Would you kill a child?

What's your opinion on all this? I can understand people feeling that the populations of many predominantly Muslim countries would be less culturally sophisticated - they seem to be disproportionately poorer and more isolated than the average predominantly Christian country - but frankly you could probably make the same comment about a decent-sized chunk of hinterland US.

I have a suspicion that there's a self-reinforcing cycle going on with the pseudo-ethnicity thing. People aren't easily able to leave Islam due to all those pesky death threats => Islam becomes associated with the ethnic group of its adherents => criticism of it is considered unacceptable => there's no pressure to reform its more barbaric practices => people aren't easily able to leave Islam.

I have a suspicion that there's a self-reinforcing cycle going on with the pseudo-ethnicity thing

well, we need to separate the west from the rest here. other cultures are other cultures and there is only so much we can do directly, but, on the ground of the west i think we should attempt to destroy the character of religion as a way of life and simply relegate to a particular space in one's life. otherwise, religious pluralism comes close to being impossible as you attempt to bend over background for conflicting religious interpretations of every sect under heaven. i can see why some on the left are taking a pragmatic tack in aceding to the equivalence of islamophobia with racism, but, i think it is short-sighted.

You said:
"the crimes of those without full free will is not a true crime at all."

I feel somewhat similarly, but reading it like that makes it seem so very... snobby. Sure, they may be where Christianity was several hundred years ago, but comparing them to children, while accurate to the analogy, does seem a bit elitist.

In any event, I fully agree with your other sentiments and, to an extent, the sentiment I had a problem with.

Sure, they may be where Christianity was several hundred years ago, but comparing them to children, while accurate to the analogy, does seem a bit elitist.

well, in europe (though not the united states), p(underclass|muslim) is >> p(underclass|non-muslim). that is, even if most muslims are not part of the under/dependent class, an enormous number of them are. so to some extent on that side of the atlantic it is an question of elites (the non-muslim intelligensia) and their interaction with an underclass. from a pragmatic position i think it is defensible to treat them as if they are gifted with the same mental faculties as other citizens. they are part of a segregated and alienated subculture where voltairean conditioning is anathema (or unknown). but, i think a more long-sighted position would be to subject them to "cultural shock therapy," at least from a position where you hold certain rights to be inalienable and implicitly privilege the volition of the individual over the group. an important pragmatic position would also be to minimize the further immigration of patently unassimilable elements so as to maximize the interaction of those who already reside within the territory of the west with the surrounding culture, but this particular element of pragmatism seems to be not favored (and in fact, many of the same left intellectuals who argue for a pragmatic tack in interaction with muslim minorities want turkey to enter the EU, which would entail the large traditionalist muslim minority, literally tens of millions of people, becoming part of europe).

The problem with criticism of Islam is that it usually is just a mask for the same old colonialistic ignorance.

It's the same Manifest Destiny logic assumed it's OK for Anglo colonists to move into former Amerind territories, break treaties, and hunt and kill people, and when any red man speaks back, he is a crazy or malicious savage.

It's the white man's collective frustration with his failure to communicate and understand other people - and especially his frustration that other people don't lay down and do whatever he (collectively) wants. (Am I saying other people are better able to communicate? No - only that the white man is *frustrated* with this failure - because the white man has global ambitions). And it's also the famous double standard: it's ok for civilized white men to burn, pillage, and conquer, but "crazy" for anyone else to attempt 1/10 of this.

Radical Islamism is a political reaction. It's not about veils or dogma or anything like that: it's about group solidarity and personal faith for people in crappy material circumstances. Islam is popular in the Middle East for the same reason that religion is popular in prisons: angry people with a lot of time on their hands often express their frustration in terms of "God."

Ex: The veil might seem odd to Westerners who are accustomed to a strong rule of law. But this custom is maybe not so strange in places where there are gangs of horny, aimless young men and not a strong police force to prevent things like rape. Etc.

Ex: The veil might seem odd to Westerners who are accustomed to a strong rule of law. But this custom is maybe not so strange in places where there are gangs of horny, aimless young men and not a strong police force to prevent things like rape.

... like Saudi Arabia?

But there is another issue lurking in the background, that is a Spenglerian assumption about the growth and development of civilizations. In short, Islam is perceived to be at an "earlier" stage and so must be shielded from the wanton criticism which Christianity is "naturally" subjected to by secularized elites, and has been for the past 200 years.

The reason Christianity has matured is that has been subjected to internal and external criticism. Shielding Islamists from criticism (I won't criticize Islam per se -- I don't give a damn what other people believe in -- but I can criticize its political consequences) will only conserve the current state of things.

The West surely bears some part of the blame for the current state of things in the Middle East, but to remain silent now would be to increase the burden of guilt, not diminish it.

re: roman's point, i think it is important. note i am constraining my focus to the geographical boundaries of the west because islam-over-the-sea is not as directly salient to us. rather, the chilling effect that muslim minorities can have on societies as a whole is what concerns me, and some religious conservatives have rallied tacitly to some of their concerns. even though many european states have established or quasi-established (eg., germany's church-tax) religions, what allowing islam to bring its rather conventional sensibilities in regards to the sanctity of religion will do is simply rewind the clock.

but of course criticism must be modulated and mixed for effect. public broadcosts of men defecating on korans for example would probably be counterproductive. on the other hand total benign neglect is likely to blow up in our faces in the long term, but, more crucially it will have negative consequences for the lives of individual muslims who operationally feel their choices restricted by customary law & traditions as opposed to explicitly defined laws in the western civil tradition. we need to draw a line somewhere, and everyone does.

