People, when they are locked into tribalistic political reactions, are prone to choosing one overarching tribal enemy. Unfortunately, there seems to be very little tendency to sensibly choose the most rubbish group as the ones to hate. The left chose white men as the big bad enemy. Very poor taste if you ask me. The right has chosen all sorts of groups as the very worst which must be stopped above all. Some rightists hate the Jews, though lately some leftists think they are the epitome of bad guys too. Again very bad taste if you ask me. Now many rightists are into choosing Indians as the ones who must be stopped above all. But if you have to choose an ethnic group to oppose, on what sane grounds would you spend more energy on Indians as opposed to Somalians or Muslim migrants into Europe? Lately rather few seem to be choosing blacks as the ones to defeat for the sake of civilization. Alas blacks are rabble, not sufficiently threatening.
It’s the problem with hating on an outgroup. The chances that the worst outgroup is actually chosen as the enemy by the powerful seems to be pretty low. It’s generally better to assume that society is not intelligent enough to collectively agree on the worst outgroup to organize against.
He’s correct though, however you may feel about the statement. Even at its peak, jihadist Islam has never been an existential threat to the West. This doesn’t mean we should tolerate groups with the capacity or will to perform attacks like 9/11 but the US is clearly harmed more each year by domestic forces than anything jihadists could conceivably do to us.
It's just a false dichotomy. You don't need to support Israel or think an Islamic takeover of the West is a realistic possibility in the near future to oppose an entrenched Muslim minority in your country. Particularly in pluralistic Western liberal democracies with no oversight or recognition of the distinction between a regular parochial religious faith and a global coordinated movement like political Islamism. Countries that successfully integrate Muslim minorities, like Singapore, have a strict framework of government oversight and control over the practice of the faith and limits on religion in politics.
Very true. I'm in Europe and although Islam isn't going to "take over" any time soon, the sizeable and growing minority is making it's presence felt strongly everywhere it exists. (And it's also not evenly spread out.) There is little to no cultural assimilation, or intermarriage. Just parallel societies with high crime, strongly illiberal values and a sense of hostility towards the host culture and people.
There are Mormons than there are Muslims in the US and I would argue they have exercised significantly more religious repression over secular institutions in places where they are highly concentrated.
Several, actually! Mormonism was an incredibly violent separatist movement earlier in its history. Here's a few terms you can google to get you started.
Utah War
Mountain Meadows Massacre
Provo Massacre
Battle Creek Massacre
Black Hawk War
Even in the twentieth century, fundamentalist Mormons had a bad habit of murdering apostates. In 1985 a Mormon man orchestrated a series of pipe bombings in Salt Lake City. There have been multiple murder sprees linked to people with Mormon fundamentalist religious delusions, like Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow.
But that is not most Mormon people, and it would be a fallacy to attribute violent religious extremism to the mainstream LDS Smiths who live down the block, right? The exact same thing is true of the Farouks across the street. It would be a fallacy to impute that religious conflict in Ireland means Catholics and Protestants are inherently violent, or to assert that actions taken by Israel in the name of a militant Judaism reflect those of your average American Jew.
We are talking about the 21st century, not the 19th. You came up with exactly zero substantial terrorist attacks committed by Mormons in the relevant time frame.
I've been comparing this to another series that features Islamic terrorism; Fauda.
In contrast to RHF, Fauda is actually based in Israel and Gaza, and features actors from the region speaking Hebrew and Arabic. Interestingly enough, when they need to communicate with each other they use English.
In Fauda the terrorists are not cartoon-comic book characters. They are sympathic in their actions, to the point that even without diminishing their evil, it is easy to understand why they do what they do. And the Israeli heroes are seen as human, with their own mistakes, psychological issues, and problems with authority as well.
Islam *should not be* a civilization sized problem for the West. But I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm sure the Romans never suspected Christianity was a civilizational problem, until it was a problem. Ideas matter. Philosophy is the driving force of history; people, or 'People' en mass, are led and guided by logically consistent principles, the most consistent side winning out in the end. That is why on one side you see a drift toward religion, on the other towards Communism. Those are the most consistent tribal sides in America.
