad 600 years ago. Islam is bad today.  That difference matters in today's world. 

And we got to a place where Christianity is not nearly as bad anymore through it becoming established that religions should be fair game for criticism.

The most important circumstance being the right to criticise religion.  

Islam, that's what drew them.  The ISIS recruiters have it easy, they simply ask: do you take your religion seriously or not?  Because the underpinnings of ISIS are all there in mainstream Islam. 

In reply to TobyA:

You seem to want to all sorts of politics as being caused by the potency of religions -- except when it comes to Islam, in which case it's just politics and nothing to do with the religion. 

In reply to Just Another Dave:

Exactly.  Every time anyone criticises Islam, people try to shut it down by claiming it is a "tarring" of each and every Muslim. 

The other tactic is to claim that the fault is only with fringe versions of the religion -- no, mainstream Islam has all the strands of intolerance within it.  The extremists merely implement them. 

In reply to Bojo:

All Rushdie's attacker has ended up doing is to emphasise to the rest of the world that his mangled version of 'the verses' are, without doubt, satanic.

In reply to Just Another Dave:

Yup, agreed, and I don’t think that is sufficiently delineated in some of the comments made.

I’ve not ever, and will never, argue that Islam or any other religion is above criticism.

In reply to rxqm:

But that's because the early cult leaders were smart when they were evolving Islam. All the little clauses and opts outs within the other various forms of Christianity were nipped in the bud, total dominance of the population, zero rights for 50% of them instantly, plus to avoid being top trumped in the future declare him the last prophet! It's clever as social constructs go because it's so controlling and people who are brought up in devote families, like neighbourhoods, religious schools etc.. then they literally don't know any better and can be easily manipulated. 

You can argue it's like the Amish, only the amish don't put multi million dollar bounties on the heads of those who bad mouth them, or hack the heads off westerners on YouTube. 

In reply to rxqm:

I don’t disagree with a lot of what you’ve said. I do agree that there is currently in the world a particularly insidious version of Islam that is being sponsored by certain governments and needs checking. However this is not representative of Islam as a whole or of Muslims. To suggest so is to single out one religion for a particular level of criticism and ignore that most victims of Islamist attacks are Muslims themselves. That’s what Islamophobia means. Same as when it’s done to Judaism it’s called Anti-Semitism. I do think religion needs critiquing. And possibly the single greatest advancement in the UK was getting to a point where we could openly criticise the church and move beyond medieval dogma. I’m really conscious though that the ‘othering’ of any minority group creates real issues. It doesn’t lead to people living harmoniously. You’re right, ISIS was absolutely the issue with those individuals, but the ISIS propaganda machine worked by scooping up people who felt rejected by western society, so if we try not to reject people by understanding their particular viewpoints maybe we can help tackle these groups a bit more at the source. Maybe I’m delusional and unrealistically  hopeful but there are not 1.5 Billion Muslims all wishing death on anyone who criticised their religion. I’ve had many debates about theology with Muslims that have involved criticism of the religious institution. But often criticism of Islam becomes criticism of Muslims, as we see similarly with criticism of Israel becoming criticism of individual Jews. 

i haven’t got the stats right now (and am just on my way out, but will try and look later) although as reported in that article: “The number of anti-Muslim hate crimes reported across Britain increased by 593% in the week after a white supremacist killed worshippers at two New Zealand mosques, an independent monitoring group has said”. It is fairly well reported that anti-Muslim sentiment becomes more prevalent after these attacks. That is reported by a media that is generally not over sympathetic towards Islam as a whole. I do appreciate there may be a difference between hate crime and hate incident but the article uses crime in its opening paragraph-I do think our press has some standard to at least be cautious with those terms if they’re factually wrong-again maybe I’m wildly optimistic!

In reply to Rob Findon:

There are subtle differences. The white supremacist examples aren't usually devote Christian or any other faith, just more anti Islam and what it represents, or against Islamic state terrorism. Where as Islamic extremists are by their nature pro Islam and against anyone that isn't. 

In reply to Martin Hore:

You could also google his twitter feed and see that he has: https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/1558463322743341057

But really, WhyTF should Khan need to in particular condemn the attack on Rushdie? I've got no idea whether Khan is a bit religious, quite religious or not religious at all. Do you expect that any Jewish public figure in the UK has to immediately condemn it when the Israeli army kills another civilian in the West Bank? Or do British Hindus have to condemn when some senior BJP minister in New Delhi says yet more hateful things again Muslim Indians who are then attacked in riots?

If Khan (or any other British person of any colour or religion actually) celebrated the attempted murder Rushdie, I hope they would be investigated to see if they had committed an offence in this country. But if they haven't, don't tar them with the same brush.

