I think we can all agree the situation is bad. But a harder, more complicated question is: What should China do about Islam? Islam, by any honest account, is an all encompassing worldview and not just a religion. It chafes under all forms of non-Islamic control and often leads to serious social problems. This is clear - it can be seen today in every non-Islamic jurisdiction that has developed a substantial Muslim population. While China is an authoritarian regime, even a democracy scarcely has room for movements like that. So, what to do?
I am glad you liked the article. However, I disagree with your point about Islam, and I would suggest that the perspective you present is one of the causes of what is happening to the Uyghurs - the global spread of Islamophobia since 9/11. I think you will find many "honest accounts" that would say that Islam is not an all encompassing worldview. Islam is a world religion, just like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. In each of these religions, there are extremists who make their religion into an exclusionist worldview while there are others who do not. However, I think that one of the outcomes of the World on Terror is that many non-Muslims have decided that Islam itself is a threat rather than a small group of extremist militants, who themselves are often not acting because of religious goals as much as in response to other grievances not related to religion. Would you say, because there were extremist Christians holding crosses who participated in the storming of the US Capitol two weeks ago, that all Christians are dangerous? Would you say, because extremist Hindus have killed Muslim citizens in India or that Buddhists are committing genocide against Muslims in Myanmar, that all Hindus or Buddhists are dangerous? If not, then you should not judge all Muslims by what extreme groups like ISIS have done. Most Muslims who live in democracies are very happy to be a part of a multi-cultural society where they, along with those of other faiths, are able to practice the religion in which they believe. The same can be said of these other faiths as well.
First, I think it's important to note that we should always treat individuals with dignity and respect irrespective of any sort of ideological or religious label. Individuals should be judged by their words and actions.
But unfortunately many of your claims above are demonstrably untrue, make fallacious comparisons, and exhibit a certain cognitive dissonance. Islam (as all religions, ideologies, and ideas) must be open to criticism and concerns must open to evaluation. Criticizing Islam is not Islamophobia. Thinking critically about immigration, population diversity, etc are important and necessary in any functioning society. Failing to do so can only lead to bad places.
Note: I'm not going to spend time digging up all the citations, but I'm confident you can find the data to support the assertions below relatively easily
Re: 9/11 <-> Islamophobia -- the data don't support that assertion. Millions of Muslims have immigrated to Western democracies in Europe and N. America over the last 30 years. Indeed far MORE Muslims have immigrated post-9/11. Many (likely, almost all) have been provided substantial support from the state often to the detriment of existing populations (in the form of a degradation of public works like housing, education, jobs, and healthcare services). In addition, a big chunk of the migrant flow has been young single men of unknown origin, little education, and few if any skills. So, Islamophobia? Not unless you're talking about the self-flagellation of Western populations and the bigotry of low expectations.
Re: ISIS/Al-Qaeda/whatever -- this type of extremism is of course concerning, but far from the main issue. While the number of violent extremists that want to physically harm Western society is quite small, their broader ideological beliefs are not rare.. indeed, they're often echoed in the larger community. Surveys indicate that a substantial percentage of Muslims in Europe believe things like: homosexuality should be illegal (some non-trivial portion also believe they should be killed), free speech is not essential, Jews are evil, rape is ok, Jihad is honorable (only 1 in 3 british muslims would report someone involved in jihadist activities according to a 2016 survey of 100K Muslims) and on... and on. These beliefs are reflected in daily society. Many states have substantial issues with their Muslim populations including: insular neighborhoods, crime, rejection of police & court authority, rejection of western societal norms, etc.. even among populations born in a western country. This should be deeply concerning. It is at least partially due to poorly administered social integration programs (if any at all). But Islam and Muslims must also account.
Re: "Islam is a world religion, just like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism." This is a gross simplification and simply untrue. Even Islamic authorities wouldn't back up this statement. We need to start taking people at their word. Muslims don't think this so neither should you.
Re: Hindus/Christians/whatever -- Yes, if Hindus were migrating to western countries in huge numbers, rejecting the laws and traditions of their new home, and actively trying to harm Muslims (or any other group) that would be troublesome, to say the least. But that isn't happening. What you've used as examples are local disputes (in India and Myanmar). I see no evidence of this spilling out into the streets of London or New York or Barcelona. There is no culture of trans-state ideological warfare among these groups. That isn't to say that the crimes being committed by Hindus and Buddhists in those countries are ok - far from it. But that's a completely different issue.
