"And as a result they betray their own real constituencies, those of us committed to the rules civil polities. We cannot defend modern, tolerant, liberal political culture with such fearful people dominating the public sphere."
"Liberal intellectuals are frightened of confronting Islam's honour-shame culture," by Richard Landes for the Telegraph, August 17:
Politeness is not saying certain things lest there be violence; civility is being able to say those certain things and there won’t be violence.
A recent series of polls indicate that European public opinion is substantially concerned by the increasingly aggressive Islam that their substantial immigrant populations have taken to expressing. To quote Soeren Kern, Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Strategic Studies Group:
"The findings – which come as Europeans are waking up to the consequences of decades of mass immigration from Muslim countries – point to a growing disconnect between European voters and their political masters regarding multicultural policies that encourage Muslim immigrants to remain segregated rather than become integrated into their host nations.
"The survey results mirror the findings of dozens of other recent polls. Taken together, they provide ample empirical evidence that scepticism about Muslim immigration is not limited to a “right-wing” political fringe, as proponents of multiculturalism often assert. Mainstream voters across the entire political spectrum are now expressing concerns about the role of Islam in Europe."
The disconnect referred to in the article constitutes one of the most worrying developments in Western culture over the last decade: between a elite that controls much of the discussion in the public sphere (journalists, academics, talking heads, mainstream politicians) and who fear being called Islamophobes and racists more than they fear Islamist racists, and a population of people who, whenever they voice concern about the behavior of the Muslim neighbors, are told not to be Islamophobic racists. The problems are knotty and painful to disentangle. Here’s my outline of an approach. (For a longer version of the following essay, see my blog, The Augean Stables.)
Honour-shame and Islamism:
In an honour culture, it is legitimate, expected, even required to shed blood for the sake of honour, to save face, to redeem the dishonoured face. Public criticism is an assault on the very “face” of the person criticised. Thus, people in such cultures are careful to be “polite”; and a genuinely free press is impossible, no matter what the laws proclaim.
Modernity, however, is based on a free public discussion, on civility rather than politeness, but the benefits of this public self-criticism – sharp learning curves, advances in science and technology, economic development, democracy – make that pain worthwhile. [...]
On the contrary, the loudest voices in contemporary Islam reject vehemently the kind of self-criticism modernity requires. Criticism constitutes an unbearable assault on the manhood of Muslims.
Indeed, global Jihad and the apocalyptic prophets who nourish it with genocidal rhetoric, represent a particularly virulent form of abreactive modernity, in which the powers of modern society (especially technology) are turned to the task of destroying a modern culture of public, free debate about what is fair.
Secularism demands more maturity, it requires that religions be civil, that they not use force (the state) to impose their beliefs on others. Religious communities have to give up their need to be visibly superior as a sign of being right/true. This involves high levels of both self-confidence and tolerance for public contradiction. For Islam this is a particularly difficult challenge. For Islam’s formative period, it dominated. Dhimma laws spelled out the principles: infidels were “protected” from violence and death at the hands of Muslims as long as they accepted a visibly humiliating, inferiority. And among the key demands made on dhimmis, was that they not challenge, criticise, or in any way “insult” Islam or Muslims.
Contemporary manifestations of Islamic revival tend to handle the infidel “other” poorly. The peril to contemporary Christians and Jews in Muslim majority nations is mirrored in the behavior of Muslims in the expanding European enclaves, those zones urbaines sensibles, or Sharia zones, where the state’s writ no longer runs.
Thus, Islam’s – Muslims – relationship with the “other” (kufr, infidel, lit. one who covers [the truth]), is the great problem to resolve in this coming generation, and at the heart of that problem lies the ability of Muslims to tolerate criticism from outsiders.
We in the modern (and post-modern) West, who first forged these remarkable rules of self-restraint and created so rich, so variegated, so tolerant a culture, have a right to demand that Islam adopt these rules, certainly those who live in and benefit from the civil polities we have created. Indeed, if we treasure these values of tolerance, and freedom, and generosity towards the “other,” we owe it to ourselves and to the Muslims in our midst, to make this demand. Anything else, including the fantasy that this is not a problem, is cultural suicide. [...]
And yet, so far, we are doing very badly, mostly because we avoid dealing with the problem. The “thin skin” of Muslims is proverbial, and much public, diplomatic, and even academic discourse tacitly acknowledges and placates that cultural reality. When Western positive-sum principles (we do everything we can to “get to yes,” win-win) meets Arab zero-sum principles (they can only win, if we lose), we most often lose (Oslo “Peace” Process).