In reply to rxqm:

You are missing a word there but I think I get your point and would just say: no, absolutely not. I'm not sure how you could even begin to understand politics in the middle east, and far beyond, without understanding the "potency" of Islam. But why did Khomeini 40 yrs ago even pick the Satanic Verses to issue a fatwa on? Of course he could because of the importance and power of the Islam in people's lives (particularly for him, in Iran), but why he choose to can't be understood without understanding the politics.

Nearly 20 years after the Rushdie fatwa, the process that created the worldwide anger against the "Danish cartoons" was spookily similar. It could happen because religion is important in the lives of billions, but it DID happen because of the political interests of tiny groups of Muslims in Denmark (IIRC, vying for influence among the much wider Danish Muslim populations) and the political interests of a few in the Mid East who the Danes took the cartoons to, and who say they could weaponise them.

In reply to TobyA:

Because in doing so he highlights the distinction between Islam and Islamist/fundamentalist and as a Muslim and a politician his views carry more weight than say a white Catholic on these matters. No one seems to be denying there is an issue so I would have thought that any right thinking Muslim would welcome the chance to put some distance between themselves and the fundamentalists. 

In reply to Rob Findon:

I am suggesting that the strands of intolerance and control that cause the extremism are indeed present in mainstream Islam, they are just less implemented. 

I'm sticking to the claim: Islam (mainstream Islam) is indeed much worse today (in terms of intolerance) than the other major religions. 

Yes, in the same way that the main victims of Mao's and Stalin's communism (another intolerant and controlling idea system) were communists and people under the control of the communists. 

That word means a range of things, depending on who uses it. 

No, there's a big difference.  Anti-Semitism is being against people, not against the religion of Judaism.    There's a big difference between race and religion. 

And are you concerned, for example, that currently a school teacher is in hiding for having taught a lesson about Islam?  

How about the fact that major newspapers and media outlets will show cartoons satiricising politics and every religion except one?  They won't go near a cartoon of Mohammed.  So, de facto, little by little, we're now gradually losing that right.  

Not really, no, they just said, do you want to live among infidels and adopt their ways or do you want to do what your religion tells you you should do?

There are polls on such things, and the majority of Muslims worldwide think that it should be a criminal offence to draw a cartoon of Mohammed or otherwise disrespect their prophet. 

When Mumtaz Qadri, governor of Punjab, suggested only that Pakistan's death-mandating  blasphemy laws were too harsh, even suggesting that was considered so blasphemous that he was assassinated by his own bodyguard, Mumtaz Qadri.  When Qadri was then executed for murder, over 100,000 people attended his funeral.    That is the mainstream opinion in Pakistan.

The "independent monitoring group" is a pro-Islam pressure group that tries to outlaw criticism of Islam by claiming victim status. They should not be regarded by the media as neutral.

And the claim is not true.  It deliberately conflates "incidents" with "crimes", where an "incident" is anything they claim is an incident.   (And, yes, The Guardian are indeed gullible for using "crimes" in the headline.)

If you have actual statistics of actual crimes (say from prosecutions) then tell us about them. 

In reply to rxqm:

Could you explain to me what you think "mainstream Islam" is? I genuinely have no idea.

p.s. I should add that I'm an atheist, and it doesn't seem likely that you are going to say "mainstream Islam is Allah's true desires for how we should live, as revealed through the Qur'an", but just in case you were - I'm sorry that doesn't make sense to me as someone who doesn't believe in God.

In reply to TobyA:

Versions of Islam held to by the majority of adherents. 

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

So British Jewish politicians should also condemn every human rights abuse by the Jewish State and British Hindus should condemn similar stemming from the BJP govt in India then also?  Surely they need to highlight the differences between their faith and 'extremists' who would say they are acting to defend that faith also? Or are we just asking that of Khan*?

*Again, I'm sure he has gone over this dozens of times in interviews and such, but I don't actually know if he is religious, and if he is what flavour he likes.

In reply to rxqm:

OK, so the fatwa issued by Shi'a Ayatollah isn't mainstream then - well unless you happen to be writing this in Tehran.

In reply to TobyA:

This post is not about India or Israel or Hindus or Sikhs or any other country or religions.  It's about a particular incident and a specific religion (that is currently distrusted by many in the UK) and the likes of some prominent advocates of that religion not taking the opportunity to build bridges. Your comments are quite simply "whataboutery"  There is a whiff of fear about it all.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

This is the quote from rxqm that is being debated: 

“But it would be very wrong to argue that all religions are equally prone to generating violent fanatics.   Of the major religions in the world today, one of them is vastly worse at that than all the others put together.”

I am struggling to see how that can be discussed without reference to other religions.

I should also point out that Rushdie’s books include a multiplicity of faiths, languages and cultures - so drawing on a whole world of ideas in a broad way is very much in the spirit of the man and his works, whilst obsessively focusing on the evils of one thing above all else… kind of isn’t. 