The purpose of both my original post and this response isn't to undermine Islam or Muslims, but to have a discussion about a substantive issue that faces the Western world. Pretending like it doesn't exist because of misguided sociopolitical pressure won't get us anywhere.
I love reading the content here, partially because I disagree with much of it and my views are often challenged by the points made both in the articles and the comments made by readers. But something often leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth and this exchange is a great example.
People are very polite on this forum - another reason I like reading content here. It's not like going on Twitter and feeling like every cogent idea is buried under a pile of nonsense. Mostly everyone treats each other here with respect. But after reading Ben's comments, I wonder what the use of that respect is? There are hateful viewpoints in these comments. I'm not trying to shame anyone - I am as concerned about cancel culture and speech policing as anyone - and I'm not suggesting these comments get censored or removed. But I want to make sure as I continue to read material here, that other people are seeing what I'm seeing. This article, which is clearly and persuasively arguing for a strong stance against genocide, has generated a conversation in which Islamophobia and fear-mongering have a pleasant little home behind the facade of "politeness." On Twitter, this stuff is easy to spot. It's unintelligent. Cartoonish. The bottom of the barrel. But this conversation, because of its erudition, and its appeal to civility, is easy to dismiss. It's even easy to walk away feeling like "why can't everyone talk to each other with such respect?"
Hate has always had a home behind politeness. I agree that "all ideas are not equal." "Nice" and "Good" are not equal either. Engaging politely with Islamophobia might be more pleasant for us, but I'm not sure it's good for the world.
This misconception helps Islam immensely. Islam is unique in it's adherence above all other laws unlike in the other religions mentioned and this is extremely troubling if you aren't Muslim. I would encourage you to read what Muslims actually believe.
Here's a good start. Follow @ExmuslimsOrg. It's simply a organization trying to create a safe space for exmuslims. Why do exmuslims need a safe space? Because apostasy is often a death sentence. When we look other religions, where else is that true? Where else do we have honor killings? Where else are FGMs common? What other religions do not allow women to drive?
It's not that judaism or christianity or whatever are saints. It's that Islam has some unique characteristics to it that are extremely troubling to liberal society.
Many critics of Islam or Muslims argue about these things as if they are building a prosecutor's case against a religion or group rather than trying to understand things. It is the same way Republicans and Democrats talk about each other. Honour killings and terrible mistreatment of women and minorities are common in India (I grew up there), almost as common as in the worst Islamic countries. Honour killings were also prevalent in many other parts of the world only some decades back. One can say we need faster reform and change in Islam without trying to project Islam or Muslims as "exceptional" - the rhetoric of Islam posing some kind of existential threat to the West is overblown. But if we many of us think in that way, it may really turn out to be that way!
I agree the ideas about apostasy in Islam are troubling and Liberals often try to stay away from these issues because they feel awkward. Many commentators like Reza Aslan are not really honest in discussing the challenges within the Islamic world, I would rather read Shadi Hamid who has interesting perspectives. I recommend this discussion
I will look at @ExMuslimsorg if you read some of the work of Reza Aslan, who has done a lot of work trying to dispel exactly this type of belief. There are Jewish communities that are incredibly oppressive by any western liberal standard. There are unbelievably violent Buddhists in Myanmar. There are many Christian communities right here in the U.S. where women are subjugated hideously. There are also a million socio-economic reasons many predominantly Muslim countries are, from the prospective of the west, "behind" in terms of civil rights and freedoms we think of as fundamental. Reducing the problem of violence in some Muslim countries to Islam is simplistic, and akin to pointing to "black-on-black-crime" as a way of justifying being afraid of black people. It's just not accurate.
The very concept of rights is blurring internationally, and Biden could help stabilize what the concept even means by how he approaches this genocide, and it is a genocide. Classical liberal rights are negative protections. The government will protect my Natural rights given from nature or deity. But now we talk of rights more and more in terms of entitlements. I have a right to receive the things I need from the government. China could easily contort its brutality to pretend to be sacrificing the Uyghurs in order to give more entitlements to the general population. That is the problem with conflating rights and entitlements. Rights die subsumed by utilitarian pragmatism. Life and liberty are natural rights negative rights not positive entitlements won at the expense of others, and world governments must protect those sacred negative rights of all people.
Thanks for the article.
