This thread is intended to be a place for serious and sustained discussion about the relationship between Islam and violence as well as how Western societies should attempt to deal with the problem. I don't mind a slightly flippant or even a blatant spam post once in a while to help lighten the mood, but please think twice about diverting the thread, especially if you haven't paid your dues through more serious posts.
This thread could probably also be explored in the Islam subforum, but (1) because I expect this discussion to be primarily between Christians and atheists or agnostics rather than between either of those groups and Islam and (2) because it involves discussions of policy and not just religious doctrines, it fits better in Civics. If the mods disagree, they can move it.
OK, with those preliminary notes out of the way, a quick overview of the problem:
Muslim residents in Western countries pose a particular risk to security insofar as they can be induced by certain ideologies associated with or inspired by elements of Islam to commit acts of violence ultimately aimed at establishing a particular kind of Islamic theocracy in Western countries. Policy proposals aimed at reducing the likelihood of such violence usually points in one of two directions: liberal or illiberal. They are either aimed at achieving a more perfect assimilation of Muslims into the existing liberal society, or they involve the curbing of liberties, particularly of Muslims.
With respect to their stated goal-- reducing terroristic violence-- each policy direction is fundamentally plausible, at least at first glance. By making Muslims full and productive participants in liberal society, the sociopolitical motivations for undermining that society are substantially diminished. By isolating and monitoring Muslims, the opportunities to engage in violence are substantially diminished. These are also mutually exclusive solutions. If we set them apart form society, we cannot expect them to perceive themselves as full and productive participants in the liberal order. If we try to assimilate them into our society and grant them all our customary liberties, we will inevitably allow them more opportunities to commit violence.
But on a deeper level, the argument is not actually about what is to be done about religious terrorism, but whether Muslims as such can be successfully integrated into Western society. The liberal solution assumes that they can be, and that any potentially troublesome elements of Islam can be discarded. The illiberal solution assumes that there are troublesome elements of Islam that we cannot expect Western Muslims to entirely abandon.
There's a lot more that I could write about this topic, not least about how my knowledge of the historical treatment of Catholics in America leads me to look on American Muslims with types of sympathy as well as suspicion that are more complex than I usually see from this sort of discussion... but before I even think about typing all that out, I want to open the thread for discussion. Does anyone think I've fundamentally mis-characterized the debate or the two basic sides? Is there anyone who thinks there is another approach that I'm neglecting?
This thread could probably also be explored in the Islam subforum, but (1) because I expect this discussion to be primarily between Christians and atheists or agnostics rather than between either of those groups and Islam and (2) because it involves discussions of policy and not just religious doctrines, it fits better in Civics. If the mods disagree, they can move it.
OK, with those preliminary notes out of the way, a quick overview of the problem:
Muslim residents in Western countries pose a particular risk to security insofar as they can be induced by certain ideologies associated with or inspired by elements of Islam to commit acts of violence ultimately aimed at establishing a particular kind of Islamic theocracy in Western countries. Policy proposals aimed at reducing the likelihood of such violence usually points in one of two directions: liberal or illiberal. They are either aimed at achieving a more perfect assimilation of Muslims into the existing liberal society, or they involve the curbing of liberties, particularly of Muslims.
With respect to their stated goal-- reducing terroristic violence-- each policy direction is fundamentally plausible, at least at first glance. By making Muslims full and productive participants in liberal society, the sociopolitical motivations for undermining that society are substantially diminished. By isolating and monitoring Muslims, the opportunities to engage in violence are substantially diminished. These are also mutually exclusive solutions. If we set them apart form society, we cannot expect them to perceive themselves as full and productive participants in the liberal order. If we try to assimilate them into our society and grant them all our customary liberties, we will inevitably allow them more opportunities to commit violence.
But on a deeper level, the argument is not actually about what is to be done about religious terrorism, but whether Muslims as such can be successfully integrated into Western society. The liberal solution assumes that they can be, and that any potentially troublesome elements of Islam can be discarded. The illiberal solution assumes that there are troublesome elements of Islam that we cannot expect Western Muslims to entirely abandon.
There's a lot more that I could write about this topic, not least about how my knowledge of the historical treatment of Catholics in America leads me to look on American Muslims with types of sympathy as well as suspicion that are more complex than I usually see from this sort of discussion... but before I even think about typing all that out, I want to open the thread for discussion. Does anyone think I've fundamentally mis-characterized the debate or the two basic sides? Is there anyone who thinks there is another approach that I'm neglecting?
Comment