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

But do you have a reason as to why Sadiq Khan should need to disassociate himself from actions an American loon/zealot probably influenced by a long dead Iranian leader, while other British politicians don't need to disassociate themselves from equally tenuously connected crimes?

You can say my comments are whataboutery and not address the issue, I could say yours are simply prejudice and not address the issue. But I've tried not to do that.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Although in this case they have done, but for some reason instead of spending ten seconds googling to check this, someone just preferred to assume that they haven't.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Indeed you missed it: https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/1558463322743341057

In reply to rxqm:

I've never been convinced that bigots of various kinds have that clarity of thinking.

For example, do you think anti-Semites lack bigotry against religious converts to Judaism? 

Precise definitions of mostly ill-informed scattergun bigotry always seem spurious.

In reply to TobyA:

Prejudiced, in what way? I'm calling out fundamentalism NOT Islam. I'm commenting on a specific issue. IMO it is sad and a loss for Islam that moderates are not taking the opportunity to condemn this. I was equally critical of Bush and Blairs war in Iraq and the failure of many prominent westerners to not call that out. Prejudice, I think not. 

I have just now seen that SK HAS condemned this so good for him, my comments have been overtaken by events. In my defense UKC is the only medium I use that could be called Social Media.

Apologies for jumping to conclusions and not checking but my general position is still valid.

In reply to TobyA:

Khan's a practising Muslim, and a very high profile one. He regularly comments on matters related to Islam, so it would be very surprising if he hadn't commented on the attack on Rushdie.

In reply to Rob Findon:

Great post - no need for apology.

I have no problem with moderate devotion to any religion if 'peace and submission to God' is the benign way of understanding the world. It just isn't my way, and I have no desire or need to attribute my own understanding of the world to a God, or any other metaphor that substitutes for the greater scheme.

What really boils the blood though, is extremism - not just in religion, but also politics (the two are very often linked, one attempting to justify the other). It's impossible to have a decent debate with an extremist, because their modus operandi is always try to convert you to their way of thinking, no matter how ridiculous that might seem. They can even have murderous intent towards those who disagree, as we have just seen with Rushdie, and as we saw with the actual murder of Jo Cox.

Whilst extremist beliefs are a maddening quirk of human nature, it would nonetheless be an interesting subject for the psychological understanding of belief systems generally, and how formerly moderate people can become so inextricably anchored into them, even when all evidence suggests that they are so very far removed from the common good.

Who or what can have such overwhelming powers of persuasion to induce someone to dispense with all parameters of civilised behaviour? Could there be that kind of latency in all of us, requiring only the catalyst of belief to tip us over into extremism? Can one form of developed extremism be an equal and opposite reaction to another?

In reply to AllanMac:

But isn't that the very problem with Islam?  It's not simply a religion it's fundamentally, excuse the pun, tied into politics and cannot differentiate between the two.  Are there any other religions like that?

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

But you're assuming that they haven't when in fact they have. Surely this is pretty much the dictionary definition of prejudice?

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

If that’s the case then how can Muslims leave satisfactorily in secular countries? They should either work to establish Islam at the heart of public life or move to somewhere that is run on Islamic principles. That is of course the argument of political Islamists everywhere and ISIS in particular. So essentially you are agreeing with them as to the nature of their faith, and at odds with most British Muslims who clearly don’t think this. 

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Point taken but I am commenting on the contents of this post which is currently my only source of information. No it was ignorance, as in lack of information, on my part not prejudice there is a distinction I think.

In reply to seankenny:

Are they?  Again I get the impression that many e.g. those we label fundamentalists are not living satisfactorily in secular countries.  Many of them are actively working to introduce Sharia law etc. and kill those who do not agree with their extreme views and others complain of Islamaphobia.  I would not consider that as satisfactory. I'm not sure what you are saying in the second part of your comment. I thought that one of the principles of the Quran is that state and church cannot be separated.  The fact that some Muslims do not agree with that is not really my point and neither here nor there if we are discussing the basic principles of the religion. Some may follow that basic principle some may not, that's a given.  The issue under discussion is about those who do.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

So now you’re arguing that Islamic fundamentalism represents those following the “basic principles” of their religion. Whereas others would argue that not murdering people is a fairly basic principle. The former view is absolutely the one Islamists follow and one reason they also kill a lot of fellow Muslims.

The claim that British Muslims do not live here satisfactorily and peacefully seems a little bit of a push. 
 

More broadly, this is the problem with the studied ignorance so many posters have said represents their position: if you don’t know about a particular phenomenon, then commenting on it leaves you open to all sorts of nonsense. 

In reply to AllanMac:

It's actually impossible to have a decent debate on the matter of religion with anybody who is religious. The conventional scientific method is to try to infer an endpoint by observation, the construction of hypotheses, and testing. But all religions necessarily decree certain endpoints as simply 'true.' So there is no debate to be had.