It's the white man's collective frustration with his failure to communicate and understand other people - and especially his frustration that other people don't lay down and do whatever he (collectively) wants.

I'm fairly sure that Abdul Rahman would disagree with the idea that destructive frustration over people not doing what you want them to is in any way unique to Westerners. From what I've seen, this is a problem all over - it's just that "the white man" got the hang of certain advanced technologies first so managed to have the most impact on the world.

This view is a) historically accurate (as far as I can tell) and b) a hell of a lot less racist than your ascribing of negative attributes to one particular ethnic group based on no apparent factual evidence.

i disagree that Islam is immune from criticism. It is under constant attack from the rightside blogs, cherry-picking the texts for extreme examples, reviling the moderates for not "standing up" to the extremists, constantly pointing out the inaate "superiorities of Xianity....
Perhaps it is immune from crits on the leftside only.
isn't there some middle ground somewhere?

"An analogy might be made with the death penalty for children: the crimes of those without full free will is not a true crime at all."

free will doesn't exist at all for anyone. what i think you talking about is how rational children are versus how rational adults are.

i never saw the logic in perventing the death penalty for children because they are less rational. adults are not perfectly rational. what amount of "rationality" is needed before the death penalty is acceptable.

note: i object to the death penalty for moral reasons, but not for the "children arn't as rational" argument

Speaking for myself, I resist hard-core anti-Muslim rants because they most often come from classically chauvinist right-wing bigots, and what seems to be at stake for them is an ill-defined, unending war against a billion people.

Whereas when I myself go on an anti-Christian tear, what's at stake is the influence of right-wing Christians in politics, in education, and in local communities. While there historically have been violently irreligious regimes (the Communist regimes and Revolutionary Franch for a time), contemporary anti-Christian American liberals do not propose sending Christians to concentration camps or any other form of violence.

In a Muslim country I would be anti-Muslim, if I dared.

Many anti-Muslim spokespersons also seem hysterically afraid of a threat which seems quite manageable. For a variety of reasons, the magnitude of the Muslim threat is not close to that of the Soviet or the Nazi threat. I have always felt that George Bush (who can only stay in power with the help of the Christian right) is a greater threat to me than Osama ever was. Bush has already massively transformed the country I live in, and the full scope of the changes he has brought will not be known for a decade or more. He's backloaded the worst effects, and I expect them to be very bad indeed.

Saying so is supposedly dirty pool, but in the US conservative Christians and conservative Muslims have been in substantial agreement on what people call the social issues, and Bush did very well among Muslim voters in 2000. There always has been strong feminist opposition to Islam, but before 9/11 they were ignored or even laughed at.

Speaking for myself, I resist hard-core anti-Muslim rants because they most often come from classically chauvinist right-wing bigots, and what seems to be at stake for them is an ill-defined, unending war against a billion people.

yes, but ed brayton, ayaan hirsi ali and ed brayton are not michael savage. i understand that the motives of some anti-muslim rhetoricians is not pure, and, i understand that in a limited set of time one has one must focus on the enemy that is near...but, that still does not address why a catchall 'islamophobe' brush is applied by those who ostensibly are suspicious of organized religion and social conservatism. as an exemplar i am thinking of some dutch leftists dismissal of ayaan hirsi ali as acting out because of her personal issues, as if what she went through was so much flotsam in a sea of greater concerns.

the point is that society is not homogenous in that it acts with one voice in a uniform fashion. we specialize, just as the ACLU handles civil rights, the AFLCI handles labor rights, etc. there might be individuals in the former who identify with the issues of the latter and vice versa, because one focuses on x and no y does not imply one wishes to reject y. similarly, an attack on the islamic religion and the segregated ethnic culture which the religion is taking root in does not imply a promotion of right-wing cultural chauvinism.

as i said, some european leftists (and i say european because the USofA has a minimal 'muslim problem' thanks to selective immigration policies which have resulted in a broad ethnic and socioeconomic mix), like chris bertram, seem open to admitting that they are making a pragmatic alliance. in which case it makes sense to me that ayaan ali hirsi, etc.., would align will illiberal elements, since she too must be pragmatic in the face of those willing to make unholy alliances.

the issue here is that most people are stupid. i suspect that high level political operatives and thinkers implicitly assume all this. but stupid people have clunky prejudice detection mechanisms.

Razib, you are an American Hirsi equivalent, and I generally agree with what you say about Islam, and certainly don't automatically reject it. What I hear out in the general American community is very different stuff.

What I hear out in the general American community is very different stuff.

granted, but the point is that those who oppose unreflective animus often conflate reflective animus with that. the issue is this:

threat = (weight of threat) X (threat potential)

i think most people would agree (who aren't ignorant) that muslim are, on average, at least, or more, "conservative," on average, than even the average conservative american christian. that being said, their threat can be argued to be trivial next to conservative christians because the weight is so much greater because of numbers and societal influence.

the "you are islamophobes" arguments tends to neglect issues of weight and simply assert that "moderate muslims" are true muslims, as if congregationalists are true christians.