In the last decade this has gotten much worse. The behaviour of the self-identified “progressive” “left” – traditionally the bastion of stinging public criticism of abuse of power, misogyny and belligerence – has been overwhelmingly placatory towards touchy Muslims. Repeatedly, as in the case of Pope Benedict, they step in to prevent anyone (fellow infidels), whom they smear as Islamophobes, from saying something that might bruise Muslims feelings. Indeed, they seem more worried about “us” provoking Muslim violence than about exploring the sources of Muslim violence. And often they attack those defending democratic principles with a shrill and contemptuous tone that they would never dream of using with Muslims.
Which brings us back to the “disconnect.” Our journalist and academic talking heads are subject to a different kind of Islamophobia: an inordinate fear of criticising Islam. And as a result they betray their own real constituencies, those of us committed to the rules civil polities. We cannot defend modern, tolerant, liberal political culture with such fearful people dominating the public sphere.
An excellent analysis of the current situation.
But what can we do about it?
.''.an excellent analysis.''. for sure Aardvark. .as to what we can do about it, the growing awareness of the problem is a positive indication. Richard Landes' article already had 700-plus comments under it when I looked a few minutes ago.
Keep educating yourself about the texts and history of Islam, and the human rights situations in Muslim-majority nations around the world, also about the current views of Muslims around the world as partly revealed by polls of Muslims.
And organize. Join or support a local anti-jihad anti-sharia group. Or support Christians taking a more positive approach of using love to convert Muslims to Christianity. If you are in the UK, and find that the EDL is not about race but is only about freedom and resistance to jihad/sharia, then join EDL. Just keep educating yourself about Islam and freedom, and it will become evident how you can do something. Maybe read Pamela Geller's forthcoming book about how to resist the jihad.
the pattern is followed very well by the elites ofEurope, India, and all other countries were muslims have become larger in numbers,
All arriving on our MSM controlled shores as we post. Double speaking little darlings that they are.
Good advice Traeh. Every step, every increment of focused movement will result in the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. .The Knowing is a primordial instinct, one that we as creatures have been blessed with.
"A recent series of polls indicate that European public opinion is substantially concerned by the increasingly aggressive Islam that their substantial immigrant populations have taken to expressing"
Oh, really? Gee, what a surprise. How short-sighted of you Europe to have not foreseen this decades ago.
Enoch Powell did. Pym Fortuyn did. And they were reviled and vilified. Stupids.
Its all matter of numbers. If there were a few millions violent followers of Warren Jeff he would be a great man, a mercy for mankind with 10000 followers he is an ass.
If Mohammad had 10,000 followers it would be a totally different story. Its the math that makes a ass to hero or vice versus.
Virtually all Muslims,even the most secular,non-religious ones,have this almost religious idea that Islamophobia is criminal.
Islam is just a set of ideas,if somebody has an irrational fear(phobia) of it then in what way is it criminal to fear ideas?
It is like saying a real,authentic irrational fear of Capitalism,Communism,Atheism,Christianity,etc is to be legally punished and believe me,I have read absurd,irrational comments that show great fear of Christianity.
The first thing for a real dialogue is for Muslim leaders to reject the "Islamophobia is a crime" slogan.
Such a simple thing is too deep for many Western intellectuals today.
READ ABOUT:"Sinan,the Greatest Architect of the Ottoman Empire of All Time,was a Christian called Joseph who at age 21 was forced to Become a Muslim
http://www.antisharia.com/2011/08/18/sinanthe-greatest-architect-of-all-time-of-the-ottoman-empirewas-a-christian-who-at-21-was-forced-to-become-a-muslim/
Politeness is not saying certain things lest there be violence; civility is being able to say those certain things and there won’t be violence.
And liberty is being unafraid to say certain things because you are armed, trained, and ready to defeat any attempts at violence.
Secularism demands more maturity, it requires that religions be civil, that they not use force (the state) to impose their beliefs on others. Religious communities have to give up their need to be visibly superior as a sign of being right/true. This involves high levels of both self-confidence and tolerance for public contradiction.
