Over at Kings of War, a post about a UK study on media and Islamic radicalization. He discusses a paper by:
Nick O’Shaughnessy, Professor of Communication, Queen Mary University of London, author of Politics and Propagnda: Weapons of Mass Seduction. He presented the research he has done with colleagues Paul Baines (Cranfield University), Kevin Maloney and Barry Richards (Bournemouth University), and Sara Miller and Mark Gill (Ipsos MORI) on The British Muslim Response to Islamist Video-Polemic
and describes the paper
There is much talk and concern nowadays about the radicalization of Western Muslims which it is argued at least in part is caused by Islamist propaganda but there is not much empirical data in support (or otherwise) of this thesis. What O’Shaughnessy et al’s exploratory research suggests is that the linkage between cause (Islamist propaganda) and effect (radicalized Western Muslims) is weaker than is often thought. The truth is rather more alarming, in my view: some Western Muslims are self-radicalizing through a process of small-group socialization fed by images from the Western media which Islamist propaganda confirms and reinforces rather than initiates; meanwhile, a large number evince understanding and even sympathy for terrorist protagonists as victims, resorting to desperate measures out of frustration; and there is a growing belief in the fundamental Islamist proposition that there is a real war against Islam.
Read and discuss. The implications are kind of significant, as I see them.
Islam is Islam is Islam. There is zero possibility of Islam co-existing with a Western society when Muslims make up more than a very tiny and ruthlessly suppressed minority.
Stoning of “adulteress” to death, death for “witchcraft” and honor killings are not compatible with Western society. And far from being an aberration, such things are the HEART of Islam. The real Islam. Along with a host of other things such as death for apostates, death for drawing Mohammed, death for teddy bears, for Piglet, etc.
That’s Islam.
And of course the report misses that the internet allows the feudal society of rural Pakistan to dominate that of modern Leeds, for example. Welcome to the Global Village. The side that kills the most of it’s enemies wins!
Bangladesh???? Pakistani??? They are not Arabs!!
Muslims from far Asia usually follow a different rite and tend to be more difficult to radicalize than Arabs. The study is wicked from the begining.
Moreover, I find, with all respect, that no one in the UK wants to publicly state the problem they face. They were convinced that their tolerant principles, developed during centuries, could constitute the framework in which people for many cultures and religions could live together. They built an Empire over Muslims, and they granted them access to the metropoli, and now that they have two million of them within their borders they have realized that maybe this is not true, that there is a minority among Muslims that simply won’t accept anything but the rule over the rest.
This study follows such a line of denial. Muslims are badly informed, just that.
I guess it has to be very hard to realize after centuries that maybe, just maybe, Southern European countries had their reasons to be intolerant. It is something that would shatter the same conception of England from Cromwell himself.
I disagree with Jim, I think most Muslims are pacific and not even bother to think in fullfilling the darkest paragraphs of their religious law unless they fall in desperation, usually for economic reasons or the brutality of the regimes they live. We should not forget that such paragraphs exist, and always keep a watchful eye, but in most cases it won’t evolve into violence.
It is like some illness, some people are prone to suffer them in a greater percentage, but that does not mean tha ALL will suffer them, simply that they (or us) need to take care.
Moreover, I find, with all respect, that no one in the UK wants to publicly state the problem they face. They were convinced that their tolerant principles, developed during centuries, could constitute the framework in which people for many cultures and religions could live together.
Indeed, although the Archbishop of Canterbury has taken a lot of flak for his statement that shari’a ought to somehow be reconciled with British law, I wonder if he hasn’t (however accidentally) actually done his fellow Britons, and Western civ at large, a great service: by showing one way to rally Westerners against Islamic supremacism without being immediately branded by Western elites and the MSM as a racist, fascist xenophobe.
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think this was the Archbishop’s intent here; he’s just being as craven as any other dhimmi. Still, given the response his statement has elicited from the British public – and just as importantly the absence of any PC/MC backlash from his church, the BBC, the British government, et al (why would there be any backlash when, on the face of it he was just toeing the party line?), it’s not hard to imagine some clever anti-shari’a folks on both sides of the Atlantic picking up on this meme and running with it intentionally.
