by Grania
To give you some background on today’s cartoon, in the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron has spoken about putting a plan into action to get rid of extremist Islamists. Click through on this link if you would like to read or listen to what he said.
Here’s a sample:
It begins – it must begin – by understanding the threat we face and why we face it. What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine.
And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim – mostly violence against fellow Muslims – who don’t subscribe to its sick worldview.
But you don’t have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish.
Ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality.
Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation.
Ideas – like those of the despicable far right – which privilege one identity to the detriment of the rights and freedoms of others.
See original here.
Support the artist’s Patreon.
BBC Newsnight spoke to Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Cameron’s speech. You can watch it here:
The other person in the video is Miqdaad Versi, assistant secretary general for the Muslim Council of Britain.
If a belief system or ethical framework is good, why is following it closely considered to be bad?
If I was an extremist concerning my ethics, I would be a much much better person than the moderately awesome person I currently am. I would never do anything that was not for the betterment of humanity. I would never raise my voice in anger. I would never lie to serve my own ends. I would work harder (towards worthier goals), study harder, eat better and help more people. I would be a paragon of virtue, because my belief system is virtuous.
It is only corrupt, contradictory or dangerous beliefs that need to be held moderately.
Yes. This is what bugs me about Islam, for instance. “Muslims are by-and-large good people.” Right. Only the ones who follow the Koran religiously are bad people. Same with Christians. Same with Mormons. Same with all of it.
Agree. I very much prefer those who have, at least slightly, strayed from the golden path.
A person’s goodness is inversely proportional to the adherence to the scriptural doctrines of the Abrahamic religions.
b&
Extremists are certain that their belief system is virtuous and that they know better than anyone else what’s good for humanity. That’s what makes them dangerous.
Moderates retain some humility and consider the possibility that they could be wrong.
So certain because they believe their belief system originates from the Ultimate Authority. Not much room for humility there.
Not only has It done all the hard work of figuring it all out so that they don’t have to expend the effort to figure it out themselves, It will spank them if they have the temerity to try.
And isn’t that all just so awfully convenient for the priests whose job it is to speak on behalf of the Ultimate Authority?
b&
Almost seems like an Intelligently Designed operation, doesn’t it?
Extremism doesn’t require belief in God. Belief in your own infallibility will do just as well.
Derek said “It is only corrupt, contradictory or dangerous beliefs that need to be held moderately.” I disagree. “My belief system is virtuous” is itself a dangerous belief when taken to an extreme that admits no possibility of error.
I’d agree there. I think it’s a personality thing as much as a religious thing. Why do some Muslims (Xtians, Hindus, whatever) turn into fanatical sociopaths and others – don’t?
cr
Pretty much what I was going to add. It really doesn’t seem like any ideology, religious or otherwise, is necessary for extremist behavior, nor is it the cause. The base cause is certain personality traits which are the result of some mix of nature + nurture.
I’ve known several addicts fairly well for extended periods of time and it has seemed to me that their is a parallel. Perhaps an actual correlation, but perhaps merely an analogy. The addicts I have known had in common that their addictive behavior was not limited to use of whatever substance that got them in trouble. It was evident in virtually everthing they did. Everything was “all in,” little or no restraint, no moderation. Either off or full throttle on. From eating, to exercise, to work ethic, to personal relationships, to political views.
This was very similar to several of the more dedicated religious believers from Lebanon I lived among my first couple years at university, both Christian and Muslim.
A belief system that admits no possibility of error is dangerous, so I think my claim holds, but your point is an important one.
Because my belief system is consequentialist in nature, it can be shown to be in error when it results in negative consequences. In principle, at least. In practice, consequences can be so tangled, unpredictable and difficult to quantify that I can never be completely sure I’m doing the right thing.
Ethics is hard, if you do it right. The problem is not so much extremism, as the belief that you can just follow a set of rules and ignore complexities and consequences.
