Open Borders Require Integration: Illiberal Immigrants and European Policies Create a Perfect Storm in Europe

Immigration has the potential to unleash freedom and economic progress. That is more than textbook theory. At least in a U.S. context, I am all in favor of more immigration. Immigrants to the United States make a net positive contribution to the U.S. economy, including low-skilled immigrants. Immigrants to the United States also help improve fiscal health. In spite of the politics surrounding immigration in the United States, the case for immigration for the United States is a no-brainer. When I look across the Atlantic, it makes me stop and wonder. 

Immigration Tensions in Europe

In a European context, there is a deep fault line between many natives and immigrant communities, whether those rifts are caused by fears of cultural displacement, economic competition, or the burden on the welfare state. A number of natives worry that the immigrants will erode a sense of shared identity while straining public services. This tension is amplified by the fact that immigrants might not fully adopt local norms and might vote for more illiberal policies and influence culture to be more illiberal. These anxieties are not merely theoretical. 

Religious Law Versus Secular Institutions

The French polling and market research firm Institut français d'opinion publique (IFOP) released quite the eye-opening poll about three weeks ago. This IFOP poll looked at the connection that French Muslims have to Islam and Islamism. One disturbing finding was that 46 percent of French Muslims believe that sharia law should rule France. It is down from the 54 percent in 2008, but it is still high. 

Another jarring finding is that 57 percent of French Muslims from the age of 18 to 24 years old said the rules of Islam are more important than France's secular laws. (see below). This is in contrast to the 44 percent of all French Muslims, thereby suggesting that France's Muslim youth is more extreme in its beliefs. Even a minority today can shaper future trends, particularly among younger generations, which has the real potential to shift community expectations or voting patterns over time. Even worse, 38 percent of French Muslims sympathize with at least some positions of Islamism. To think this is happening in a country that has valued secularism (laïcité) to the point where separation of civil and religious society is in  Article I of the French Constitution. 

Muslim Immigrants with Extremist Views Is a Problem Throughout Europe

France is not the only country that is having problems with integrating its Muslim immigrants. An inability of Sweden to integrate its Muslim immigrants was the takeaway of my 2023 trip to Sweden. Take a look at this JL Partners poll of British Muslims last year (see below). 32 percent of British Muslims want sharia law, which is the same percent of British Muslims who believe that Islam should be the national religion of Britain. 65 percent believe the Muslim holiday of Eid-al-Fitr should be a public holiday in Britain. 27 percent of British Muslims are okay with outlawing homosexuality, which is not quite double of the overall British public. 57 percent of British Muslims want the compulsory use of halal food in all schools and hospitals. Then there is the 52 percent of British Muslims that want to make it illegal to show a picture of Mohamed. These findings indicate some authoritarian views in which Muslim immigrants want to impose their way of life onto Britain. 

A high prevalence of Islamism was also a finding in a study from Criminological Research of Lower Saxony: 67.8 percent of Muslim schoolchildren believe that the Koran should take precedent over German secular law (Dreißigacker et al., 2023). This trend of believing that religious rules are more important than secular ones dates back at least to 2008 when the Berlin Research Agency for Social Research (WZB) conducted a survey of over 9,000 Muslims throughout Europe (Koopmans, 2008). The WZB also showed that European Muslims are more fundamentalist than European Christian counterparts, whether it is believing that there is only one true interpretation; Islam should not be modernized; you should not have gay friends; or the Jews should not be trusted. 

In 2024, the European Union's Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) conducted a survey of 10,000 Muslims in Europe and details the discrimination that Muslims face in Europe. This discrimination is worth mentioning because if a sizable portion of European Muslims perceives profiling and discrimination that can and does lead to lower trust in secular legal institutions. All things considered equal, that could make sharia law more attractive to Muslims that can feel that the system is not working for them.  

Integration Challenges Across Europe

As I brought up earlier this year in my criticism of using "Islamophobia" as a cudgel to silent dissent, this illiberalism that a significant number of these immigrants import from their home country and attempt to implement in Western society is quite problematic. For a free democracy to work, the institutions that protect individual liberty (e.g., women's rights, gay rights, minority rights, freedom of religion) must remain intact. Looking at Muslim-majority countries, there is a general lack of freedom of speech, LGBT rights, and gender equality norms, all of which has me concerned about Europe. 

The societies of Muslim-majority nations by and large have sharia-based legal expectations in an honor-based culture. Bringing in immigrants en masse that do not respect liberal and democratic norms, institutions, or mores causes societal erosion and create institutional friction when religious practices clash with liberal, democratic values. Even if a small subset support at least some Islamist positions, their presence can influence schools, neighborhoods, and political discourse, thereby creating pressures that affect broader society. 

From a libertarian standpoint, the concern is not cultural differences themselves, but rather how voter preferences translate into state power. In majoritarian systems, large groups favoring restrictions on speech, gender equality, religious freedom, or market exchange can shift electoral outcomes that democratically erode liberal institutions faster than they can be rebuilt. When those illiberal preferences translate into illiberal laws, the outcome is predictable: expanded state authority and fewer individual rights.

Why a More Liberal and Open Immigration Policy Works Better in the United States Than Europe

It is not only immigrants with illiberal views that are to blame here. I can throw shade at European governments and how they govern. The cultural, linguistic, fiscal, and economic reality of Europe in contrast to the United States can explain why open immigration does not work nearly as well in Europe as it does in the United States. American institutions are built around economic absorption and adaptability, whether that is a more flexible labor market, greater geographic mobility, or a skills-oriented immigration system that accelerates integration. The United States also has historically maintained a long-standing assimilationist culture that encourages new citizens to adopt a shared civic identity. 

Europe cannot make such a claim. Europe is plagued by rigid labor markets and large universal welfare states. After all, Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman argued that you cannot have both a large welfare state and open immigration. Furthermore, the linguistic and cultural fragmentation in Europe, not to mention the economic rigidity, slow integration and increase fiscal and social pressures in Europe. Aside from linguistic fragmentation, the complex licensing and labor laws along with a relatively regulated housing market make it more difficult for immigrants to move around to better job opportunities, which creates demographic mismatch. 