I don't know what exactly happened in Iran to turn it from a Western style Dictatorship, to being led by 8th century Islamists enforcing Sharia law, but I DO know the Communists supported them until they got eaten by them. It was ultimately going to settle on a fight between ideological enemies.
The problem America faces is that NO 'sides' embrace American Philosophy. That was the Philosophy of the Enlightenment that inspired Thomas Paine's anti-religious 'Age of Reason', Jefferson to condemn priests, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
American Philosophy is about limited, Constitutional government separated from the Church, based on secular reason, and defense of the individual against the forces of blind, superstitious Faith AND the emotional Democratic mobs in equal parts. And if there is no one left to fight for that, then it will die.
It would be blind to insist that Islam isn't slowly encroaching into the West. It might be 50 years. It might take 150 years. But eventually there will need to be reconciliation with the fact that Islam is not compatible with western values. There can only be one .... at least here in the US of A.
I think the reconciliation probably won't happen after the majority of Muslims assimilate and adopt Western values while remaining Muslims. You vastly underestimate the power human beings have to look at what their religion demands of them, shrug, and decide that they just aren't going to do that. That power tamed Christianity in the past and it can do the same for Islam.
It is certainly possible. I could see this happening if more muslim immigrants were assimilating and moderating their beliefs. Instead, they seem to be drawn to predominantly muslim enclaves like Deerborn MI and gathering power and influence.
Or, the first amendment is reflected in La ikra fo Din in the Quran and you can be ardently religious in an interpretation that is opposed to ISIS or Taliban.
idk man i know a lot of people from Muslim families and, just like any religious group, you get a few generations past immigration and people tend to peel off, intermarry, relax how strictly they observe. People had the exact same fears around Irish and Italian catholics.
I disagree with you on this 1. They are taking over in the sense of having places that are only under their law etc. It doesn't mean that they are actually taking over the entire west. It's not black and white
To me, the Islamophobia you see pretty daily among the right sounds pretty insincere. Tbc I think a very good chunk of conservatives sincerely believe Islam is a threat to the west. However I'm old enough to remember when the trend among the online right between 2021 and 2023 was to see Islam not as a threat, but even an ally against woke and "western liberal degeneracy". Even some conservative groups were flirting with Islamic communities in the name of common fight against social-liberal issues https://www.semafor.com/article/06/13/2023/the-gops-new-muslim-outreach
While I agree that Islam is not a threat to America, I have to say that, after self-destruction, it is the next most dangerous ideology on tap. Therefore America and Israel do have a common enemy and it is only a matter of proximity. Your writing suggests that suspicion of Islamists is just a cover for pro-Israel sentiment. I don’t think it’s that simple.
Muslims are really one element of the "takeover "of the western world via mass immigration. Indians, non Muslim black Africans ,Hispanics and south East Asians are all playing their part in the radical and rapid demographic change.
While this review is excellent overall, there is one small statement I take issue with. You write that American Muslims are a 'relatively illiberal slice of the American population.' Is there any polling data to support this assertion? While I can see how this may hold true for first-generation Muslim immigrants, I find it hard to believe that second-generation American Muslims are more illiberal than the median American given their overrepresentation in progressive politics as evidenced by politicians like Zohran Mamdani. This statement stood out to me because it seems to contradict your previous statements regarding the power of American culture to assimilate immigrants.
The funniest thing about Christian Zionists, as. a Mutazili Muslim convert with a rabidly Islamophobic father, is the notion that we must protect women's right to wear Lululemon pants, for Christ or Thomas Jefferson or something.
People, when they are locked into tribalistic political reactions, are prone to choosing one overarching tribal enemy. Unfortunately, there seems to be very little tendency to sensibly choose the most rubbish group as the ones to hate. The left chose white men as the big bad enemy. Very poor taste if you ask me. The right has chosen all sorts of groups as the very worst which must be stopped above all. Some rightists hate the Jews, though lately some leftists think they are the epitome of bad guys too. Again very bad taste if you ask me. Now many rightists are into choosing Indians as the ones who must be stopped above all. But if you have to choose an ethnic group to oppose, on what sane grounds would you spend more energy on Indians as opposed to Somalians or Muslim migrants into Europe? Lately rather few seem to be choosing blacks as the ones to defeat for the sake of civilization. Alas blacks are rabble, not sufficiently threatening.