Joshua, But doing so would require the continued mischaracterization of what Williams said and meant. What he said was:
“It might be possible to think in terms of what she calls ‘transformative accommodation’: a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters, so that ‘power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents’. This may include aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution.”
That’s an extremely narrow and limiting “reconcil[ing] with British law,” don’t you think? After all, my parents were married by a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, and every state in the US recognizes it as a legal civil union. If they are entitled to divorce under civil law, but choose not to because it is a violation of Catholic doctrine, does this present a problem? The key to Williams view is voluntary choice of jurisdiction in limited, private matters.
mark, the difference between the situation you present and the situation in the Islamic “community” is that if your parents divorced (perish the thought) neither the priest, nor her brothers, nor any other member of the Church would kidnap your mother and cut her throat to “preserve the family’s honour”.
And what about the situation where sharia directly conflicts with proper laws – such as the example of a gang of Moslem thugs beating up a Christian man?
Islam is Dark Ages barbarism that has absolutely no place whatsoever in Western society. The sooner the majority realise that, the fewer decent people will have to die.
He’s got a point. Shari’a does limit the size of the stick you can use to beat all the female chattels in your private residence.
Fletcher, those examples you offered are very clearly outside the bounds of what the Archbishop of Canterbury is considering when he spoke of the possibility “to resolve certain carefully specified matters, [which] may include aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution.” He most certainly is NOT arguing that resolutions which conflict with British law be allowed. Obviously, any enforcable resolution would have fall within the bounds of British law, as in the U.S. (see Morman polygamy, eg). The other condition, you might have missed, is that all parties must AGREE to the jurisidiction of the Islamic court. So, in the rather tasteless example you used, unless my Mom wanted to be kidnaped and have her throat cut (assuming this didn’t conflict with British law), it wouldn’t be allowed.
mark – I think the issue re Williams is that he made a technical speech which – while slanted – was unexceptional, and dealt with a real issue. Then he gave a radio interview and said some truly stupid things. As you note, the Catholics and Orthodox Jews settle many issues in religious community courts, and have those court decisions stand up (because both parties accept the outcome – it happens that when both parties don’t, things go to mainstream courts). I have no objection to something similar happing with Muslim courts. Except, of course, that no Orthodox Jews have been killed lately for apostasy. Fletcher hits the nub of the problem, which is the willingness of members of the Muslim community to use violence to enforce their community norms.
Stoning cars is a problem. Killing people is an issue that has to be resolved before we can talk about acknowledging Muslim religious authority.
A.L.
A.L., We all condone the use of violence to enforce community standards, unless we’re anarcho-pacifists. Our police force is armed; we don’t give convicted criminals the choice of serving their sentences, we force them to; and we didn’t send unarmed men to Iraq to persuade Saddam Hussein to comply with international norms.
As long as Williams is not advocating a Muslim’s right in Britain to break British law — which he’s not — then your concerns –and Fletcher’s — don’t seem appropriately placed. By the way, the vast majority of Muslims, in Britain and elsewhere, agree with you that the kinds of violence you describe is unlawful. They would add that it is contrary to Islamic law. You sometimes paint with an awfully broad brush….and one that’s got way too much paint on it.
I’d also point out that your statement “I have no objection to something similar happing with Muslim courts.” is somewhat at odds with this one, from the same post: “illing people is an issue that has to be resolved before we can talk about acknowledging Muslim religious authority.”
I think there is enough agreement within the British Muslim community that killing people is wrong for us to talk about acknowledging Muslim religious authority in the very limited way that Williams spoke about.
mark – the question is whether the British state will devolve it’s legitimate use of violence to Muslim courts. And, as a parallel question, whether the Muslim community will presume that right regardless.