Even that is not necessarily a catastrophic problem if all the rules you follow are generally good. Occasionally you’ll run into a complex situation where the rule doesn’t hold and you’ll do the wrong thing but a well-crafted set of rules could serve you well the vast majority of the time.
The catastrophe comes when the good rules are mixed with bad ones, and those following lack any ability to tell the difference.
The overarching rule of the fundamentalist or “extremist” is: Obey the rules, no matter what.
The rule of the “moderate” religious type is more like: Obey the rules, when the rules are good. When they’re not good, ignore them and do the right thing instead.
And my version is: Do the right thing, regardless of the rules.
Trying to pretend that Islam isn’t the problem with respect to ISIS and Saudi Arabia and the rest is like trying to pretend that Christianity wasn’t the problem with respect to the Inquisition and the Crusades and the rest. At best, you’re playing the “No True Scotsman” card at a bagpipes, haggis, and whisky festival.
b&
At best, you’re playing the “No True Scotsman” card at a bagpipes, haggis, and whisky festival.
brilliant +1
But what do you see when you lift the kilt of a Muslim Scotsman?
Ale with a bump?
b&
That raises a modestly interesting cultural question: would a kilt be halal? (I beleive there are dress rules in Islam, even for men, though less draconian the various interpretations of those for women.)
Scotch whiskey, that is.
Whisky is Scotch (and Canadian & Japanese); whiskey is Irish or American.
IMO, the stuff they make in Canada isn’t whisky. Or whiskey.
If an ideology is peaceful then its extreme adherents will be…extremely peaceful.
Regrettably – no. They will probably feel bound to enforce their peaceful ideology on the rest of the world by whatever means is available.
Certainly the Amish are an example of extremely peaceful culture. They would not fight in the revolutionary war to defend their own way of life. On the other hand, I think most cultures, no matter how peaceful, would be willing to fight to defend their way of life.
The Amish may be an exception. (Could you call them ‘extremists’? Depends partly on your definition of what ‘extremist’ means, I think. IT carries connotations of authoritarian and antisocial behaviour).
But there are, I believe, Buddhist terrorists (for example). Would you call them ‘extremists’? Or ‘not true Buddhists’?
cr
You are right. Extremism shows us clearly the flaws of an ideology. If extremism always leads to bad things it only shows us that all ideologies are flawed.
Unsurprisingly, our host put it very well: it’s a question of faith v fact.
If you persist in your ideology even after it has been demonstrated to not actually work in the desired or intended manner, that’s your problem. And it needn’t be an all-or-nothing affair, either…just because Einstein “invalidated” Newton doesn’t mean you can’t use F = M * A at human scales any more; indeed, you’d be a fool to use Relativity when trying to engineer, say, a bicycle — though it’d certainly be possible. Your ideology may similarly be a really good idea in certain limited domains whilst being disastrous to extrapolate into other domains.
b&
Of course you are right. But also, if a fundamental newtonian extremist tries to build a GPS system, the flaws of his theory will show.
There is an important difference with scientific theories; ideologies have usually more in common with fairy tales than with scientific theories. Objective facts are often lacking.
sub
More seriously–much of that speech of Camerons was written by Maajid Nawaz, an ex radical himself, and well aware of the patterns within the muslim community in the UK
Hmmm, we may be seeing a subtle difference between US and British thought on religious freedom of expression here. Cameron is suggesting people ‘believe moderately.’ I think in the US the position of people opposed to violent religious extremism is more “believe what you want, act moderately.”
An excellent observation. It seems to be the distinction without a difference that Sam Harris has been trying to erode whenever he points out that beliefs actually (*gasp*) lead to actions.
BTW, “anonymous” is me. My apologies, I actually did this twice in quick succession (once on another thread too). I’m on a different network than normal and there seem to be some cookie or data hiccups.
It’s pretty difficult to take Versi seriously on how Muslims are patronized by Cameron’s message, when he so clearly patronizes Ali by interrupting and trying to drown her out.