It’s the problem with hating on an outgroup. The chances that the worst outgroup is actually chosen as the enemy by the powerful seems to be pretty low. It’s generally better to assume that society is not intelligent enough to collectively agree on the worst outgroup to organize against.
>Muslims are not an existential threat to the West, and are not “taking over” America or Europe, or even staging substantial terrorist attacks.
You must have a very robust definition of "substantial"
We could have had another 9/11 once a year since 2001 and it would have cost less than the "War on Terror".
An annual Pearl Harbor attack would also cost less than fighting the Second World War, this is a weird argument.
He’s correct though, however you may feel about the statement. Even at its peak, jihadist Islam has never been an existential threat to the West. This doesn’t mean we should tolerate groups with the capacity or will to perform attacks like 9/11 but the US is clearly harmed more each year by domestic forces than anything jihadists could conceivably do to us.
A terrorist attack has to be an "existential threat" to count as "substantial?" Not in my book.
It's just a false dichotomy. You don't need to support Israel or think an Islamic takeover of the West is a realistic possibility in the near future to oppose an entrenched Muslim minority in your country. Particularly in pluralistic Western liberal democracies with no oversight or recognition of the distinction between a regular parochial religious faith and a global coordinated movement like political Islamism. Countries that successfully integrate Muslim minorities, like Singapore, have a strict framework of government oversight and control over the practice of the faith and limits on religion in politics.
Very true. I'm in Europe and although Islam isn't going to "take over" any time soon, the sizeable and growing minority is making it's presence felt strongly everywhere it exists. (And it's also not evenly spread out.) There is little to no cultural assimilation, or intermarriage. Just parallel societies with high crime, strongly illiberal values and a sense of hostility towards the host culture and people.
Yeah just very glib on Richard's part
Just before 10/7 a good chunk of conservatives agreed with that statement, they were also seeing muslims as allies against woke and western liberal decadence: https://www.semafor.com/article/06/13/2023/the-gops-new-muslim-outreach
There are Mormons than there are Muslims in the US and I would argue they have exercised significantly more religious repression over secular institutions in places where they are highly concentrated.
How many substantial terrorist attacks have they carried out? That is what my comment was addressing
Several, actually! Mormonism was an incredibly violent separatist movement earlier in its history. Here's a few terms you can google to get you started.
Utah War
Mountain Meadows Massacre
Provo Massacre
Battle Creek Massacre
Black Hawk War
Even in the twentieth century, fundamentalist Mormons had a bad habit of murdering apostates. In 1985 a Mormon man orchestrated a series of pipe bombings in Salt Lake City. There have been multiple murder sprees linked to people with Mormon fundamentalist religious delusions, like Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow.
But that is not most Mormon people, and it would be a fallacy to attribute violent religious extremism to the mainstream LDS Smiths who live down the block, right? The exact same thing is true of the Farouks across the street. It would be a fallacy to impute that religious conflict in Ireland means Catholics and Protestants are inherently violent, or to assert that actions taken by Israel in the name of a militant Judaism reflect those of your average American Jew.
We are talking about the 21st century, not the 19th. You came up with exactly zero substantial terrorist attacks committed by Mormons in the relevant time frame.
I've been comparing this to another series that features Islamic terrorism; Fauda.
In contrast to RHF, Fauda is actually based in Israel and Gaza, and features actors from the region speaking Hebrew and Arabic. Interestingly enough, when they need to communicate with each other they use English.
In Fauda the terrorists are not cartoon-comic book characters. They are sympathic in their actions, to the point that even without diminishing their evil, it is easy to understand why they do what they do. And the Israeli heroes are seen as human, with their own mistakes, psychological issues, and problems with authority as well.