Well, that leaves out Islam, which remains stuck in the 7th century mode, so anything said critical of this misanthropic 'religion' is an automatic "insult" to them. Fear is a powerful motivating force in Islam, a social maladaptation that spreads into the liberal tolerant societies into which they had settled, so speaking of what is wrong with Islam becomes a social taboo dubbed "Islamophobia". This is exactly the opposite of what our modern liberal societies should be doing, where a critical education of Islam's texts and self-proclaimed supremacists beliefs is mandatory for public understanding of who just moved in as invited 'honored' guest, but now turned into surly malcontents demanding special privilege. The public is not blind and deaf to the glaring failures in Islam, from 'honor' killings to suicide bombings, to riots and burning and looting. These 'honored' guests have no sense of fair play or social equality, which should immediately set off liberal alarms, but the opposite happens, that the liberal media, academia, and government fall deadly silent on Islamic misanthropic social behaviors. Simple solution? Read the texts, analyze their teachings at the mosques and madrassas, study Islamic history, and for God's sake, please read the Koran. Learn of "abrogation" of their holy book and popularize their violent verses so everyone can critique them in all media, not just on the web. Let Koran apologists defend their book and open realistic dialogue without death threats, and let the "bible is violent too" apologists bring forth their false moral equivalence. Fire at will. It is far better to bring out this debate into the open than keeping it locked up under the guise of social politeness, which in the end only serves da'wa at the mosque and prison. Talk about it, ask your pastor, mention it at parties, write letters to the editor, to your government representatives, and confront Muslims who are 'true believers': "Is the whole universe written into the Koran?" Open it up to public debate, and let voices be heard. That is the only way to dispel the fog of fear that has gripped liberal secular society into a self-enforced silence. Talk about it. That's why we have "freedom of speech", to air the atmosphere of fear Islam thrives on. Let Muslims breathe, and their 7th century misanthropic 'fear' will choke off as soon as people are allowed to speak and hear, and ultimately see. This is the end, the last days. Really, talk about it. Islam is dying.
Thus, people in such cultures are careful to be “polite”
This young lady is not trying to be "nice"!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/05/unholy-koran.html
I placed the following remarks in the wrong comment section, forgive the repeat:
Why should any educated person give any respect to this absurd religion? Its "Holy Book", the Qur'an, is an obvious fraud that teaches, besides hatred and conquest of the infidel and of the Jew especially, that the sun, with the moon, orbits the earth! (Q 21:33 and Q 36:40, part of the mythical seven heavens Q 2:29), and
That the earth is flat with mountains simply placed on it (Q 15:19 - forget plate tectonics)!
That the sun goes down in a muddy pond surrounded by a mystery population (muddy sun worshipers?) Q 18:83-86
That a man's sperm originates from between the back and the ribs (Q 86:6-7).
That Muhammad split in two the moon Q 54:1-2 (attested to also by Sahih al Bukhari 6/4867 .
Criticism and ridicule of Islam and of its obvious fraud prophet should be a natural & frequent occurrence among intellectuals everywhere and by anyone who cares to think about the irrational forces in the world.
The media treats Islam with kit-gloves like it does with Obama.
'But what can we do about it?'
We can criminalize the people who do not support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I know that it's already in the law but it's never enforced. We already know that the koran is in contradiction to the Constituion; it have to have immigration out of the US for people that make it a mockrey of the Constitution. That would include thing like polygamy, honor-killing, soliders that would uphold the Constitution (swear allegiance to the enemy over the Constitution), etc
If we continue as same rate as Europe immigration policy we would suffer the same fate.
Oh, I forgot the most important part: the catch is something the muslims never will follow. The Constituion!
Mr. Ramsey,
Are you the Bruce Ramsey who writes for the Seattle Times? If so, have you written pieces critical of Islam, and have you had any trouble placing such work?
I haven't seen many stories in the Seattle Times that treat Islam with any depth. It's as if the Blethens have a policy that Islam proper should never be scrutinized and therefore the religion is rarely mentioned in anything but a tepid way. Does anyone on the Seattle Times know anything about Islam?
Occasionally a guest writer will have a mild piece on the editorial page; one that takes the line that Muslims are misunderstood and unfairly maligned. When that happens, sometimes one of the local Muslim gadflies will write a letter in support of what the guest writer has said. Or, once in a while, there will be a short letter by a local Muslim like one Mr. Siddiqui, who can be counted on to complain about the Jews giving unwavering support to Israel. The question of why Israel must always defend herself and what that has to do with Islam, never comes up.
Mr. Siddiqui also writes a blog in which he peddles, among other things, the predictable tripe that jihad means to "struggle against the basic negative predispositions we all have, [like]...greed, envy, jealousy, rage, deceit, theft and murder." He says that he worries about jihad because he does not want to see it "delegitimized."
http://penjihad.wordpress.com/
Meanwhile, people in the Puget Sound region will not learn much about Islam from the Seattle Times. Maybe you can correct that. Liberal Seattle might complain, but you still wouldn't lack for readers.
This isn't the first time our wise pundits and praeceptors bowed to a bullying tyrant. For much of the 1970's and '80's, American journalists and academics dared not say anything negative about Mainland China, lest they find it impossible to get visas. It took the Tiananmen blowup of May-June 1989 before it became truly acceptable for Sinologists and journalists to become truly critical about the Chinese Communist regime.