I think we can all agree the situation is bad. But a harder, more complicated question is: What should China do about Islam? Islam, by any honest account, is an all encompassing worldview and not just a religion. It chafes under all forms of non-Islamic control and often leads to serious social problems. This is clear - it can be seen today in every non-Islamic jurisdiction that has developed a substantial Muslim population. While China is an authoritarian regime, even a democracy scarcely has room for movements like that. So, what to do?
Ben -
I am glad you liked the article. However, I disagree with your point about Islam, and I would suggest that the perspective you present is one of the causes of what is happening to the Uyghurs - the global spread of Islamophobia since 9/11. I think you will find many "honest accounts" that would say that Islam is not an all encompassing worldview. Islam is a world religion, just like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. In each of these religions, there are extremists who make their religion into an exclusionist worldview while there are others who do not. However, I think that one of the outcomes of the World on Terror is that many non-Muslims have decided that Islam itself is a threat rather than a small group of extremist militants, who themselves are often not acting because of religious goals as much as in response to other grievances not related to religion. Would you say, because there were extremist Christians holding crosses who participated in the storming of the US Capitol two weeks ago, that all Christians are dangerous? Would you say, because extremist Hindus have killed Muslim citizens in India or that Buddhists are committing genocide against Muslims in Myanmar, that all Hindus or Buddhists are dangerous? If not, then you should not judge all Muslims by what extreme groups like ISIS have done. Most Muslims who live in democracies are very happy to be a part of a multi-cultural society where they, along with those of other faiths, are able to practice the religion in which they believe. The same can be said of these other faiths as well.
Thanks, Sean, appreciate the response.
First, I think it's important to note that we should always treat individuals with dignity and respect irrespective of any sort of ideological or religious label. Individuals should be judged by their words and actions.
But unfortunately many of your claims above are demonstrably untrue, make fallacious comparisons, and exhibit a certain cognitive dissonance. Islam (as all religions, ideologies, and ideas) must be open to criticism and concerns must open to evaluation. Criticizing Islam is not Islamophobia. Thinking critically about immigration, population diversity, etc are important and necessary in any functioning society. Failing to do so can only lead to bad places.
Note: I'm not going to spend time digging up all the citations, but I'm confident you can find the data to support the assertions below relatively easily
Re: 9/11 <-> Islamophobia -- the data don't support that assertion. Millions of Muslims have immigrated to Western democracies in Europe and N. America over the last 30 years. Indeed far MORE Muslims have immigrated post-9/11. Many (likely, almost all) have been provided substantial support from the state often to the detriment of existing populations (in the form of a degradation of public works like housing, education, jobs, and healthcare services). In addition, a big chunk of the migrant flow has been young single men of unknown origin, little education, and few if any skills. So, Islamophobia? Not unless you're talking about the self-flagellation of Western populations and the bigotry of low expectations.
Re: ISIS/Al-Qaeda/whatever -- this type of extremism is of course concerning, but far from the main issue. While the number of violent extremists that want to physically harm Western society is quite small, their broader ideological beliefs are not rare.. indeed, they're often echoed in the larger community. Surveys indicate that a substantial percentage of Muslims in Europe believe things like: homosexuality should be illegal (some non-trivial portion also believe they should be killed), free speech is not essential, Jews are evil, rape is ok, Jihad is honorable (only 1 in 3 british muslims would report someone involved in jihadist activities according to a 2016 survey of 100K Muslims) and on... and on. These beliefs are reflected in daily society. Many states have substantial issues with their Muslim populations including: insular neighborhoods, crime, rejection of police & court authority, rejection of western societal norms, etc.. even among populations born in a western country. This should be deeply concerning. It is at least partially due to poorly administered social integration programs (if any at all). But Islam and Muslims must also account.
Re: "Islam is a world religion, just like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism." This is a gross simplification and simply untrue. Even Islamic authorities wouldn't back up this statement. We need to start taking people at their word. Muslims don't think this so neither should you.
Re: Hindus/Christians/whatever -- Yes, if Hindus were migrating to western countries in huge numbers, rejecting the laws and traditions of their new home, and actively trying to harm Muslims (or any other group) that would be troublesome, to say the least. But that isn't happening. What you've used as examples are local disputes (in India and Myanmar). I see no evidence of this spilling out into the streets of London or New York or Barcelona. There is no culture of trans-state ideological warfare among these groups. That isn't to say that the crimes being committed by Hindus and Buddhists in those countries are ok - far from it. But that's a completely different issue.
