Haram or halal?
A terrible moment in Shiv Malik’s Prospect article on Siddique Khan. He’s talking to Khan’s brother, as he has several times before.
For some reason, I translated my usual question of whether he thought what his brother had done was “good” or “bad”—he had said that it was a terrible thing several times—and instead asked him whether he thought 7/7 was halal (permitted) or haram (forbidden) in Islam. Only when a look of stunned surprise come over Gultasab’s face did I realise that I must have been asking him an entirely different question. After a brief pause, he replied. “No comment.”
Here, it seemed, was the perfect example of the division between two worldviews—secular ethics and an embattled Islamic faith. How long had Gultasab managed to function with these two conflicting positions fighting within him? Everyday morality told him that his brother had committed a cold-blooded act of terror, while his own Islamic theology told him that there was no clear answer and maybe his brother was a hero. How many thousands of young British Muslims are similarly conflicted?
How’s that for a crystal-clear illustration of why secularism is essential? On the one hand, everyday morality: murdering a lot of random people and injuring a lot of others is a bad thing to do; on the other hand, Islamic theology: hmmmmmmmaybe not so bad. That other hand won’t do. That other hand has got to go. If Islamic theology says maybe maybe maybe mass murder is halal – then Islamic theology is dead wrong and must not be obeyed. It’s only if everyone accepts secularism – believers as well as non-believers, theists as well as atheists – that that principle can hold. If people reject secularism, then ‘theology’ can be permitted to trump both law and morality – and welcome to hell on earth.
There’s a choice bit in Siddique Khan’s horrible video that is another crystal-clear illustration.
Part two, which makes up three quarters of Khan’s speech, is addressed to Muslims in Britain. Here is an excerpt: “Our so-called scholars today are content with their Toyotas and semi-detached houses. They seem to think that their responsibilities lie in pleasing the kufr instead of Allah. So they tell us ludicrous things, like you must obey the law of the land. Praise be God! How did we ever conquer lands in the past if we were to obey this law?”
There’s another unpleasant example from Stop Honour Killings:
A man who raped a Muslim woman because she showed an interest in Christianity has been jailed for at least five years by a Sydney court…Al-Shawany’s trial was told that he visited the woman, an acquaintance, at Sydney’s Villawood Detention Centre with another man. The woman had been reading the Bible and Al-Shawany noted her contact with Christians. The men told her they were “infidel people” and if she went with them, her killing “would be halal” – meaning her killer would go to heaven.
Oh yes, and where would she go?
Not a good way to think. Stupid, of course, but also dangerous, ruthless, murderous, immoral – just no good. A kufr thing to say, but there you go.
Bearing in mind that the sort of conflict O.B. pointed out is quite common with a lot of moslems can anyone explain to me why we are still alowing moslem imigrants to come to the U.K.and live among us?
And also, only 5 years for rape. That can’t be right.
The complete mental separation between the secular good/bad and the religious halal.haram is quite shocking.
But it shouldn’t be.
You all know my views on organised religion, and yet I’m still surprised.
But the christians used to do this all the time, just not that recently.
I suppose that the essence of the problem boils down to two points:
1] The koran is the word of “god” and can’t be reinterpreted – whereas the bible can be (unless you are a US fundie-loonie)
2] The muslims are 622 years behind the christians, and they can’t be allowed another 622 years to catch up.
Oh, in case anyone wonders when the christians used to do this, the classic example must be at the siege of Bziers, during the so-called “Albigensian” crusade.
“Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet”
Richard:
Because not to do so would itself be a betrayal of the values we hold dear? It shouldn’t be too hard to welcome immigrant Muslims without giving way on principles of law.
People have to be free to believe as they choose, it’s just that this does not imply a similar right to act as they choose.
If I go to a Muslim country I do not expect to have to give up my beliefs. I do expect to have to obey local conventions wrt decorum, consumption of alcohol, etc. The same with any other country: I expect to have to obey the laws, and expect to be punished if I break them – even if those laws prohbit behaviour I consider perfectly moral.
“It is one of the poorest places in England, and partly for that reason it has always attracted immigrants—formerly the Irish, more recently Pakistanis. But while the centre of Leeds has developed rapidly, Beeston has remained a ghetto of relative deprivation”.