Face it. The talking heads of our culture are all a bunch of cowards, and without moral compass to boot. Maybe our universities and MSM really need to go bankrupt. They were bankrupt of something other than money long before this.
The author cites the following article, which cites several studies on Europeans' views of Islam in Europe, which is a handy reference:
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2349/european-concerns-muslim-immigration
European Concerns Over Muslim Immigration Go Mainstream
by Soeren Kern
August 15, 2011 at 5:00 am
Kinana@ Concerns Over Muslim Immigration Go Mainstream
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2349/european-concerns-muslim-immigration European
Wow, that article made my day, now I can go to Europe again for vacation. They're getting the message over there and are now willing to talk about it. Good!
It's slowly opening the doors to real dialogue on Islam, not the silly wishy washy watered down stuff we've been hearing to date. Europe will live... I'm packing my bags… :-)
What a wonderful brave effort to let that sweet bird of truth out of it's cage ! I only hope we see more and more articles like that !
I've been wanting to ask people who are interested in this subject if they think that perhaps,against certain odds,the public REALLY DID end up paying more attention to the Islamization of Europe after the Anders Breivik tragedy. He desperately wanted people to realize what's going on.
It's true that the media, including journalists, have been so terrified of talking about the elephant in the room that it's been sickening--at least for me it is. Bravo for Richard Landes ! He's so rare.
London Jim
you wrote - "the growing awareness of the problem is a positive indication. Richard Landes' article already had 700-plus comments under it when I looked a few minutes ago".
I went to the original article and read every one of the comments - it took me a whole evening - kept copies of a good many of them.
And most of them were very well-informed about Islam. Every time a dhimmi or a Muslim taqiyya-and-tu-quoque artist popped up and tried to peddle nonsense, they got shot down in flames by one or more of the other commenters.
CLASSICUS :
Glad you mentioned The Seattle Times ! That Ramsey COULDN'T be the Ramsey of the Times ! WHY - because Ramsey, as far as I know, is just as biased in favor of Muslims; any kind of Muslims, as the rest of that worthless rag !
The whole paper- all the editorials, opinions, political cartoons, and collumnists are HARD CORE LEFTIST FANATICS ! I ought to know- I've been taking that paper for a hundred years, and twice called and told them off, saying I didn't want their partisan blather anymore ! The only reason I am still reading it is because they offered to let me have it for 6 months free if I'd keep taking it .
That Blethen family is so smuggly proud of itself and boasts about the prizes they won for honoring "diversity" . I don't mind being fair, but when all you hear is one-sided accounts of the news, and subjective "facts" you know the public is being cheated . A paper should'nt do that. They riddicule and discredit everything Republican or even moderately conservative. They are just as bad as the New York Times, which, if I had my way, would hit the skids and close down.
The family itself is very wealthy , yet they are always presenting themselves as champions of the "common" citizen. Everybody is poor, underprivleged,snobbed, discriminated against, victimized by imperialistic whites, yadda, yadda, yadda , ding, ding , ding ! Dingbats. Everybody's needy but caucasians, who are all racists !
All their columnists are liberals. They had ONE conservative, and one day he wrote an article that pissed off Frank Blethen and it was GOODBYE- out he went- we have never seen him in the tTimes again. I'm talking about Charles Krauthammer .
I'd better shut up--I get too mad !( They are going to hear from me soon however ) .
Dumbledores, well well done for taking the time to read and save those comments. You're a veritable library-on-legs you are!
I would have liked to have at least read them, but was on a tube train yesterday morning and got majorly distracted. .first by a woman draped in a black abaya and shouldering an unusually large handbag caught my attention. She was staring upwards and silently mouthing something. 'Uh-Oh' I thought to myself as my mind scrambled franticly to access the options. I jumped off at the stop, and had a surrepticious cigarette to calm down. Ten minutes later the next train pulled up and I got on it. .then, and you can't make this stuff up, two stations along the line two more embarked, this time with full face veils. They sat side by side and both pulled books from their bags. I was rivited watching their hands for any sudden movement, and the guy-in-a-suit whom they sat down beside was breaking out in a cold sweat. Needless to say, I was on-my-feet-and-off-at-the-next-stop-faster-than-you-can-say-'black-widow'
Which is why I didn't get time to read the 700-plus comments. .So, that was my 'Bear Mountain Picnic' bad-start-to-the-day-yesterday.
. .Yes, and you guessed it, it rained hard most of yesterday too. .so I got wet. 'least I didn't get blown up. .yet.