Postscript

Muslim immigrants who do not accept Western values combined with the lack of economic freedom and linguistic & cultural fragmentation on Europe's part create a cultural powder keg waiting to go off. Some potential policy solutions towards integration can include language programs, vocational training, and civic education, much like I suggested when providing alternative options to a burqa ban last month. Even though effective integration policies are theoretically available, Europe's institutional, cultural, and political realities have shown that widespread implementation is challenging.

In a free society, open borders are ideal. Human movement, voluntary exchange, and cultural pluralism are foundations of a free society. However, these ideals depend on institutional compatibility. A libertarian analysis cannot ignore that Europe's rigid markets, expansive welfare systems, and centralized governance structures prevent the kind of spontaneous-order integration that open borders require. Given Europe's current institutional design, the choice is not between "freedom" and "restriction," but rather between preserving and losing basic liberal order itself.

I would personally prefer a scenario in which Muslim immigrants can integrate into their respective newly founded country, but outside of some rare exceptions (e.g., Norway), that process has been quite elusive and hardly inspires confidence in me that matters will improve. 

Given the political reality and Europe's assimilation failures, there is a part of me tempted to say that restricting immigration or revoking visas for those who have ties to terrorist organizations or extremist groups, at least for now, seems to be one of the least-worst options available for safeguarding liberal institutions. I know such policies come with considerable tradeoffs, including the real potential for government expansion. But seeing how Europe is declining, it’s still tempting. Alternatively, scaling back the welfare state or a guest-worker or temporary-visa regime for sectors with high demand could also help with the matter, but that would be one option that would need other alternatives.

One thing for certain is that the status quo in Europe is untenable. Without such measures to improve integration or economic freedom, the resulting political, social, and legal friction continue to erode individual rights and push Europe towards an even more illiberal and authoritarian trajectory. 

The Veiled Threat: Italy’s Proposed Burqa Ban Won’t Fix Cultural Integration, But It Will Erode Liberty

In times of social tension, politicians often claim they are finding solutions in the name of safety, values, or protecting culture. It is amazing how liberty finds itself on the chopping block when the government pursues such goals. That dynamics is now playing out in Italy. Last week, the Fratelli d'Italia, which is the ruling party in Italy under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, proposed a "cultural separatist" bill in response to growing concerns over Muslim immigrants. Part of this bill includes a public ban on the burqa and niqab. Anyone caught wearing these garments would be fined anywhere from €300-€1,300. 

While there are various local jurisdictions throughout Europe with such bans, Italy would become the ninth country in Europe with a nationwide burqa ban. Proponents of these bans claim that they promote safety, liberate women from a form of religious oppression, and encourage integration. To be clear, I think Europe generally has had a major issue when it comes to integrating its Muslim immigrants. 

I first expressed my concerns in 2015. A lack of integration of Muslim immigrants was also a takeaway from my 2023 trip to Sweden. As I brought up earlier this year while criticizing the "it is Islamophobic to criticize Islam" argument, the influx of Muslim immigrants in Europe is importing oppressive and authoritarian practices and tendencies to the Western world. It is notable enough that I even question some of my views on immigration, at least contextually as they pertain to what is going on in Europe. That topic deserves its own discussion because I would need to think of how immigration in the U.S. is different from Europe. What I will say is that in spite of my considerable worries about Muslim immigrants not integrating into mainstream European society, a burqa ban is not the solution.  

I already have objections based on how this ban erodes freedom. A TikTok ban in the U.S. was based on "protecting values" or "security." A burqa ban uses similar justifications while giving the state a deeply concerning power over one's body and what one can wear. Unless you can prove a direct harm from a fashion choice, a burqa ban is a considerable violation of bodily autonomy. If a government can tell people what they can wear in the name of security or cultural cohesion, what else can the government dictate? 

At the heart of a liberal and free society is the principle that individuals have the right to live in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are not shared by the majority or are uncomfortable. Without that freedom, I would not be able to freely practice Judaism. Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights is supposed to protect this right, even in spite of the European Court of Human Rights upholding such bans. 

Like lockdowns, burqa bans show how governments respond to fear by restricting freedom rather than trusting individuals. All a burqa ban does is set the precedent that individual expression and religious identity can be quashed by majoritarian discomfort. By viewing clothing as a threat, Italy risks the problem of eroding the democratic pluralism it claims to defend. 

I find such a ban to be problematic more than on terms of freedom of expression, bodily autonomy, or freedom of religion. I have criticized bans over the years, showing that government uses bans as a blunt instrument that are prone to backfiring. This was the case with the gas stove ban when it restricted choice while not solving anything of substance. Burqa bans also do not solve anything of substance, particularly when it comes to whether they increase integration. 

One study from Cambridge University (Paul, 2024) covering French and Belgian bans indicates that "A law or regulation that prohibits or governs the wearing of Islamic veils in the public sphere, pressures pious Muslim women (that is, those who habitually wear veils in public) to stay home and to avoid public places." This study also found that a majority of women interviewed reduced their outdoor activities and made them feel like they were living in a jail. Even if some women are pressured into veiling, the solution is not to punish them by further isolating them from public life with a burqa ban. That doubles down on their marginalization.

Another study from Stanford University (Fouka and Abdelgadir, 2020) covered the 2004 France headscarf ban in public schools. The ban does only cover schools, but it does show the backfiring effect, which resulted in discrimination both from non-Muslim peers and Muslim community members who thought the girls were selling out. Muslim girls were shown to have lower rates of completing secondary education and were more likely to repeat courses. 

Then there is a study from the Open Society Foundations interviewing 35 Muslim women showing that a full veil ban resulted in increased mental health issues, isolation, disruption in family life, and avoidance of health services. While much of the evidence of these bans are qualitative in nature and limited in sample size, we are still able to get valuable insight into how these bans directly and negatively affect those most impacted by these bans. The problem with burqa bans is that they result in more alienation than they do assimilation. 

A burqa could represent illiberalism because it sends the message that women should not be seen or that it is a form of systemic subjugation. However, a ban is also an illiberal policy. You cannot fix coercion with another act of coercion. Bans are a broad, coercive, and typically counterproductive policy that disrespects the liberty of individuals to live their own lives. There is no strong evidence that a burqa ban would improve the integration of Muslim immigrants. 