And an ideal breeding ground for terrorists, wannabe’s [whom one would almost be disposed to forgiven-ness, given their poverty indigent background] with terrorists from without only willing and waiting to train them in their tyrannical deadly trade
Beestons, also sounds like special milk that farmers give to baby calves. It is good for breeding purposes.
“She was hit on the head and had her hijab tied around her face before Al-Shawany raped her twice in what Judge Brian Knox described as a degrading, humiliating and brutal attack”.
The very clothes that women are forced to wear/keep on – are the very clothes that are used [and more than likely torn apart] to abuse the victims.
Halal how are you?
Outeast since when did letting barbarians with a seventh century mindset who think its cool to self explode into the nation become a cherished value?
The cherished value, Richard, is not labelling as barbarians everyone who shares the ethnicity or nominal faith of a minority of fanatics.
I would share that value,but tell me how we tell the good from the bad?
Richard, if I knew the answer to that I would be the wisest man who ever lived, or a deluded fool.
How about if prospective immigrants were obliged to pass a test on the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and sign a statement saying that they agree with its particulars?
So in the mean time Don we gamble with our families lives?because the U.N. human rights declaration stinks Doug!
Let me clarify that last post the reson the U.N. declaration stinks is it my be full of fine words and rights but none of the rights that conflict the the goals and purpose of the U.N. can be granted.
Richard,
If a prospective immigrant has a declared and violent antipathy to our core values then a case could be reasonably made for excluding them. I’d go along with that as a policy.
But bearing in mind that the actual terrorists who have struck, or tried to strike, at our population have been mainly British born – and often converts – then a simplistic solution of banning whole nations or ethnicities or belief systems from coming here is both ineffective and unjust.
A logical extension of that would be that, because there are some American christians who urge and celebrate the murder of medical personnel who carry out abortions, we should bar all American christians.
Don please no! there are not many American Christians that support that kind of behavior!but there are large and ever growing number of moslems who at the very best are extremely ambivilant about events like 9/11 and 7/7 ect.My veiw is that moslem imigration should only be on a case by case basis,at least untill the war is over!you seem content to gamble your life and my familys lives on the vague promise that it will all be o.k.
‘there are not many American Christians that support that kind of behavior!’
Of course not, but it is a quantitive rather than qualitive difference. The priciple of collective punishment on the basis of ethnicity, nationality or belief is not one we should allow a toe-hold.
It may be a cliche, but I am firmly of the view that to allow fear of terrorism to erode basic liberties, or push us into panicked over-reaction, is to hand them victory.
I’d remind you that very few identified terrorists have, in fact, been immigrants. I’m sure you would never entertain the idea of depriving British born citizens of their right to reside, but that is the logical extension of your argument.
‘…the vague promise that it will all be o.k.’
I said no such thing. Everything is not o.k., and is unlikely to become so anytime soon. I just don’t see your proposed solution as being either just or practical.
“The priciple of collective punishment on the basis of ethnicity, nationality or belief is not one we should allow a toe-hold.”
I think you’re mixing two things there, Don. The principle of collective punishment itself is a bad principle (unless we’re talking about a collective of murderers perhaps). On the other hand, if we’re talking about making judgements about people on the basis of ethnicity, nationality or belief, then we ought to separate ethnicity and nationality on the one hand from belief on the other. Belief in fact is sometimes a reason to differentiate among people. If X believes God says women are inferior and Y doesn’t, Y is a better candidate for, say, a teaching job. And so on.
This of course is not to endorse Richard’s policy suggestion, it’s just to make what I think is a crucial distinction.
OB,
I failed to specify in my last post what I had in the previous – nominal belief. That a person who identifies as ‘muslim’ while seeking immigration status should not be automatically deemed to hold the same views as one who identifies as ‘muslim’ while justifying terrorism.
I am not saying that every non-terrorism approving muslim is a ‘nominal’ muslim – that would be mad – but rather that holding a particular religious belief is not equivalent to supporting those who claim that belief as a justification for vile acts. Sam Harris notwithstanding.
Fair enough, Don. Still – I think some religious beliefs are at least potentially incompatible with, for instance, the demands of certain kinds of work. That’s an unpleasant observation, since it’s hard to know what to do about it without getting very intrusive and inquisitorial, but all the same – sometimes there is a real issue. A perceived duty to obey the pope is one example.