(also cracking up at the Guardian headline on the paper Jeebus is reading)
I missed that. Very very apt.
You noticed that, too? All the time she was trying to stress the importance of gender equality, he was busy mansplaining how misunderstood he was.
Who else wondered if Ali’s appearance by Skype rather than in person was because of security concerns?
b&
Just for grins, I Google-imaged “Muslim council of Britain” and “Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board”. The former describe themselves as “a national representative Muslim umbrella body”.
Most images were of men in front of microphones, men receiving awards, men in the streets confronting police, men being interviewed on TV…
…and what few women there are are all wearing full-length potato sacks….
b&
I am not sure mansplaining is an appropriate description.
It is a pretty serious ideological difference being argued.
The BBC should have turned down the guy’s mike while Ali was answering questions put to her.
As soon as the guy interrupted Ali, her transmission was lost. The interviewer could have stopped him and asked Ali to finish. Does the second B in BBC stand for Bush-league?
I don’t think the apologists realize just how powerfully self-defeating their argument that the extremists aren’t representative truly is. It’s clearly obvious that the extremists are passionately and sincerely convinced that they’re being as faithful as they humanly can be to their religion — that is, after all, captured in the term, “extremist.” So, either they’re correct and the religion really is what they say it is, or they’re not and it’s possible to devote your entire self to the religion and yet be in perfect error about anything and everything. Either way, the religion fails spectacularly in delivering on the promises the apologists make for it.
b&
As usual the religious folks are doomed by the simple fact that in religions it’s impossible to sort out what is true from what is not. Interpreting the canon texts literally is wrong to some because the holy books are supposed to be read metaphorically. But no, that’s wrong, because the text is the inspired word of God. So which way is correct? Who knows, because religion gives no consistent way of determining what is true and what is not.
A reasonable person looks at this situation and realizes, “Hey, wait a tick… Maybe the whole thing is nonsense.” But the religious folks instead double down and say things like “Well, God works in mysterious ways.”
I disagree. If ‘representative’ means ‘typical’, then almost by definition extremists are NOT representative of the (more wishy-washy) majority. Exactly how representative of Christianity is Westboro Baptist Church, for example?
cr
(I almost wrote ‘Landover Baptist’ there, btw).
Listen to Megan Phelps-Roper’s interview over on Sam Harris’ blog, infinite…: she’s the grand-daughter of the founder. Representative of Christianity?
Well, yes, by any lights,they sure know their scripture and apply it in an internally consistent way. It’s a good job that the OT and NT (I think,), unlike the Koran, doesn’t have a line about smiting the unbelievers, unlike the historically contingent Amalekites, etc. Who knows what they’d do.
Typical of Christianity? Of course not. x
Yes, that was very enlightening.
Erm…Luke 19:27…bring not peace but a sword…separating the goats…the ruckus outside the Temple…brood of vipers…Armageddon…”Pharisee” as the worst possible epithet….
The reason you don’t realize that the New Testament is every bit as violently repulsive as the others is because your parents (presumably) brought you up singing, “Jesus Loves Me,” and never brought to your attention all the truly fucked-up nasty shit that runs throughout.
Case in point: the Flood. Basically everybody thinks of it as a cute kid’s story that gives them an excuse to draw animals on a boat. Almost nobody thinks of just how profoundly evil it would be to drown every last kitten and butterfly and baby. Even when Christians do consider the horror of the story, they always justify it by painting all those kittens and butterflies and babies as being evil monsters deserving of torturous death.
Just look at your own post for confirmation. When you were thinking of examples of “KILL ZEM ALL,” the first thing that leapt to your mind is a relatively obscure passage where one minor tribe wiped out another minor tribe. You did not think of the ultimate “KILL ZEM ALL” moment, the Flood, nor of a close follow-up, the Plagues.
Nor, for that matter, Armageddon, which will make both of those look like child’s play, be led by Jesus himself, and for the express purpose of…what was your phrase?