Much like Trump making English an official language, age verification laws, or banning flag burning, a burqa ban is another form of right-wing virtue signaling. It is a costume change masquerading as a cultural fix because it is more concerned with optics than actual outcomes. The main question here is how do we maintain an open, liberal society that welcomes immigrants without becoming illiberal ourselves? 

A few suggestions come to mind. Provide women confidential support services for those who are in religious or cultural pressure situations. Increase legal and police protection for Muslim women who want to integrate and would otherwise face abuse or intimidation. Improve access to education and employment choice, both of which are shown to improve autonomous choice and independence of women. Prosecute the explicitly coercive acts, such as forced marriage and honor violence. Support community outreach and mentorship to break the segregation without banning cultural expression, much like the Migrant Women Mentoring Programme focuses on doing. Provide better training for instructors so they can help migrants learn basic civic, cultural and language skills. 

If your argument is that women are being coerced into wearing the burqa, empowering women with the skills to make their own choices is far more effective than banning clothing. Cultural integration needs to come from a place of education, dialogue, and leadership. Part of that includes criticizing Islamist ideology and influences, as well as rejecting Sharia-based legal frameworks to influence secular law. If attempting cultural integration comes from force, like we have seen in France, all it is going to do is isolate Muslims and increase resentment from Muslims about mainstream society. Criminalizing someone's fashion choices is not going to fix these multifaceted cultural issues, but they will erode freedom in an illiberal fashion in the meantime. 

"Islamophobia" Is a Guise to Silence Legitimate Criticism of Islam That a Free Society Cannot Afford

Last week was the ten-year anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical magazine. In the 2010s, Charlie Hebdo published a number of cartoons criticizing Islam. This included satirizing the Islamic prophet Mohammad in cartoon form. While not explicitly banned in the Quran, it is commonly considered verboten in Islamic society to make an image of Mohammad. Some even consider it blasphemy in Islamic law, and therefore punishable by death. On January 7, 2015, two French-born Algerian brothers thought precisely that and targeted Charlie Hebdo employees. They killed 12 people and injured an additional 11 people. 

Unfortunately, this was not the first nor the last Islamist attack in world history. More recently, there was the attack in New Orleans earlier this month and the attack on the Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany last month. This also is part of a much larger trend of increased Islamist attacks. As the French think tank Fondation pour l'innovation politique shows in its database, there were 66,872 Islamist terrorist attacks between 1979 and April 2024, 84.4 percent of them having occurred within the last decade. 

I can imagine someone pointing out this reality and calling it "Islamophobic," much like those on the Woke Left like to call almost everything racist. The term "Islamophobia" is a confusing term. There are people who sadly discriminate based on the color of skin. We use such terms as "racism" or "xenophobia" to describe the problem. There is no race of Muslim people.  There are nearly two billion Muslims belonging to various ethnic groups across the planet.

Islam refers to a religion, a faith, a system of ideas. Criticizing Islam means criticizing various ideas, not a racial demographic. We do not use the term "Christophobia" or talk about anti-Christian sentiment in that way. Nor do we use such terms as "Marxophobia" or "Free-market-phobia" to describe antipathy towards given ideologies. To quote philosopher and author Sam Harris:

Honestly criticizing the doctrine of Islam does not entail bigotry against Arabs or any other group of people. It is not an expression of hatred to notice that specific Islamic ideas--in particular, beliefs about martyrdom, and jihad, and blasphemy, and apostasy--inspire terrible acts of violence. And it's not an expression of phobia--that is, irrational-fear--to notice that violent religious fanatics don't make good neighbors.

Per the suffix "-phobia," it implies that there is an irrational fear. Rational fears exist and the problem in this instance is that there are rational fears to be had. It is precisely the ideas and the implementation of said ideas that Islam's critics, myself included, have found to be so problematic. So what is there to fear? 

If you are gay, I would say there is plenty to legitimately fear. There are nine Muslim-majority countries in which a gay man can be executed for consensual gay sex, not to mention additional Muslim-majority countries that use the law to punish and incarcerate gay people.  What about women in Iran or Afghanistan who have to worry about the morality police, women in Sudan who can be punished for talking to a man who is not her husband, or the female genital mutilation that is all too common in Somalia? And what about a Muslim who loses their faith? Apostasy is punishable by death in Islamic law. I am sure that author Salman Rushdie felt (and very well might still do) when people threaten his life or try to kill him. Or how about those who kill those who mock Islam, as we saw with the Charlie Hebdo attack? 

While Islam could theoretically undergo a Reformation much like Christianity began its Reformation when Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses on the door of Castle Church in 1517, there are no signs of Islam undergoing a Reformation or Enlightenment. That might have something to do with the fact that whatever faction of moderate Muslims exists is dealing with its own legitimate fear of being attacked or murdered by Islamists. What people in the Western world consider to be radical and authoritarian is normalized in the Muslim world. 

I know these survey data are dated, but I went back to 2013 survey data from Pew Research. Pew asked Muslims across the world about sharia law and what they consider to be immoral. It is not simply that most Muslims want sharia law implemented. Most Muslims also take issue with homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, and drinking alcohol while a significant minority support honor killings. If you look at the Freedom House rankings for the fifty-plus Muslim-majority nations, you will see that none of them are considered "Free" in terms of political freedom or civil liberties. They do not fare much better under the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. 

Like with the Far Left's use of other "phobias," whether it is homophobia, xenophobia, or transphobia, Islamophobia is a linguistic shift to silent dissent by conflating race with belief. Media outlet Spiked Online explains that "Islamophobia" is used as a cudgel to stigmatize or criminalize any critique of Islam as racist. To show where things stand, the Islamic Human Rights Commission gave its "Islamophobe of the Year" to the editorial staff at Charlie Hebdo only a few weeks after terrorists massacred them for publishing cartoons of Islam's prophet Muhammad. And it is amazing how many in the West go along with the "Islamophobia" trope.  

Yes, there is legitimate fear that gay people, women, apostates, and non-Muslims can have for being punished under Islamic society. There is legitimate fear that Islam is not here to coexist with people of religious persuasions, but rather to dominate and subjugate, as Muslim polities have done since Muhammad became a warlord in the seventh century. 