Islam *should not be* a civilization sized problem for the West. But I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm sure the Romans never suspected Christianity was a civilizational problem, until it was a problem. Ideas matter. Philosophy is the driving force of history; people, or 'People' en mass, are led and guided by logically consistent principles, the most consistent side winning out in the end. That is why on one side you see a drift toward religion, on the other towards Communism. Those are the most consistent tribal sides in America.
I don't know what exactly happened in Iran to turn it from a Western style Dictatorship, to being led by 8th century Islamists enforcing Sharia law, but I DO know the Communists supported them until they got eaten by them. It was ultimately going to settle on a fight between ideological enemies.
The problem America faces is that NO 'sides' embrace American Philosophy. That was the Philosophy of the Enlightenment that inspired Thomas Paine's anti-religious 'Age of Reason', Jefferson to condemn priests, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
American Philosophy is about limited, Constitutional government separated from the Church, based on secular reason, and defense of the individual against the forces of blind, superstitious Faith AND the emotional Democratic mobs in equal parts. And if there is no one left to fight for that, then it will die.
It would be blind to insist that Islam isn't slowly encroaching into the West. It might be 50 years. It might take 150 years. But eventually there will need to be reconciliation with the fact that Islam is not compatible with western values. There can only be one .... at least here in the US of A.
I think the reconciliation probably won't happen after the majority of Muslims assimilate and adopt Western values while remaining Muslims. You vastly underestimate the power human beings have to look at what their religion demands of them, shrug, and decide that they just aren't going to do that. That power tamed Christianity in the past and it can do the same for Islam.
It is certainly possible. I could see this happening if more muslim immigrants were assimilating and moderating their beliefs. Instead, they seem to be drawn to predominantly muslim enclaves like Deerborn MI and gathering power and influence.
Or, the first amendment is reflected in La ikra fo Din in the Quran and you can be ardently religious in an interpretation that is opposed to ISIS or Taliban.
idk man i know a lot of people from Muslim families and, just like any religious group, you get a few generations past immigration and people tend to peel off, intermarry, relax how strictly they observe. People had the exact same fears around Irish and Italian catholics.
Been to Manchester, England lately? If you're a woman, make sure that you have a hijab.
I disagree with you on this 1. They are taking over in the sense of having places that are only under their law etc. It doesn't mean that they are actually taking over the entire west. It's not black and white
To me, the Islamophobia you see pretty daily among the right sounds pretty insincere. Tbc I think a very good chunk of conservatives sincerely believe Islam is a threat to the west. However I'm old enough to remember when the trend among the online right between 2021 and 2023 was to see Islam not as a threat, but even an ally against woke and "western liberal degeneracy". Even some conservative groups were flirting with Islamic communities in the name of common fight against social-liberal issues https://www.semafor.com/article/06/13/2023/the-gops-new-muslim-outreach
While I agree that Islam is not a threat to America, I have to say that, after self-destruction, it is the next most dangerous ideology on tap. Therefore America and Israel do have a common enemy and it is only a matter of proximity. Your writing suggests that suspicion of Islamists is just a cover for pro-Israel sentiment. I don’t think it’s that simple.
Muslims are really one element of the "takeover "of the western world via mass immigration. Indians, non Muslim black Africans ,Hispanics and south East Asians are all playing their part in the radical and rapid demographic change.
While this review is excellent overall, there is one small statement I take issue with. You write that American Muslims are a 'relatively illiberal slice of the American population.' Is there any polling data to support this assertion? While I can see how this may hold true for first-generation Muslim immigrants, I find it hard to believe that second-generation American Muslims are more illiberal than the median American given their overrepresentation in progressive politics as evidenced by politicians like Zohran Mamdani. This statement stood out to me because it seems to contradict your previous statements regarding the power of American culture to assimilate immigrants.
The funniest thing about Christian Zionists, as. a Mutazili Muslim convert with a rabidly Islamophobic father, is the notion that we must protect women's right to wear Lululemon pants, for Christ or Thomas Jefferson or something.