Until those questions are well answered, my position that I have no problem with Muslim courts gets put on hold; my tolerance for alternative dispute resolution is trumped by my belief that the only rules that are legitimately enforced by violence are those we are all equally subject to.
A.L.
A.L., “the question is whether the British state will devolve it’s legitimate use of violence to Muslim courts.”
Is it? I don’t see that as the question, and am at a loss to understand how you do. It seems to me that there is NO question about that at all. It won’t happen. Williams is not suggesting it should happen. Only a few radical muslims are in favor of it. Where do you hear this call for use of violence in place of British law? It seems to be just a fantasy fear. It’s as though you are saying that as long as there are 10,000 Quakers out there who would refuse to defend themselves in the event of an attack, we cannot allow any Christian jurisdiction over private civil matters such as marriage, because you just never know what’s going to happen in the future. Give those people an inch…..
Don’t get me wrong, I am not in favor of any religious authority whatsoever, here or in Britain or France, whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish. I oppose the establishment of the sort of courts Williams is suggesting. However, I just don’t see the value in exaggerating and misrepresenting what Williams said…or in the sort of xenophobic fear-mongering that is surrounding this.
On the other hand, if these stirrings represent the beginnings of new call for secularization and a diminishment of the role of religion in civil life, then, hey…. sign me up.
mark, have you read any of the stuff coming out of the UK mosques? I’ll dig around for cites.
A.L.
A.L., Yes, I have…and alluded to them above. But why are you associating Williams’ remarks with those? The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Are you saying that all muslim authority must be rejected because some muslim authorities call for violence? What about those muslim authorities — the majority — that explicitly reject and condemn such calls. Seems to me, if you were so worried about these things you would want to give a boost to the legitimacy of those authorities that reject violence in favor of the sort of conflict resolution that Williams is advocating. Wouldn’t such a stance be more helpful in this so-called “Long War” rather than throwing them all muslims into the same barrel. I have to say that with the sort of attitudes that are being expressed around here, this Long War is going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A.L., I’m curious what you’ll make of the lengthy quote below. I’d provide the exact website but I don’t know how to make into one of those blue links, you all use, and I don’t want Nort to yell at me. Now, granted this is from the IHT, which is owned by the notoriously innaccurate NYT–and, worse, it’s by that wacoliberal nut job John Burns, so honored by the equally wacko pulitzer committee, but, there maybe some truth buried in there somewhere. Its’ from November of last year and the date-line is London (probably, a lie…probably filed from a bar in midtown NYC):
“Leaders of Britain’s two million Muslims unveiled a new set of guidelines Thursday that aim to root out extremism, promote a culture of “civic responsibility” and foster women’s rights in the country’s mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim schools.
The guidelines, circulated in draft form to Muslim groups throughout the country, represent a sweeping new effort by moderate Muslim leaders to combat alienation among disaffected Muslim youth and to foster a new atmosphere of openness and tolerance, particularly in the country’s 1,500 mosques.
The 10-point “code of conduct” will now go to public discussion among Muslim groups, with the aim of producing a final version by March. The proposals would commit all Muslim organizations accepting it to “actively combat all forms of violent extremism” within the community and to “promote civic responsibility of Muslims in wider society.”
No, mark I saw that…but the question is whether that will be the dominant meme or if it will come from Finbury. Running to a meeting, but will put up some links later today.
A.L.
Mark, re formatting a live link nicely — it’s pretty simple. When you’re composing a comment, scroll up a little if need be and look at the small grayish text located below the blue capital “POST A COMMENT” and above the text entry field where you are prompted to type your name.
The fifth paragraph there starts “To add a live URL…”
The recommended method is to mark off with a pair of double quotes the blue text you want to create as a link. Immediately following the closing double quote, put a colon character. Immediately following that, put a full url starting with its http: preamble.
So the literal text (including the quote marks)
“this is a link to Nort’s sadly neglected blog”
followed by a colon followed by the blog’s url, with no intervening spaces
…comes out as
“this is a link to Nort’s sadly neglected blog”:http://tinyurl.com/qsgs2