In reply to rxqm:

Feel free to keep claiming it, but as my first reply to you suggested it's essentially impossible to prove. People cling onto claims without proof all the time ("the election was stolen!") but expect to either be seen as a zealot or not taken very seriously if you do. But then again, just repeating the same unprovable thing again and again has worked well for religions - "rejoice, for he has risen!"

Is there? Are Jews a race but Muslims not, because when you go to Israel and see black Jews, and Yemeni Jews and white Jews with ginger hair and freckles they definitely don't look that similar! It might be a bit upsetting to Jewish converts as well, as I guess you don't believe they are really Jewish?

Do you think the Nazis had nothing against the religion of Judaism only against the Jewish people? Why are Synagogues and Jewish graveyards regularly vandalised still in this country?

I've taught hundreds of lessons about Islam with no problem. I'm sure you know the situation was a lot more specific than that, although still outrageous.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Ask British Jews how they experience antisemitism - many say commonly in being criticized and even attacked for the actions of Israel just because of their faith. Expecting Khan to criticize the attack on Rushdie seems just like this - what's it got to do with him? That's why holding certain groups of people to different standards to the rest of the population is commonly seen as prejudice. 

In reply to TobyA:

I think there is a certain amount of naive denial going on here. I believe that it is in the interests of the religion and ultimately the good of the country involved to actively condemn these acts whenever and wherever possible. Public figures do have extra responsibility in this regard. I also believe that if some Christian or Zionist zealot did something similar the same would apply so I'm not holding different groups to different standards as you accuse. The fact is though that the vast amount of similar acts are being perpetrated by Muslim Fundamentalists in the name of a Muslim God so the opportunity to hold Muslims to account comes up far more frequently.  If a Christian does something similar tomorrow I would hold all disciplines of Christianty to that same standard and expect advocates of that religion, especially those in the public eye, to condemn it.

In reply to ExiledScot:

Lots are rooted in a Christian sense (Think Anders Brevik/KKK but I do agree there’s much more subtlety in that link, partly I think because we’ve got fewer obviously Christian states pushing forward that particular ideology so there’s not the support for them. Therefore they have to appeal to identity in a different way. But on the whole extremist groups work by giving someone who feels alienated an identity. Thing is about the Islamist groups is that they’re also often firmly against and willing to butcher Muslims who don’t live up to their ideals too, that for me is the key separation between the mainstream and the extreme.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

So you think we should hold Rishi Sunak to account for Hindu religious violence in India? 

In reply to TobyA:

As you say, it is a majority opinion in some countries.

But, more generally, the majority of Muslims worldwide think that disrespect for their prophet should be illegal.  (Which is different from saying they support vigilante acts or terrorism.)   

Even in the UK, the majority of Muslims support a blasphemy law that would (for example) make Mohammed cartoons illegal.  And de facto they've pretty much got what they want -- can you point to any major media outlet displaying such a cartoon in the last decade? 

Thus it is not the case that’s 90% of Muslims think that open and satirical criticism of Islam, along with Mohammed cartoons, is acceptable and ok, but that a 10% fringe of extremists think it is not ok.   

Rather, the majority think that such things are not ok, while the extremists are the ones willing to act on that.  

In that sense, intolerance of free speech and intolerance of criticism of Islam are mainstream within Islam.  

In reply to rxqm:

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8537/CBP-8537.p... Does show (p27) that Muslims are significantly more likely to be a victim of a hate crime then any other religion. Is that coincidental? I would suggest that if you’re that concerned that a newspaper is printing outright lies then it’s probably worth complaining to the regulator as they’re not allowed to do that. Out of interest exactly what would you accept as evidence to refute your claims?

I am of course concerned about all of those. But I was also concerned by the Christian preacher who shouted homophobic abuse at me as a teenager because I had my ears pierced. I don’t expect all Christian’s to answero for his intolerance. I have no issue with criticism of intolerance or by Theological debate. I do have an issue with lumping everyone of a faith (in this case the worlds second largest!) and calling it propaganda that there is a specific word for this. I would also further point out that you’ve been critical of Islam here and haven’t faced a Muslim on this threat calling for a fatwa against you, so how much realistically is your freedom of speech being curtailed? More so then the Uighur or Rohingya? 
 

extremism of all types works by appealing to displaced. It offers identity to those who currently lack it. Islamism is no different in that respect. Surely you don’t think it was a coincidence that ISIS appeared in the political vacuum left after the Iraq War and the Syrian Civil War? A time when for many the west represented broken promises and violence. 

In reply to elsewhere:

But you're assuming that what gets labelled "Islamophobia" results from bigotry. 

Among the many who get called "Islamophobic" are ex-Muslims who are not at all bigoted against the people (their own people), but are vehemently against the religion because they know from the inside what damage it does. And, yes, that damage is primarily to Muslims and people in Muslim-majority countries.  