Ah, yes. “Smiting the unbelievers.”
b&
Fair enough, Ben, re: the NT ‘slay them before me’ stuff, but they’re little known by Christians, and at least over here when you tell pallid, fluffy Anglicans of those passages, they have a full-on double-take and quick trip to the loo for a wretched and retching prayer to the porcelain gods. Whereas Northern European Christians view all the Genesis fables – flood etc – as precisely that. It ain’t an issue over here, as you know.
On Amalekites etc. my point is that the stories, like Mohammed’s Tour de Boucherie around Medina, is presented as history and is recognizably in a historical mode to us moderns, rationalists or liberal religious types or not. I disagree with Sam Harris’ minor point about Deuteronomy and Leviticus being probably more brutal than the Koran: in the race to the bottom from the Col du Barbarisme Team Mohammed beats Team Yahweh for sheer concentrated effort within a small frame. But hey, there’s just a tyre’s width between them. Probably explicable by the effects of doping.
Allele akhbar. x
It’s a tough call, and not a pleasant one to make. But I’d have to go with Team YHWH, I think. Both are about little more than the exploits of depraved warlords destroying entire peoples…but Muhammad had a single child sex slave; Moses and his merry men made sex slaves of all the Midianite girls. That sort of thing is kinda hard to top.
On the other hand, Aisha is a common point of discussion and praise amongst modern Muslims, whereas almost nobody is even aware of the existence of Numbers 31, let alone its content, especially what it’s actually describing. Even the apologists don’t connect “virgin” with “pre-pubescent” nor “marriage” with “sex slave.”
b&
Fair point.
“Extreme” in unbounded ranges would refer to those outside the bell curve. “Extreme” in bounded ranges would refer to those closest to the endpoint. In the case of Islam, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are, ideologically, near the endpoint, so must Muslims are extreme.
On paper, the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations are similarly extremist. In practice, the overwhelming majority of, for example, Catholics, laugh and sneer at the party line. But that, of course, presents an unstable and dangerous social dynamic in all sorts of ways….
b&
I couldn’t find the David Cameron speech at your link but I did find it here and here.
I have noticed this meme in the last 2 weeks, the MCB’s allegation that the MI5 says that Islamic values are a solution to the problem of young Muslims attracted by extremism. As Mr. Versi alleges above.
I can find no confirmation of this particularly sinister insinuation in a recent major speech by Andrew Parker, Director-General of MI5. Yes, Muslims are recruited into MI5, but my question is this.
Have crypto-Islamists upped their game in alleging that the British state believes that Islamic values are a solution to terrorism? Is there any evidence that the state’s security services seriously believe it? x
Considering he was blatantly lying about everything else he said, I just naturally assumed he was lying about that as well.
b&
Ben, I predict the spread of this false datum in Britain: and I also predict that CAIR across the pond will start using it in allegations about the US Security Service – note their identification of Islamic values with the state. It’s a definite ratcheting up of the crypto-theocratic project.
In countering this, which I’ll no doubt have to do over the next few months, I always prefer to show where the false allegation comes from in the first place. It’s always good to be armed with a prebuttal – and it isn’t half effective in putting one’s interlocutor back in their box. x
Seems you’re having to confront this head-on in a way few Stateside would even think is necessary. Most here would simply dismiss that sort of allegation as a blatant lie unworthy of serious consideration…but if that’s not the case in the British Isles, then, yes, you’ll likely need to rub some noses with hard facts.
b&
Most reasonable people believe the radical behavior of Islamic groups such as ISIS are a problem in their own regions and also in many Western countries. However, there are lots of not so reasonable people who still do not get it and all that really does is give these groups hope their extreme brand of Islam will have a chance.
The fellow from Kuwait who murdered 5 military just this past week is more proof of the danger. Not that much different from the local nut job in South Carolina who grew up racist. Religion is not the only ideology that easily convinces young males to do these things, but in the Islamic world is seems to work.