‘A perceived duty to obey the pope is one example.’
And a very timely one. But the three catholics I count among my friends don’t seem to feel under any particular obligation to take his pronouncements seriously.
Both X and Y might well be technically categorised as sharing a religion, just as that nice Simon Barrow might technically be described as sharing the same religion as… pick a name.
So, perhaps ‘belief’ was the wrong word. Religion would probably have been better, as accommodating a more social/ritual/personal approach which feels no need to consider dogma or get all passionate about one’s relationship with the supreme being.
Yes, but some catholics do feel under an obligation to obey the pope. A smaller percentage than in the past (I think), but still not zero. That means a blanket rule that catholicism must be put in the same category as race in order to make it forbidden or taboo to question a job candidate (say) about it is not a good rule. Race is simply not a valid criterion by which to (say) refuse to hire people; religion is different. Beliefs in general can be valid criteria for (say) hiring decisions.
O.B. on the subject of duty to the Pope the U.K. has a block on having a catholic king or Queen for that reason.I wish I could have explained my position as well as you just explained my position of cause it is o.k. to discriminate on the grounds of belief in fact it is sensible to do so,Don let me ask you a question how would you feel if the U.K. had a 30% moslem population(bear in mind the diferance in birth rate)would you still feel as comfortable with your position.
Don what I am trying to say is that we are letting large numbers of people into the U.K.who have very intolerant veiws, for instance holocaust education has stopped being taught in many schools because moslem parents are refusing to let their children participate in these lessons on the grounds that it contradicts what they are taught in the mosque! I am sorry I for one am not prepared to risk the values I hold so dear ( I would consider my life a small price to pay to defend them), in the hope that after a time they will become like us,all the evidence seems to be to the contary,things seem to be getting worse! apart from London segregation is getting worse anti semetism is at record levels throughout Europe and more women are wearing the revolting veil or burka than ever before! I realise that the people who are hurt the most by this sort of thing are the ordinary muslim people that just want a better life in a free society but we cant commit national suicide just because we dont want to be unfair.Remember intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance!
Hang on Richard, I wouldn’t say anything as sweeping as ‘of course it is o.k. to discriminate on the grounds of belief in fact it is sensible to do so’ – for one thing, ‘discriminate’ needs defining first; for another thing, I don’t exactly think it’s ok, I don’t think it’s desirable or a cheery prospect, it’s rather that I think it’s sometimes a grim necessity; for another other thing, I think the circumstances in which it may be necessary need to be defined, and defined as narrowly as possible. I am not saying ‘Don’t let any Muslims immigrate.’
“: hmmmmmmmaybe not so bad. That other hand won’t do. That other hand has got to go. “
LOL. What a very apt turn of phrase (ie “that other hand must go”) in relation to Islam
OB,
‘Beliefs in general can be valid criteria for (say) hiring decisions.’
I take your point, but with a truck-load of caveats. I would not, for example, be comfortable with a Jehovah’s Witness as a paramedic. Or having an Amish rewire my house.
But which box someone ticks on the ‘religion’ section of the application form does not necessarily indicate their ‘beliefs’. As I said, distinguishing between religion, faith, belief, conviction etc is a tricky business. But except in exceptional circumstances it should not be an issue when it comes to employment or residence status. By Richard’s logic, Salman Rushdie would not have been allowed in the country. I think it would be fair to ask someone who has indicated a religious affiliation relevant questions about how they would respond to situations which might bring their work and their religion into conflict (pharmacist & contraception for example) but otherwise I would not care to get intrusive.
Richard,
You have been here a while, start providing links for your assertions. Hint; the Daily Mail doesn’t count.
‘I would consider my life a small price to pay…’
Yes. I’d consider your life a small price to pay too. So what? Drop the emotive stuff.
‘Remember intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance!’
Thanks for the reminder.
Yes Don I know you would consider my life a small price to pay to uphold your liberal values!that is my point, would you for instance think it was o.k. to have let German or Japanese people into the U.K. during the second world war? you didnt answer my question about whether you would feel the same if the moslem population was 30%.I just wonder if we are playing Rusian roulet with the future of a free Europe in order to uphold our sacred traditions? our tolerance may kill us! you seem to ignore that posibility.