And yes, such people do indeed have a clarity of thinking.  Which is why they insist on a distinction between a race and a religion, and why they are opposed to the term "Islamophobia", which is deliberately designed to muddy such distinctions and to disallow criticism of Islam. 

In reply to seankenny:

That's whataboutery again but if he believes in his religion and some representatives of that religion are undermining it then I see no reason why he should not condemn any such acts.  

It's not a matter of holding him to account though is it? Its about advocates of a religion having a self interest in maintaining the legitimacy of that religion and condemning anything that undermines that legitimacy for the sake of that religion.

In reply to seankenny:

Well, it's not entirely peaceful and satisfactory:

"A teacher is still in hiding one year on from the Prophet Muhammed Batley school row. The teacher had shown a caricature of the founder of Islam, during a religious studies lesson at Batley Grammar School in March 2021."

If most British Muslims are peaceful and tolerant, and accept living in a free society, where ideas can be criticised, shouldn't that be highly embarasing to them?   Yet few openly dissent from the extremists.  That's partly because they agree with them, and partly because they fear how other Muslims would react if they did.  

Can  you point to any teacher currently in hiding for upsetting Christians?

And, of course, in France, a similar teacher, Samuel Paty, was murdered.  

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

I’m trying to see if your statement: “I'm calling out fundamentalism NOT Islam,” actually holds true. As you say of Khan: “any right thinking Muslim would welcome the chance to put some distance between themselves and the fundamentalists.”

Putting these two statements together would strongly suggest that since there *has* been Hindu fundamentalist violence, and since Sunak has not publicly been called to denounce it and has not (as far as I’m aware), then you’ve no choice but to condemn him as as not a “right thinking Hindu”.

The same argument of course holds true for Christian leaders re Christian terrorism in the US. 

In reply to Rob Findon:

No it doesn't actually.  It shows twice as many hate crimes against Muslims as against Jews, yes. But then one factors in that Muslims are 10 times as prevalent (4.5% of the population versus 0.45%) and that shows that a random Jewish person is 5 times as likely to be a victim than a random Muslim. 

Actual evidence, proper statistics.  You're arguing for massive spikes in "hare crimes" following incidents.  So far you've not supported your claim.  

In reply to Rob Findon:

But then when the Archbishop of Canterbury states as the official Church position that homosexual acts are sinful, then, yes, I do expect rank-and-file Christians to take some responsibility for their religion, such as by rejecting that statement.  

In reply to seankenny:

HaHa. I have no idea what a right thinking Hindu is but if he is aware of violence being committed in the name of his religion and wants to maintain the legitimacy of that religion then he should condemn it. Of course the same should apply to Christian leaders, why on earth would you think I think otherwise? 

In reply to rxqm:

I doubt ex-Muslims make up a great proportion of those labelled islamophobic. I doubt if many islamophobes are interested if an ex-Muslim makes careful distinctions. 

In reply to seankenny:

There is an issue of proximity and frequency. Hindu violence in the UK is rare. Islamic violence, not so much.

On one hand blaming all of x group for the behaviour of a small subset is unfair. Equally if the subset is not so small, or elements of their thinking widespread, I think X group can reasonably be criticised.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Of course he is aware, why shouldn’t he be? It’s very well known. The issue in this conversation is that *you* are not aware and maybe it’s worth thinking why that is? 

I see no reason why the Archbishop of Canterbury should be called on to condemn every piece of Christianity inspired violence. If asked I’m sure he would but it’s not a requirement for his acceptance in public life in the way that it is with prominent Muslims. 

In reply to MG:

Is it worth pointing out that flying to New York takes as long as flying to Delhi? Or is that the wrong sort of proximity?

If frequency of violence is a determinant of whether we should criticise a politician for the actions of his co-religionists then where is the lower cut off point at which we shouldn’t care? How would you deal with a very deadly one off event as opposed to low level but more frequent violence? The point is that one ends up with a ridiculous calculus of responsibility. 

This is of course an argument for criticising British Jews for the behaviour of Israel, in fact it is exactly the argument Corbyn et al used in their defence when accused to anti-Semitism.  

In reply to seankenny:

Not sure what point you are trying to make there.  OK he IS aware, what has that got to do with this debate?

No you are trying to make it the issue and belittle me in the process.  You have absolutely no evidence to support that premise. You do not know what I know or don't know in that regard. I think you may be the one that needs to do some thinking

Well perhaps he would be if as many acts of violence had been carried out in the name of his God.  I certainly would especially if they were directly relevant to the UK and impacted my personal safety.

You have a preconceived idea about me and you are simply trying to control the narrative to confirm that impression. 

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Yes of course other religions are tied to politics. Christianity and Judaism to name two others.