Denmark banning Quran burning to shield Muslims from being offended is but one example of how they are shaping the Western world to be as oppressive and authoritarian as the Muslim-majority countries. But if you criticize how sharia law is implemented in Muslim-majority countries or what a significant faction of Muslims living in Europe and other parts of the Western world would like to implement, you are wrongfully branded an "Islamophobe." To quote Sam Harris again:

And while every religion has its fanatics, there is only one religion on Earth where even its mainstream members of the faith seek to impose their religious taboos on everyone else. There is only one religion that has made it unsafe for people to criticize it, or indeed, for its own members to leave it. Only Muslims routinely fear for their lives when they decide to leave their  religion--and this is true, even in the West. If you doubt this, just read some books or listen to podcasts by ex-Muslims. 

As I brought up ten years ago, criticizing Islam is not Islamophobic and practitioners of Islam are not entitled to a life free of offense, criticism, or downright mockery. Being in a free society means that we can criticize, and by extension, offend others with what we believe or say. Those who silence criticism of Islam are committing an egregious linguistic sleight of hand that is eroding democracy and pluralism. At the end of the day, mimicking the intolerance of Islamists with censorship is not the way to go if we want to ultimately avoid being subjugated under authoritarian rule. 

"Islamophobia" Is Far From Being the "New Anti-Semitism": Stop Minimizing Anti-Semitism by Equating the Two (Pt. II)

Since Hamas carried out the worst pogrom against Jews since the Holocaust, I have been appalled as to how kidnappers, rapists, murders, and génocidaires could possibly get the sympathy of the world. I had to question how the Far Left became so anti-Semitic (read here, here, and here). I also wrote about how the entity known as Palestine needs to put the victim card back in the deck but probably will not (see here, here, and here). It is not only the Palestinians playing the victim card. It is Muslims throughout the Western world. I find the victimhood audacious enough where I started writing about how "Islamophobia" is nowhere near the bigotry that anti-Semitism is. You can read Part I here.

The first inconvenient truth I pointed out is that anti-Semitism has existed for three thousand years, whereas the concept of "Islamophobia" has only existed since 1997. This led to my second inconvenient truth, which is that "Islamophobia" is so new because Muslims spent much of their history oppressing, persecuting, and colonizing. Now I continue more inconvenient truths, including continued oppression, a lack of attempts to systematically wipe out all Muslims on the planet, and that Jews are significantly more likely to be a victim of a hate crime than Muslims. 

Muslim-majority nations continue to oppress. The non-profit Freedom House provides detailed analysis on political freedoms and civil liberties by country. The vast majority of Muslim-majority countries are ranked as "Not Free," whereas none of them are considered "Free." In the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's 2024 annual report, you will see multiple Muslim-majority countries detailed as being problematic for religious freedom, including Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkey. If Islam were really a religion of peace, you would think at least one Muslim-majority country would be tolerant of non-Muslims, yet such a nation-state does not exist. On the other hand, there is only one Jewish-majority state, Israel. Guess what? Israel allows Muslims, Christians, and Druze to live peacefully and practice their respective religion within Israel's borders. 

People have not tried to systematically wipe out Muslims. The closest that there has been to systematic extermination is the Chinese government's persecution of the Uyghurs, an ethnic minority of about 11 million living in Western China. While a reprehensible violation of human rights, this repression of the Uyghurs has not been determined to be an act of genocide. As I pointed out when refuting the pro-Hamas' accusation of Israel being genocidal, genocide has a specific legal definition. To quote Spiked Online:

Muslims are not facing the intimidation that Jews now face daily on the streets. There are no demonstrations calling for the destruction on any Islamic nation or protests demonizing Palestinians as 'child murderers' or 'genociders.' Nor are there influential initiatives calling for a boycott of Arab institutions or individuals. 

There has not been a nut job like Hitler that wants to systematically exterminate all 1.9 billion Muslims with a "Final Solution" for all believers of Islam or has succeeded. Unfortunately, Jews have not been spared that fate. Hitler managed to wipe out a third of the world's Jewish population with his Final Solution. If only that genocide were a thing of the past for the Jews. It is 2024 and it is difficult to talk about a two-state solution when the government representing the Palestinian people is pushing for a Final Solution against its Jewish neighbors in Israel.

Furthermore, you do not see thousands of protestors across the globe calling for the extermination of Muslim people. It is thousands of people in the so-called "civilized world" denying the atrocities of October 7, cheering on raping, murdering, genocidal terrorists, all the while chanting for the extinction of Jewish people in the name of anti-Zionism and "freeing Palestine." Too bad these bigots cannot call for freeing Palestine from Hamas or denounce the atrocities of October 7.  

Jews are more likely to endure a hate crime than a Muslim. Harassing, threatening, or committing violence against Muslims is unacceptable because no one should undergo that sort of treatment. At the same time, there is a disparity between the dangers a Muslim faces versus what a Jew faces. 

In the United States, we can see those rates with the FBI's Hate Crime Statistics. According to the FBI Crime Data Explorer, there have been 821 anti-Muslim hate crimes while there have been 5,424 anti-Jewish hate crimes between 2019 and 2023. There are 4.45 million Muslims in the United States in contrast to 7.5 million Jews. When adjusting for population, a Jew in the United States is 3.9 times more likely to be a victim of a hate crime than a Muslim. 

Outside of Israel and the United States, the countries with the largest Jewish populations are France, Canada, and the United Kingdom. I will start these non-U.S. countries with the United Kingdom. 

In London, anti-Semitic hate crimes have overtaken the number of anti-Muslim crimes since October 7, 2023. This does not even factor in that there are 1.32 million Muslims versus 145,466 Jews in London, or there are about 9 Muslims in London for every Jew. Merely by eyeballing the graph below (Telegraph), you can see that multiplying the blue bars by 9 to get a sense of the rates show that a Jew in London is much more likely to be a victim of a hate crime than a Muslim, especially since October 7, 2023. In 2022-23, the likelihood is about five times as likely.  In 2023-24, that is about 12 times more likely. 