“We believe in respecting different faiths but also expecting those faiths to support the British way of life.”
I will be interesting to see how this line, mostly likely considered blasphemy by exactly those the PM is targeting, will play out in realizing his strategy. If “British Values” are Enlightenment values, will they ever be compatible with an acceptably moderate form of Islam? Will other religions (ultra-orthodox Judaism, evangelical X-ian) also be held responsible for adhering to the same “British Values” (what’s fair for one is fair for all).
I would count that as another quote which might highlight a difference between most Americans and Cameron-like Brits. With some exceptions on the right hand side of the political spectrum, people in the US don’t expect our foreign-born or 2nd generation citizens (or anyone else!) to necessarily “support our American way of life.” That sounds a bit like right-wing salute-the-flag-or-else jingoism to us. To most US moderates, liberals, and probably even near-middle conservatives, everything is “our way of life.” Diverse lifestyles is our way of life. We don’t want to squash that diversity, we want to celebrate it. We want all these diverse lifestyle people to obey the law and not hurt other citizens, but that’s about as much of a common lifestyle as we really aim for.
There seem to be some Muslims who self-identify as moderate, others who while anti-terrorist still abjure the label.
Relatively few Christians self-identify as ‘moderate’. Instead the labels, ‘liberal’, ‘progressive’ or ‘modernist’ are used.
The usual trope is to say we take the Bible “seriously, but not literally”. But it is unclear then why and how such Christians are beholden to the Bible.
Cameron’s speech is such a string of dull patriotic tropes – which are truthy at best – that I wonder if he actually believes Britain is a “beacon to the world” or if he’s just being cynical. Britain strikes me more as “USA-lite”, and given the USA is not exactly an exemplar among developed nations, that’s not a compliment. Not to mention the bizarre confusion of enlightenment values with Britishness, as if Britain were the exclusive originators or even particularly good upholders of those values. (Ha!)
At least he says a few sensible things in his speech, mostly in his plan’s first and second parts.
sub
Let’s face it, we’re not facing some IDEOLOGY here, it’s simply a bunch of criminals who would like to accrue as much money as they can while carrying out atrocities on their fellow beings so that they will pay whatever it takes in order to live peaceful lives. This usually means having an incomprehensible Holy Book, paying a substantial amount of income to the interpreters of that Holy Book, spending free time in worship of the contents of the Holy Book and limiting the education of the populace to the contents of The Holy Book. Nice little closed system. Anyone who might disagree, is killed. Extreme capitalism really.
Doing bad things on a large scale always requires an ideology.
I have to disagree, tjacampbell: Islam absolutely is an ideology. As well as being a religion, and let me be generous and euphemistic, it’s a guide to every aspect of one’s private life, a rulebook for statecraft and specifically imperialist in its self-declared application to the whole world. In that sense there are no Muslim ethics, the conversation is over, and all the individual has to do is to follow the Koran, the Hadith and the example of the prophet.
Some followers of ISIS genuinely do seek jihad and martyrdom: search ISIS on WEIT and you’ll find a video showing ISIS soldiers and their Shia enemies declaring on the battlefield that they believe in them. If a British Islamist was only motivated by ‘accruing as much money as they can while carrying out atrocities on their fellow beings so that they will pay whatever it takes in order to live peaceful lives’ then they’d organize protection rackets in the Balti restaurants and Indian supermarkets in their neighbourhood. That would be ‘extreme capitalism’ and indistinguishable from Al Capone. Instead, European fans of ISIS catch several connecting planes to smuggle themselves into the Caliphate.
Their Holy Book does matter and you’re totally right about its incomprehensibility. Standard western translations of the Final Word of God usually have longer notes sections describing what this convoluted gibberish means than the actual text itself. Allah the omnipotent, it seems, was a monoglot who couldn’t speak straight. And if you can’t speak straight, you can’t think straight. x