I'm naive enough to believe that religions started out with the best intentions, but became progressively corrupted by brainwashing, greed, unspeakable cruelty and abuse in the name of God, materialism, bigotry, extremist zealotry and self-aggrandisement - as base human instincts kicked in, pushing aside any spiritual dimension that one might assume gave birth to deity in the first place.

The problem with organised religion, is that it will forever remain the contrivance of flawed humans.

Despite all this, people still believe in the scintilla of good that can only exist in the moderation of such faiths, without the weight of corrupt baggage and ulterior motive. Likewise in politics - ideas for the common good, and any kind of useful debate are more likely to take place in the moderate centre ground.

In reply to seankenny:

No idea what your point is. Sunak is in the UK, yes?

No these things are on/off, black/white

Not unless you equate Israel (a state) with Judaism (a religion/race).

In reply to AllanMac:

It would indeed be naive to suggest that they are not tied in any way but IMO the Quran is far more formal and robust on these matters than the Bible.  Are you saying the UK is not secular and is as tied up with religion as say Iran? That too is naive. Even Boris did not issue a fatwa

In reply to MG:

If we call on public figures to condemn the barbarity of their co-religionists then we should be consistent. Most posters on here are not consistent. 

Suggesting human affairs are black and white is very comforting. 

Your exact words were:

“On one hand blaming all of x group for the behaviour of a small subset is unfair. Equally if the subset is not so small, or elements of their thinking widespread, I think X group can reasonably be criticised.”
 

That’s a statement about how we deal with group responsibility. A state is as much a group of people as a religion is, in fact in some ways moreso as it’s easier to define membership. Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people which gives Jewish people a far stronger connection with it than simply being of the same religion. Nevertheless I’m sure we agree that no British Jew is responsible for the acts of the Israeli state nor should they be called upon to condemn its actions. I’m simply being consistent. 

In reply to Godwin:

I suggest reading some background on Ed Hussein before reading anything he has written with anything less than an extremely critical eye.

Yes, terrible. But I’m lost about what the far right/ brexshit/daily Mail demographic in the uk have to with it.

Sarcasm over, if you are really implying that all UK Muslims are pro-murder and terrorists then grow some balls and come out and say it instead of making cowardly snipes. 

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Not at all. Nobody knows about everything, it’s just not possible. 

We’re back to this idea that Islam is uniquely violent. As Toby said above, should we consider the effects of messianic Christianity when looking at US Republicans? It’s undoubtedly a factor in many violent acts. Any such counting is going to be very dependent on when you start and stop, where you include and what type of violence you consider. 

 > I certainly would especially if they were directly relevant to the UK and impacted my personal safety.

I can think of no instance where the U.K. has been affected by violence and terrorism with a Christian element. None whatsoever! 

In reply to seankenny:

Sorry a "not" was missing!

And I think criticising Israelis for the behaviour of their state is entirely reasonable.

Are.you suggesting a  Nazi/Stalinist/NastyPartyMember shouldn't be criticised for following that party?

. 

In reply to elsewhere:

Actually they are.  Muslims routinely try to shut down ex-Muslims, and howling "Islamophobia" is a choice tactic.  

They are only helped by the willingness of the Western media to treat "Islamophobia" as a legitimate concept.  

In reply to seankenny:

I agree but in the context of this thread that's simply whataboutery.  The discussion is about Islamist violence in the UK.

Neither can I but I can't get my head around this statement. What is it in response to?  As a defense of accusations that I was picking on Islam I said that I would apply the same rigour to Christians if they were carrying out acts of violence in the name of their God. You can apply that to anywhere but in the context of this thread I mean the UK. Your response makes no sense.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

It's not a fact though, it's your perception gathered through the media you consume. 

Did you not watch "the Q-Anon Shaman" (J Chansley) hold a prayer meeting on the Senate floor after smashing and slashing their way through the police lines on Jan 6th? https://www.newyorker.com/news/video-dept/a-reporters-footage-from-inside-t... (you can go forward to 8.00 minutes on the video to hear the prayer). Did the Archbishop of Canterbury or your local vicar have to denounce their fellow Christians afterwards? Personally, I would think that's ridiculous.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

The incident the thread was created to discuss happened in the USA.

In reply to rxqm:

So you deny the existence of islamophobia as a legitimate concept.

In reply to wintertree:

Yes, but the entire Rushdie affair has a very direct British connection - so one would expect prominent British Muslims to react to it.

In reply to deepsoup:

Whoooosh... 

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

But Rushdie was stabbed in New York State?

I thought Sean was with a bit of sarcasm hinting at 40 years of violence in some ways linked to the differences between Catholics and Protestants that has affected the UK and Ireland (and elsewhere). Did you really not think of the Troubles when thinking about political violence with direct links to Christianity?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Sure.  But my comment was specifically in reply to someone claiming this discussion is about violent events “in the U.K.”. 