Canada does not fare better. B'nai Brith Canada has shown a doubling of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada from 2022 to 2023 in its annual report. Looking at hate crime figures from Statistics Canada, there were 1,496 police-reported hate crimes against Jews versus 576 against Muslims between 2018 and 2021. There are about 1.8 million Muslims in Canada versus the 393 thousand Jews, or about 4.6 Muslims for every Jew. When adjusting for population to understand rates, a Jew in Canada is 12 times more likely to be a victim of a hate crime than a Muslim. To think that these figures were before October 7, 2023! 

And finally, there is France. First, I will show the number of anti-Muslim crimes recorded by the Central Territorial Intelligence Service [Service Central du Renseignement Territorial; SCRT] (per here and here).

Then there are the anti-Semitic crimes reported (see here and here). You can read the most recent report here from the French government's SCRT (in French). What we see with historical data is that there are more anti-Semitic hate crimes than anti-Muslim crimes. That is before October 7 when anti-Semitism nearly quadrupled in France. That is also not factoring in the fact there are 550,000 Jews versus 5.7 million Muslims in France, or more than 10 Muslims for every Jew in France. In 2022, that would mean that a Jew in France was 22 times more likely than a Muslim in France to be a victim of a hate crime. 

Moral of the story: what we see with government data from the countries with the largest Jewish populations (excluding Israel) is that Jews are significantly more likely to be harassed, terrorized, and victimized than Muslims are. The fact that there are more hate crimes against Jews than Muslims in these countries signals that anti-Semitism is a bigger scourge than "Islamophobia." 

Postscript. I hope to address one additional aspect of this debate in a future blog entry, mainly that "Islamophobia" is a cudgel to silence legitimate dissent against Islam or Islamists. In the meantime, I will say this. Treating "Islamophobia" and anti-Semitism as equals and lumping together is insulting to Jews because it diminishes what the Jewish people have endured not only since October 7, 2023, but over the centuries. It also ignores the fact that Muslims have oppressed and persecuted others for centuries and that those who run Muslim-majority countries still oppress to this day. 

Denunciations of anti-Semitism are diluted when lumped together with other forms of bigotry. When George Floyd was murdered, people did not denounce "racism, homophobia, transphobia" or scream "All Lives Matter;" the chant was "Black Lives Matter." Equating "Islamophobia" with anti-Semitism is giving Jews the "All Lives Matter" treatment, which apparently is an unacceptable mantra for the Woke Left except for when it used against Jews. "Islamophobia" is nowhere near the problem that anti-Semitism is. Anyone who does not treat anti-Semitism as a separate, legitimate form of bigotry is part of the problem. After all, anti-Semitism has been the canary in the coal mine far too many times in history. Let us hope that the Western world can learn that important lesson before it slips into decadence.  

"Islamophobia" Is Far From Being the "New Anti-Semitism": Stop Minimizing Anti-Semitism by Equating the Two (Pt. I)

One year ago today, Hamas terrorists snuck into Israel's borders and carried out the worst pogrom against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Israeli civilians were raped, kidnapped, tortured, murdered, and decapitated. The death toll from this horror was over 1,200 civilians. Some of those murdered that day were not even Israeli. They were young adults attending a music festival that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

What should have been a time for the world to rally in support of Israel ending up being a wave of global anti-Semitism. The innocent lives lost were barely cold in the grave and the anti-Semites were already protesting against Israel. The moral inversion in which "rape is resistance," kidnapping Holocaust survivors is social justice, or "the situation in the Middle East is complex" justifies parading unconscious women or decapitating babies is astonishing. Do not be at all surprised if there are protests across the globe today cheering on the murdering, raping, genocidal terrorists who carried out the atrocities on October 7, 2023. 

Another aspect that has been astonishing is lumping together anti-Semitism with "Islamophobia" in response to October 7. Any response given in October 2023 by the Biden White House about anti-Semitism included a caveat for "Islamophobia." The European Parliament has made a similar grouping, and Human Rights Watch did something similar in December 2023.

I imagine you have noticed my objection towards equating anti-Semitism with "Islamophobia." I do not deny that discrimination against Muslims simply for being Muslim exists. I will explore those data in Part II of this blog series. Abusing citizens for merely believing in Islam, vandalizing mosques, or attacking those who are visibly Muslim is morally wrong. Part of being in a tolerant, multicultural society means supporting their freedom of conscience and freedom of worship as long as it does not harm others vis-à-vis the non-aggression axiom. On the other hand, "Islamophobia" is nowhere being nearly as heinous as anti-Semitism for a number of reasons. 

How long has each form of bigotry existed? Anti-Semitism has existed since the Egyptians per the account in the Book of Exodus. The Jews were in exile from the year 69 to 1948 when the State of Israel was created. Whether it is the ancient Romans, the English Expulsion of 1290, the Spanish in 1492, the pogroms in the Russian Empire, rule under various Islamic polities, or the Nazis carrying out the Holocaust, the Jews have dealt with this universal hatred for a few millennia. 

If the past year has reminded me, anti-Semitism has not died. It simply evolved and skyrocketed in the past 365 days. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recently released a report about anti-Semitism in the United States one year after October 7, 2023. Anti-Semitism was already at an all-time high before the 10/7 attacks. The anti-Semitism has only skyrocketed since 10/7, whether in the form of increased harassment, assaults, vandalism, threats, intimidation of Jews, or violent anti-Semitic posts on social media. 

While the United States has the largest Jewish diaspora population, European Jews have also been pressured to stop expressing their Jewishness in public. Do not be surprised if today, October 7, 2024, does not have pro-Hamas rallies across the planet celebrating this pogrom because Muslims do not feel the same pressure to hide their Muslim identity or their political opinions about the Middle East as Jews do. 

In contrast, let us ask when did Islamophobia begin. According to this publication from Cambridge University's Review of Middle East Studies, "Islamophobia" was developed as a concept in the late 1990s. While the term was first used over a century ago, the Runnymede Trust takes credit for inventing the term as used in its contemporary meaning...in 1997. That makes sense to me not only because hundreds of thousands of Muslims emigrate to the western world while many Muslims comfortably assert their Islamic identity in public. Why am I not surprised that "Islamophobia" is a new concept? 