The purpose of both my original post and this response isn't to undermine Islam or Muslims, but to have a discussion about a substantive issue that faces the Western world. Pretending like it doesn't exist because of misguided sociopolitical pressure won't get us anywhere.
All ideas are not equal.
I love reading the content here, partially because I disagree with much of it and my views are often challenged by the points made both in the articles and the comments made by readers. But something often leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth and this exchange is a great example.
People are very polite on this forum - another reason I like reading content here. It's not like going on Twitter and feeling like every cogent idea is buried under a pile of nonsense. Mostly everyone treats each other here with respect. But after reading Ben's comments, I wonder what the use of that respect is? There are hateful viewpoints in these comments. I'm not trying to shame anyone - I am as concerned about cancel culture and speech policing as anyone - and I'm not suggesting these comments get censored or removed. But I want to make sure as I continue to read material here, that other people are seeing what I'm seeing. This article, which is clearly and persuasively arguing for a strong stance against genocide, has generated a conversation in which Islamophobia and fear-mongering have a pleasant little home behind the facade of "politeness." On Twitter, this stuff is easy to spot. It's unintelligent. Cartoonish. The bottom of the barrel. But this conversation, because of its erudition, and its appeal to civility, is easy to dismiss. It's even easy to walk away feeling like "why can't everyone talk to each other with such respect?"
Hate has always had a home behind politeness. I agree that "all ideas are not equal." "Nice" and "Good" are not equal either. Engaging politely with Islamophobia might be more pleasant for us, but I'm not sure it's good for the world.
This misconception helps Islam immensely. Islam is unique in it's adherence above all other laws unlike in the other religions mentioned and this is extremely troubling if you aren't Muslim. I would encourage you to read what Muslims actually believe.
Here's a good start. Follow @ExmuslimsOrg. It's simply a organization trying to create a safe space for exmuslims. Why do exmuslims need a safe space? Because apostasy is often a death sentence. When we look other religions, where else is that true? Where else do we have honor killings? Where else are FGMs common? What other religions do not allow women to drive?
It's not that judaism or christianity or whatever are saints. It's that Islam has some unique characteristics to it that are extremely troubling to liberal society.
Many critics of Islam or Muslims argue about these things as if they are building a prosecutor's case against a religion or group rather than trying to understand things. It is the same way Republicans and Democrats talk about each other. Honour killings and terrible mistreatment of women and minorities are common in India (I grew up there), almost as common as in the worst Islamic countries. Honour killings were also prevalent in many other parts of the world only some decades back. One can say we need faster reform and change in Islam without trying to project Islam or Muslims as "exceptional" - the rhetoric of Islam posing some kind of existential threat to the West is overblown. But if we many of us think in that way, it may really turn out to be that way!
I agree the ideas about apostasy in Islam are troubling and Liberals often try to stay away from these issues because they feel awkward. Many commentators like Reza Aslan are not really honest in discussing the challenges within the Islamic world, I would rather read Shadi Hamid who has interesting perspectives. I recommend this discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsTFv0-MZOc
I will look at @ExMuslimsorg if you read some of the work of Reza Aslan, who has done a lot of work trying to dispel exactly this type of belief. There are Jewish communities that are incredibly oppressive by any western liberal standard. There are unbelievably violent Buddhists in Myanmar. There are many Christian communities right here in the U.S. where women are subjugated hideously. There are also a million socio-economic reasons many predominantly Muslim countries are, from the prospective of the west, "behind" in terms of civil rights and freedoms we think of as fundamental. Reducing the problem of violence in some Muslim countries to Islam is simplistic, and akin to pointing to "black-on-black-crime" as a way of justifying being afraid of black people. It's just not accurate.
Which Christian communities in America subjugate women hideously? I am just curious. I wasn't aware of this.
Thank you for spotlighting this
The very concept of rights is blurring internationally, and Biden could help stabilize what the concept even means by how he approaches this genocide, and it is a genocide. Classical liberal rights are negative protections. The government will protect my Natural rights given from nature or deity. But now we talk of rights more and more in terms of entitlements. I have a right to receive the things I need from the government. China could easily contort its brutality to pretend to be sacrificing the Uyghurs in order to give more entitlements to the general population. That is the problem with conflating rights and entitlements. Rights die subsumed by utilitarian pragmatism. Life and liberty are natural rights negative rights not positive entitlements won at the expense of others, and world governments must protect those sacred negative rights of all people.