In reply to wintertree:

I was thinking about this earlier - it's great to hear that Rushdie appears to be on the mend, but interesting that this DIDN'T happen in the UK. I presume he turns up to similar types of events here as well? Wasn't he at the Wye Festival in recent years? That sort of thing anyway...

Is security better here than in the US? Or is it simply that there is just more religious and political violence in the US now? And how lucky this guy didn't have a gun!

In reply to elsewhere:

Yes.  

If you want to talk about anti-Muslim bigotry (that is, bigotry towards people) then feel free to talk about anti-Muslim bigotry.

The term "islamophobia" is clearly about Islam, the idea system, and implies that it is an irrational phobia to dislike or criticise Islam, the idea system.  

The people who coined and promoted the term knew what they were doing and did this deliberately.  The term is designed to disallow criticism of the religion, and it does that by conflating criticism of the religion with bigotry towards its adherents.  

In reply to rxqm:

You see I think we differ there. I was as disappointed as most by the archbishops recent actions, but know plenty of Christians who are accepting of homosexuality. I don’t hold them responsible for his words as I accept he is as flawed a human as the rest of us, not some divinely inspired spokesperson. Therefore, I only hold him responsible for his actions, not every person who identifies as a Christian. I see no reason to see it any differently with Islam. Religion and faith are personal choices and one adherent doesn’t speak for all. Anymore then any one member of any subculture speaks for all. 
 

To respond to your other points: do you think it’s significant that 45% of offences are against 4.5% of the population? Because I do. I also see the clear link as outlined in my original message to how we’ve been discussing Islam over the last 20 years in this country. 

https://acle.uva.nl/binaries/content/assets/subsites/amsterdam-center-for-l... Looks at 9/11 and 7/7

https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/huge-rise-people-seeking-help-race-hate-cr... Looks at Manchester

https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp559.pdf 
 

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/2/187 9/11 in the USA

https://www.report-it.org.uk/files/hate_crime_against_london_highres_print_... P38 specifically but we’ll worth a longer read-note the trend in how reporting has had to change due to rises

There isn’t necessarily one set but the trend is there.

In reply to rxqm:

Unrelated to the gist of the thread: I always wonder why terms like 'islamophobia', 'homophobia', etc. etc. are coined. The terms literally mean 'fear' of whatever it is, but they are actually used to imply 'hatred.'

In reply to 65:

It’s pretty obvious they were saying the complete opposite to that.

In reply to TobyA:

What I find difficult here is that simply criticising the actions of Israel IS regarded by many Jews as anti-semitic. I'm clear that it is not.

If you disagree with widely condemned acts done in the name of your religion then arguably it is reasonable to expect you to be open in your disagreement. If you keep quiet, then it's not unexpected, or "anti-semitic, anti-islamic, anti-christian etc, for others to regard your position as complicit. If you are a prominent public figure like Sadiq Khan, then it's appropriate that you should condemn the action publicly and prominently, which SK has indeed done, though I see he's been criticised for his delay in doing so.  

I've yet to see reports of British Imams condemning the attack on Rushdie in sermons in their mosques. I hope it's happening. 

I carry no candle for any religion, but it is noteworthy, I think, that no member of the Monty Python team was issued with a fatwa in respect of "The Life of Brian" - not by the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor any Christian leader to my knowledge. 

Martin

In reply to TobyA:

That's a weird comparison to be drawing. The attack on the Capitol wasn't a piece of religious terrorism - the people involved (some or all of whom might indeed have been Christians) were acting on the belief that the election had been rigged against them.

(I made a related comment above when I was criticizing the Steven Weinberg quote.)

In reply to Martin Hore:

They just got Malcom Muggeridge calling the film 'tenth rate'.

In reply to 65:

Actually, that is the polar opposite of what I am saying.

I am saying that liberal Muslims, from what I understand are under pressure from islamists.

What do all you Muslim friends say, it would be interesting to hear your perspective from your multi cultural coterie. 

In reply to Martin Hore:

 

Aren’t sermons usually delivered at Friday prayers, which are at lunchtime? And wasn’t Rushdie attacked on Friday afternoon U.K. time? 
 

In reply to rxqm:

This is just the standard right wing anti-Muslim boiler plate as seen on a thousand blogs and unpleasant websites going back to 2001 (and in some ways before).

But if you prefer we could say that the what you are saying suggests you are prejudiced against Muslims, rather than you are Islamophobic.

And are you the artist formerly known as Coel Hellier, or do you just sound rather like him? I didn't think so at first, but you are hitting all of Coel's old notes now.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

al Qaida always had a quite specific list of political grievances which they were happy to declaim at any point. Wanting to establish a caliphate or similar is a political act that’s really not that different to trying to overthrow an election.