Muslim polities have a history of colonization and oppression. Muslims have not been persecuted around the world for centuries like the Jews have. If anything, Muslims persecuting non-Muslims dates all the way back to Muhammad in the Qu'ran. Whether it was the Ottoman Empire, the Mughal Empire, the Almohads, or the other caliphates, non-Muslims living under Muslim rule were either relegated to a second-class status of dhimmi, forced to convert, or executed.  There were a number of other caliphates throughout history that illustrate my point regarding Islamic colonization.  Israel is the size of New Jersey. When you compare Israel's square mileage (8,469 square miles) to the Arabian Peninsula (1.2 million square miles), never mind the entire Arab-speaking world, the Middle East, or Muslim world, it makes you wonder who the real colonizers have been in the Middle East. 

There will be more to explore in Part II of this series.

Denmark Banning Quran Burning Is a Sign That Freedom of Speech Is Becoming Less Valued Globally

Imagine living in a country where you can get fined or thrown in jail for mistreating a book. You do not have to imagine because it is going to happen in the nation of Denmark. This year, there have been 500 demonstrations in Denmark by anti-Islam activists that have included burning the Quran or flags. This has led to outrage from Muslim-majority nations. That outrage translated into political pressure. 

Last week, the Danish Parliament (Folketinget) passed a law that makes it a crime to "inappropriately treat, publicly or with the intention of dissemination in a wider circle, a writing with significant religious significance for a religious community." While the law does not mention the Quran by name, it nevertheless was designed with Quran desecration in mind. The Danish Justice Peter Hummelgaard made that point clear the day the bill passed. The law de jure punishes burning the Quran either with fines or two years of jail time. 

It should come as no surprise that I take issue with the Folketinget's decision. I know Denmark is not the United States. Thankfully, freedom of speech is so well-protected in the United States that burning a U.S. flag is constitutional. As I pointed out in 2016, burning a flag of the United States is not how I would personally go about expressing discontent. However, I did point out that the flag is their property and they should be allowed to burn it, especially since they are not physically harming anyone. I would extend this argument to burning a Quran. To quote British media outlet UnHerd:

"There can be no doubt that book burnings are crude, deliberately provocative, and a poor substitute for reasoned debate. But when conducted by private individuals, they serve as non-violent symbolic expressions intended to convey a message -- the essence of freedom of expression." 

For a free society to function, people need to be allowed to say or do things that are deemed offensive. I have brought up that offensiveness is subjective and that trying to not offend anyone has no upper limit when it comes to censorship. I have been for freedom of speech and expression, which includes making jokes about transgender people, the continued publication of Roald Dahl books, hate speech, the French satirist newsletter Charlie Hebdo that makes fun of religions (including my religion), and an anti-semitic operetta. 

Only allowing for speech you agree with is not free speech. That freedom of expression has to be allowed to those whose opinion you cannot stand. I articulated that concept last month when it came to pro-Palestine protestors and activists. These protestors base their arguments on lies, half-truths, and taking things woefully out of context. They complain about ethnic cleansing while advocating for ethnic cleansing of Jews. They bemoan a fictitious genocide while ignoring the one that Hamas is diligently working towards. While I abhor what they have to say, I support their right to express their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. 

What is obvious is that Denmark's bill is designed to shield Islam from blasphemy. In 2015, I wrote a piece on how criticizing Islam is not Islamophobic, as well as how we should be able to criticize everything, including Islam. The fact that Denmark is passing this bill out of safety concerns speaks volumes. It means that Islamists have a veto over liberty in the Western world. 

It is ironic because, as one Muslim scholar from Cato Institute brings up, the Quran itself says the way to deal with those who mock Islam is not banning, throwing people in jail, or the death penalty. Rather, the Quran demands patience (3:186) and staying away from the mockers (4:140). Even if the Quran allowed for punishing the mockers, do proponents think that a blasphemy law will make people respect Islam? If anything, it will only seek to agitate dissidents further while making Islam or Muslims appear too thin-skinned to handle criticism. More freedom of speech eases such tension (Bjørnskov and Mchangama, 2023). What I can anticipate is that blasphemy laws in Denmark will more likely lead to greater savagery:

"For censorship tells certain groups that their beliefs are so perfect, so pristine, so beyond the scurrilous commentary of mere mortals, that those who dissent from them are deserving of punishment. Censorship begets intolerance. In force fielding certain ideologies from criticism, it incites the adherents to those ideologies to seek out and 'discipline' the filth that dare to dissent."

Although Denmark has a population of under six million, this trend in blasphemy laws is perturbing. Denmark abolished censorship in 1770, which we can see in §77 of the Danish Constitution. Look at the Index for Reporters sans frontières (RSF), or Reporters without Borders in English. Denmark has ranked in the Top Ten for greatest freedom on information. Denmark's enactment of blasphemy laws is worrisome indeed. Reason Magazine aptly summarizes my concerns:

"Denmark's surrender to violent extremists and states that imprison, lash, and execute 'blasphemers' is a disturbing sign of the free speech recession that is sweeping the globe in the 21st century. One can only hope that the First Amendment [in the U.S. Constitution] will continue to serve as inspiration to liberal reformers across the globe in a world where free speech is in fast retreat."

Having to serve jail time simply for insulting a religion is not progress. Mimicking the intolerance of Islamists is not going to make them disappear or feel placated. All that Denmark's legislative move will do is embolden the most radical elements in Danish society while further eroding freedom. Having some people offended is a small price to pay for freedom. I hope the rest of the world realizes the importance of freedom of speech before we are further enveloped by the iniquity of authoritarianism. 

Criticism of Islam Is Not Islamophobic: Why We Should Criticize Islam [and Everything Else]

Some things truly bear repeating. That was the reminder I received from Reason Magazine today when they published an article entitled "Stop Smearing Critics of Islam as Islamophobes." The author started off by pointing out that the Islamic Human Rights Commission labeled murdered Charlie Hebdo staff "Islamophobe of the Year," which is tomfoolery. That introduction led to illustrating how people have reached the point of pathologizing dissent. You know what? They're right. We have reached a low in which "polite society" means that we cannot risk offending others, particularly if they are of the Islamic faith.

If the Charlie Hebdo attacks back in January taught us anything, it's the importance of free speech. As I brought up shortly after the attacks, society benefits from freedom of speech because it enables good governance, a sense of self-empowerment, and a more educated populace, all of which help reduce poverty. If freedom of speech is so good for society, then what do practitioners or sympathizers of Islam have to fear?