Oh and you wanted a link, Hitchens site, Vanity fair artical under the heading Londonostan calling.
Richard,
‘Don I know you would consider my life a small price to pay to uphold your liberal values!’
Stop taking yourself so seriously, my point was that the ‘You’re viewpoint threatens my family!’ rhetoric is emotive and unhelpful.
‘…let German or Japanese people into the U.K. during the second world war?’
We are not at war with Islam. Really, we’re not. Some people would like us to think in those terms – people on both sides – but it ain’t so. As I’m sure muslim members of the British armed forces would testify. As well as about a million and a half law abiding citizens who don’t need stereotyping as seventh century barbarians.
polls are dubious sources but;
http://www.euro-islam.info/spip/article.php3?id_article=939
‘if the moslem population was 30%’
I don’t give a rat’s arse what someone’s religion is as long as it doesn’t intrude on the public sphere. Personally, I’d prefer an ex-muslim population of 30% (or any other random figure you care to come up with, but that’s just me, I’m not proposing it as an official policy.
But that wasn’t really your question, was it? It isn’t about which specific variant of Sky-daddy someone adheres to. So who do you want barred from this country? The murderous and brutally misogynistic? I can see that.
But it is criminally lazy thinking to frame that as ‘no more muslims’. Because sooner rather than later that will mean looking at the British born population and asking if it needs pruning.
And the point about links; if you make an assertion such as ‘… holocaust education has stopped being taught in many schools…’ you follow it with a link to the site which contains verifiable and reliable facts to back up your claim. You don’t just gesture in the direction of Vanity Fair.
‘Your’ rather than ‘you’re’ obviously.
Don the reason I picked the figure 30% figure is that is whithin 20 years it would be a moslem majority given the birth rate diferance,large shifts in demographics always lead to conflict,for example the Northen Irerland conflict was always about demographics a large growth in the catholic population led the prodestants to start gerymandering the system to suit themselves, leading to the catholic civil rights movement,bloody sunday ect.other people are not as enlightened as you, they care very much which sky daddy someone worships and will wish to fight about it!my guess would be the underground militias would start forming at about the 30% figure!
O.B.The plain and simple truth is that other than some Jewish children we kept all Germans out during the war,it is very ugly I realise but sometimes nations behave in that manner when they are under threat,it wasnt a great analogy I know but what is happening is something new.
Other than Turkey(which has a poor record on human rights) can you point to one nation that has a moslem majority that is free and prosperous?
Richard,
Please. If you are referencing an authoritative demographic study, then please link to it. Please. Otherwise stop throwing numbers around.
Don I cant work out how to switch on spell check let alone do links! I would sugest the reading of W.C.s gathering storm or while England slept by J.F.K. those books demonstrate what happens when decent liberal minded people ignore what at first is a minor anoyance,you have throughout this conversation deliberatly avoided the central question of how we should deal with a growing problem of radical islam you seem to want to pretend it does not exist, no link or study would change that.
Mark Steyn has also written on the subject of demographic changes, might be of intrest?
Richard,
I think this conversation has gone as far as it usefully can. A couple of suggestions before I go:
There is no spell check on B&W. You could type into a Word document, spell check then cut and paste.
To post a link, go to the page that contains the infprmation you are citing, click on the address bar, copy and paste into the body of your comment. B&W doesn’t do hyperlinks or any other of that fancy-pants httml stuff. Yoiur reader will just copy and paste. Easy.
People often recomend books to each other, but in my opinion that should be kept to a minimum. It can descend into fling reading lists around like missiles.
I’m sure you’ll appreciate that few of us have time to dig out Churchill, and I would caution against regarding Steyn as reliable or unbiased.
Thanks for the help ofer Don but to cut and paste I need to call my wife,I havent worked that out either.
Richard, telling me ‘we’ kept Germans out during the war misses the point: that’s a factual statement, not a moral one. You were claiming that Muslims ought to be kept out of the UK just as it would not have been ok to let Germans in during the war. You were arguing an ought, not an is, so giving me an is doesn’t address my point.
Ahhh!