The US is full of militias who are quite open about their Christian faith and how it informs the type of society they’d like to create. 

In reply to Rob Findon:

An excellent posting.

In India in 2014 I asked an Indian gentleman how the Hindus and Muslims got on.

He said,

generally we get on fine. Remember this, God made Man, Man made religion.

Works for me.

In reply to TobyA:

This poster refers to religion as an “idea system”. The only other person I’ve ever seen use this phrase is Coel. Perhaps it’s big amongst militant atheists, I have no idea.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

But what is? Bin Laden planned 9-11 because he was angry at the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia.

There's some really good journalistic work in the US (and academic too I expect, but I'm no longer plugged into those academic circles) on the importance of "Christian Nationalism" to what we are now calling Trumpism. I'm trying to remember what I listened to recently about this which was very good, it wasn't https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1110949385/christian-nationalisms-influence-... but that's covering very much the same ground and characters.

In reply to Godwin:

Love it. I find the North Indian/Nepali/Himalayan attitude to religion fascinating, so much more fluid and often less concerned about specific dogma and labels. 

In reply to Rob Parsons:

If usage implies hatred that's the correct meaning. That's just how languages are, they are defined by usage before (and after) the word gets used enough to be in a dictionary.

In reply to Rob Findon:

That is interesting.

Plan A, Covid and  visas permitting I am of to I India for 8 weeks early next year, travelling from Bengaluru, to Delhi, and visiting Varanasi, Bod Gahta?  The Buddhist place and Amritsar. I am fascinated in the spiritual side, oddly the Taj Mahal did nothing for me, but my visits to Pushkar and  Ajmeer had a great impact.

I will be interested to see the difference between north and south.

Might even do some bouldering in Hampi.

In reply to Godwin:

Yes, having re-read your post and some of your others I can see that I misinterpreted it. My apologies.

Confrontationally snide, classy. Prick.

I don't know if I have any muslim friends. I have a few good friends and many friendly acquaintances from islamic countries (mostly Iran) but I've never asked any of them if they identify as muslim. None of them are observant, that's for sure.

In reply to Rob Findon:

This is also very much the case in Sri Lanka too. And Japan, from what I’ve been told. Definitely not just a N Indian thing. 

In reply to rxqm:

I'm assuming much if what is labelled islamophobia results from bigotry.

I don't assume that because some people are unjustly labelled this means the usage of the word islamophobia is only used to deliberately disallow criticism.

In reply to 65:

If they where your friends, you would know.

If  a person is a Muslim, from what I understand, they would be observant, it is not like a British person defining as C of E, it defines their whole life.

I do not think you appreciate what Faith means.

Have you actually read any Ed Hussain books,you do seem to have googled some reviews of his books.

Try reading one, then come along back and give me your view opinion from your perspective.

In reply to Godwin:

That sounds like a Muslim can't be non-observant and the whole life of the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't defined by Anglicanism. It's weird to think you understand millions of people without understanding they vary.

In reply to Godwin:

It's sad to note that 2014 was when Modi became PM of India though, and while this has never been really true (it's 70 years since Partition right now isn't it?), it has become even less so under BJP rule.

In reply to Godwin:

Please contact the owners of UKC and tell them that everyone other than you needs to be restricted from posting as only you understands anything about everything.

In reply to Rob Findon:

Sure, just as many Muslims don't accept the violent intolerance of mainstream Islam. 

This is missing the point.  It's not about him as an individual, it's about the teachings and doctrine of the religion.   If people consider themselves to be Christians and Church members, then that makes them "interested parties" regarding the teachings.  That doesn't oblige them to accept those teachings, but if certain teachings are bringing their church into disrepute, and are causing harm in the world, then they should not just shrug and ignore it, they should dissent.  

In reply to Rob Findon:

Well the particular offence we're talking about is "religious hatred".  About half the country are non-religious and so can't be targets of that.  Most of the rest are Christian, and there is indeed little "hatred" against Christianity in the UK today (as religions go, British Christianity today is fairly benign).

So, re-phasing the question, no it does not surprise me that most "religious hatred" offences are against the minority religions (Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, etc).

And don't you think it significant that, based on the stats you gave, Jews are 5 times more likely to be victims of such as Muslims?   That's not the impression many people try to give.   

(I'd also be interested to know how many of those anti-Jewish attacks are perpetrated by Muslims; for that matter, one could also ask what fraction of anti-Muslim "religious hatred" offences are by perpetrated by other Muslims. Across the world, most victims of religiously-inspired violence by Muslims are other Muslims, given the various sectarian rifts).

In reply to TobyA:

Do I sense that another UKC witch hunt is about to happen?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Nope, but it is odd how once you've read enough of someone's posts their style becomes quite recognisable. Like I said I'm not sure about rxqm, but he or she at least is interested in the same stuff as Coel.