Answer: not wanting to have to deal with legitimate concerns with Islam and the way it is practiced. There is a world of difference between actual Islamophobia and bringing up valid criticisms of Islam and Sharia law. I actually pointed out this distinction a few months ago in a previous blog entry. Islamophobia consists of an irrational fear simply because you either don't like the unknown or anything that is different from yourself. With Islamophobia, it's about hatred and/or ignorance, plain and simple. Aside from being part of a historically persecuted religious minority, I also have a wide diversity of friends, whether the difference is in religion, political ideology, race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. I have been exposed to a wide variety of people and their experiences, and as such, I don't suffer from anything remotely resembling Islamophobia. What I can tell you, though, is that I have my valid, well-supported criticisms of Islam.

And why should Islam get a free pass in the criticism department? What makes Islam so special that it is beyond reproach? Personally speaking, I have criticized Christianity (see here and here). I have even criticized my own religion for some of the ridiculousness that goes on within Judaism (e.g., here, here, here, here, and here). Look at my blog, and you'll see that there's plenty of criticism to go around. Bad ideas are bad ideas, regardless of their origin.

As long as it's not excessive, criticism is a healthy thing. Criticism is what keeps people honest. It's what makes people aware of shortcomings in the hopes that they will be fixed. It's no accident that the biblical verse of rebuking your neighbor (Leviticus 19:17) is shortly before the famous verse of loving your neighbor (Leviticus 19:18). Criticism helps us grow, and it is what keeps a robust marketplace of ideas. If it is to survive in the marketplace of ideas, Islam should be able to stand on its own two feet and fend off criticism either of Islamic theology, culture, or how Islam's practitioners act in Allah's name. No one should be exempt from criticism, which is precisely the point I am trying to make.

Anyone who is intellectually mature enough will address shortcomings that are experienced. Practitioners and sympathizers of Islam should be able to explain why women, homosexuals, apostates, or non-Muslims in general have been and still are treated poorly under Islamic rule, as well as other shortcomings that are within the Islamic religion. We shouldn't be shielding Islam from criticism simply by calling the other side racist, bigoted, ignorant, or spiteful. If one uses that sort of ad hominem attack to exempt Islam from criticism, how are they all that different from what they're accusing the critics of? Instead of succumbing to hypocrisy, what should be done is the fostering of honest debates in which we can discuss the finer points surrounding the debates on Islam. This would be the sign of a well-developed, mature society. Anything less makes me wonder what practitioners and sympathizers of Islam are afraid to confront.

Islamophobia in America? So Blown Out of Proportion

America's relationship with Islam has not been the same since September 11, 2001. The last time a foreign entity attacked America was Pearl Harbor. The 9-11 attacks left a mark on the American psyche, one that very well might not heal within my lifetime. Given the magnitude, it should be no surprise that we see some backlash from it, even now. About a couple of weeks ago, Bill Maher goes after Islam and points out how those on the Left tend to have a double standard for Islam and other world religions. For Maher, those on the Left talk about values like women's rights, LGBT rights, free thought, and democracy, but when it comes to Muslims, they somehow get a free pass. Sam Harris went even as far to say that "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas." The leftists over at Vox think that Maher is not an anomaly, but rather a reflection of the prevalence of the Islamophobia in America. Is this accusation true? Are Americans fearful of Muslims and/or Islam? And if this fear exists, how does it impact Muslims in America?

Islamophobia is yet another hot-button term that gets thrown around all too freely, so let's define it. The term Islamophobia is a neologism formed with the word "Islam" and the suffix "-phobia," meaning "[illogical] fear of-" or "aversion to-." Put them together, and you have "a fear of/aversion to Islam." Part of the problem is that the term is not merely describing the Islamic religion or a growing concern about Islamic extremism, but extended to the entirety of the Muslim people, as well. I don't say this because I think discrimination against a group of people is a good thing. Of course it's a bad thing! In order to live in a pluralistic society based on freedom, you need to be able to live in a place where people are different from you. Racism and bigotry have no place in the modern world. However, when one conflates a group of people versus religious ideas and the implementation thereof, one can merely cry "Islamophobe" to shield Islam from any criticism whatsoever. The other part of a free society is that in an intellectual marketplace, no ideas are free from criticism. If it's a bad idea, we should criticize it, regardless of origin. With that being said, I would like to see what polls have to say about how Americans view the topic.

Back in July, Pew Research asked Americans how they feel about various religious groups. Jews, Catholics, and Evangelicals were rated the highest, whereas atheists and Muslims were at the bottom of the list. Gallup has an interesting piece on Islamophobia on a more global level. Even those who have no animosity towards Muslims as a people, a third of them still have an unfavorable view of Islam. Yes, ignorance and a lack of education increase your odds of being anti-Muslim. Nevertheless, there are those who have a problem with the religion itself. There is another 2010 Gallup poll shows that the greatest religious prejudice is towards Muslims. The polling over at Zogby Analytics doesn't even show a flattering view of Muslims. On the other hand, the public is divided as to whether Islam is more violent than other religions.

Let's steer away from polling from a moment because it is methodologically limited, partially because polls only measure what they think [or do], not what they actually think. If Islamophobia is so prevalent, we should see institutionalization or at least some form of its manifestation. I'd say that violence against members of a certain religion group is a good place to start. If Islamophobia were that widespread, we would see a lot a hate crimes against Muslims. If we look at FBI Hate Crime Statistics, we can see if Muslims are the most common target. Muslims are 0.8 percent of the population (Pew Research, 2010 estimate), and in 2010, there were 160 incidents. Compare that to the 887 anti-Jewish incidents in the same year. Even when adjusted for population, a Jew in America is almost three times more likely to be a victim of a hate crime than a Muslim. With this logic, America has an even bigger Antisemitism problem, which I don't think even really exists in the first place in America. Although any crime against someone based on their religion is a shame, based on the numbers, would you consider this at epidemic proportions? Hate crime statistics do a fine job of deflating the veracity of Islamophobia. One could argue just because the Islamophobia isn't violent doesn't mean it isn't virulent. Income distribution for Muslims isn't particularly disparate compared to other mainstream religions, and the United States government doesn't implement a tax on Muslims that is comparable to the جزية, a tax levied on non-Muslims under Muslim rule simply for being non-Muslim. Are Muslims being deprived of exercising their First Amendment rights? Considering that there are over 2,000 mosques in this country, I hardly think so.

