Saturday, July 26, 2008
Killing in the name of Islam in Londonistan
I suffer from at least a little Anglophilia, but there is no denying that the British suck at assimilation:
ALMOST a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll.
The study also found that two in five Muslims at university support the incorporation of Islamic sharia codes into British law.
The YouGov poll for the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) will raise concerns about the extent of campus radicalism. “Significant numbers appear to hold beliefs which contravene democratic values,” said Han-nah Stuart, one of the report’s authors. “These results are deeply embarrassing for those who have said there is no extremism in British universities.”...
The report was criticised by the country’s largest Muslim student body, Fosis, but Anthony Glees, professor of security and intelligence studies at Buckingham University, said: “The finding that a large number of students think it is okay to kill in the name of religion is alarming.
“There is a wide cultural divide between Muslim and nonMuslim students. The solution is to stop talking about celebrating diversity and focus on integration and assimilation.”
Indeed, but that will require a sea-change in thinking on the left, particularly the British academic left.
That said, if the question simply asked "can killing in the name of Islam be justified?", even I would be forced to answer that there were circumstances when it might be. Substitute "Christianity" for Islam in that question and I would answer yes, killing in the name of Christianity can be justified. How could any actually religious person believe otherwise? Surely there is some circumstance that would justify killing in the name of religion? The more illuminating question is, what are the specific circumstances that "can" justify killing? It is almost certainly the case that a vocal minority of Muslims believes that there are more than a few such circumstances (the occupation of Spain, for instance, by non-Muslims 600 years after the reconquest by Christiandom), while virtually all modern-day Christians would say that their religion would require some substantial collateral justification that would be equally accepted by non-believers. So, for instance, if I were a Christian Nigerian villager and I and my family were at risk of being slaughtered by the neighboring Muslim villagers, I might be justified in striking first. If I did that I might say that I killed in the name of Christianity since it was my Christianity that put me in peril in the first place. So it can happen.
Something tells me, though, that the Muslim respondents to the survey were not, generally, imagining similarly remote circumstances.
10 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Jul 27, 12:39:00 AM:
The stories keep coming from the UK, and they generally aren't encouraging. Though one recently in the news that was encouraging was the official approval of self-defense. The ruling class of the UK seems to have lost it more than the common person.
By 
davod, at
Sun Jul 27, 04:09:00 AM:
Melanie Phillips does a reasonable job of explaining the problems in her book Londinistan. One of her arguments is that there was a major effort to stop teaching about British heritage, except for the bad parts of British heritage. This coupled with the dogma of multiculturalism left the immigrant (or, more importantly, the offspring of immigrants) nowhere to go. Why would you assimilate if the only heritage taught shows how bad the country is.
Apart from the most recent batch of immigrants, it is the offspring of the immigrants who are being radicalized. What changed from when their parents moved to the UK?
By Brett_McS, at
Sun Jul 27, 04:09:00 AM:
I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by "in the name of". It means defending the religion by killing.
A religious person defending his family by killing is not doing so "in the name of" his religion. He is defending himself and his family.
There are absolutely no circumstances in which it is justified to kill to defend a religion.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Jul 27, 07:51:00 AM:
Well, Brett McS, whether or not I am misunderstanding the phrase "in the name of," you are making my point -- the survey's question, at least as recounted in the linked story (I did not hunt around for the actual survey, since it was late when I wrote the post and I was several drinks in the bag, if that was not obvious) was very much open to interpretation. I am a lawyer, if you ask me whether "X can ever" justify a killing, am I usually going to be able to think up a hypothetical situation in which it could and therefore answer "yes." Point is, it seems from the news account that the survey was too open to interpretation.
By Brett_McS, at
Sun Jul 27, 07:44:00 PM:
No doubt the survey is imprecise. It can be said though, that when the Muslims talk about "killing in the name" of their religion they are talking exactly about killing in order to defend Islam (and some would actually agree that killing to extend Islam is OK - but probably wouldn't admit it).
To you example, I don't see how defending ones family could usefully be characterized as "killing in the name of religion". It makes no sense.
By , at
Sun Jul 27, 08:56:00 PM:
What is more interesting is when that same survey is done of American Muslims. By most accounts they are some of the happiest Americans (see Pew research.) The reason for their happiness is threefold:
1) Freedom of religion without any real challenges to how they want to worship.
2) They still firmly believe in the American dream and that anything is possible (especially when you think of how limited their possibilities were in the countries they emmigrated from.)
3) The fact that America is a religious country on the whole (which is a surprise to most new immigrants) and the deep respect we have towards those freedoms. This would seem to be the same as #1, but its nuance answer goes from what the law is (#1)and how people feel, act and believe (#3)
By , at
Sun Jul 27, 10:06:00 PM:
According to the Koran, jihad means war against non-believers, i.e., killing to advance Islam, wherever in can be successfully waged. It should be no surprise that thirty percent of Muslims would agree to continue that tradition. The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History (Hardcover)
by Ibn Warraq (Foreword), Andrew G. Bostom (Editor)
By , at
Sun Jul 27, 10:08:00 PM:
Pretty straight forward ;
"The justification for waging war in defence of what is right is that, he who is in the right,
if he goes to war with the purist of intentions, will be assisted by the Lord to prevail
against those who having defied God’s law have virtually created chaos in the land -- for
God doth not love the mischief makers. "
Hence, in keeping with the traditional doctrinal understanding, Brohi equates
failure to follow Islamic law with disbelief and “chaos in the land,” or, as stated in some
translations of the Qur’an, “tumult and oppression” as stated in Verse 8:39“And fight on
until there remains no more tumult or oppression and they remain submissive only to
Allah” and Verse 2:191 “And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from
where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter….”
“TO OUR GREAT DETRIMENT”:
IGNORING WHAT EXTREMISTS SAY ABOUT JIHAD
by
Stephen Collins Coughlin
Major, Military Intelligence, USAR
NDIC Class 2007
The Quranic Concept of War
Malik, S. K., Brigadier, Pakistani Army. The Quranic Concept of War. First Indian Reprint.
New Delhi, India: Himalayan Books, 1986.
Look to the essence of a thing, whether it be a point of doctrine, of practice, or of interpretation.
VIII, 22
Marcus Aurelius
By nunya, at
Thu Jul 31, 06:30:00 PM:
Whoa there sparky, you've got some major right-wing dickhead linkage going on.
You work for a defense contractor or something?
By , at
Sat Aug 02, 08:03:00 AM:
Does this mean the two certain things in life should be expanded to three: "Death, Taxes and Jihad?"