This is not to say that there aren't any individuals who discriminate against Muslims or feel prejudice towards Muslims because there are. I'm not here to excuse bigotry because it is inexcusable. However, if one is going to lecture about pervasiveness of a phobia, there had better be both context and substantiation. First, is discrimination against Muslims worse than it has been or is against other minority groups in America? Second, how are non-Muslims treated in Muslim-majority countries? Third, how is the quality of life for a Muslim in America versus that of the average, Muslim-majority country? If you're going to bludgeon the American people with charges of human rights violations, try to do so with a more global perspective in mind. Fourth, a phobia is defined as an irrational fear. Is there some rational basis for the fear? Looking at religious and historical context, Islam cannot be considered a religion of peace, which is worrisome for those purporting that it is. Islamic countries are authoritarian regimes that quash civil liberties, limit economic freedoms, and oppress women, non-Muslims, and homosexuals. Plus, when you look at the Muslim support for things such as implementing sharia law (شريعة) or suicide bombings, it's not comforting that these views are a bit more mainstream than merely "being on the fringe." If Muslims want to prove to the rest of the world that Islam can be more open and tolerant, they really need to step up to the extremists and defend their faith to the point where there's a reformation in the Islamic world.

Most importantly, how prohibitive is it in terms of Muslim citizens living the American dream? Muslims are still free to acquire gainful employment, associate with whomever they wish, and observe their religion. The typical Muslim in America lives a higher-quality life than the typical Muslim under Islamic rule. While American governance isn't perfect, the truth of the matter is that America is far from being an Islamophobic country.

Believe It or Not, I Found Nine Features I Like About Islam

In the Western world, Islam takes a lot of flak. Some of it stems from ignorance, anti-immigrant sentiments, Islam's history with Christianity, fear of the unknown, post-9/11 moral indignation, or downright racism. Conversely, as I have pointed out before, it is not as if Islam were blameless. For one, Islamic law (شريعة) subjugates women and monotheistic non-Muslims (particularly Jews) to second-class status. Homosexuality and apostasy are punishable by death. There are also other perturbing aspects of Islam and how it is practiced, including domestic violence, slavery in certain parts of Africa, a Golden Rule that only seems to apply to Muslims (Sura 2:104, 3:131, 4:13-14, 136, 45:32-35), the modern-day manifestation of terroristic jihad (جهاد) that goes well beyond an internal struggle, not to mention the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in places such as Europe. Whatever attempts that more religiously liberal Muslims make to harmonize their religion with the Western world are met with great opposition, delegitimization, Wahabi petrodollars, and coercive threats of violence and death. Until reforms can be made in the Islamic world, the fundamentalists who read the Qu'ran (القرآن) in the literal, fundamental sense are the mainstream. For anyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who is interested in having interfaith dialogue or an intellectually honest debate, one cannot simply brush these aforementioned facts under the rug or lob the pejorative term "Islamophobe" at someone simply for mentioning these facts. They would need to be addressed while having a holistic discussion on Islam because much like any other religion, the way Islam is practiced is not without its negative features.

Furthermore, as a Jew, it can be more difficult to appreciate the positive aspects of Islam that exist because the primary form of anti-Semitism that globally exists right now is Islamic in nature. Even so, let's use the great Jewish Torah scholar and philosopher, Maimonides, as an example of how to approach the topic. Maimonides was born in twelfth century Spain, during which he lived with a second-class dhimmi (ذمي) status. Once the Almohads conquered the area, Maimonides was forced to flee Spain. He was subsequently forced into conversion to Islam, but that conversion was later ruled as invalid because it was in violation of the precept in شريعة that prohibits forced conversions. In spite of all the Islamic oppression he faced, Maimonides was still able to say nice things about Islam, such as Islam is not idolatry and that Muslims will play an important role in engendering the Messianic era. It is in that spirit in which I have created this list of things I like about Islam:

1. Islam has a belief in one, Infinite G-d. The first of the Five Pillars of Islam contains the idea that G-d is Infinite Oneness. That means that unlike with my Christian friends, I don't have to refute the idea of a triune deity and explain why 1+1+1≠1. This belief would explain why Jewish law does not view Islam as idolatry.  
2. Giving alms. Much like with צדקה in Judaism, Zakat (زكاة), another one of the Pillars of Islam, is built around the idea of helping the less fortunate with their economic hardships. With צדקה, one gives ten percent of their income. What is interesting about زكاة is that although one is obligated to give 2.5 percent, that 2.5 percent comes from one's assets, not just one's income.     
3. Hospitality. Much like other Middle Eastern cultures (including that in Judaism), Islam has high regard for hospitality and taking care of guests. 
4. Muharram (المهرّم). This is the first month on the Islamic calendar. During the tenth day of this month, Muslims are supposed to fast to commemorate the victory of Moses and the Jewish people over the Pharaoh. Even though some religions view fasting in a negative light, Islam views it as a positive spiritual practice. 
5. Personal responsibility. Islam does not believe in vicarious atonement or being absolved from the consequences of one's actions. Much like in Judaism, Islam holds the belief that one is held accountable for one's thoughts, words, and deeds (Sura 99:6-8).
6. Lack of racism. Whether there are certain practitioners of Islam that are racist is one thing. The religion itself, however, is a different story. Say what you want about other forms of discrimination that exist in Islam; the Islamic religion is against racism (Sura 49:13).
7. Islamic Golden Age. While Christians were in cultural and civil stagnation during the Dark Ages (they did call them the Dark Ages for a reason), the Muslims were the pinnacle of civilization. Amongst the Islamic achievements during this time period were the creation of algebra and trigonometry, significant advances in astronomy and optics, and the preservation of the works of Greek philosophers that would have otherwise vanished.
8. Conversion process. In Judaism, you're turned away three times before you even begin with the conversion process. Even after that, the stringency that has been applied to the Jewish conversion process has taken a life of its own, and is well beyond the halachic minimum. This is not a problem in Islam, probably because it is a proselytizing religion. Once a prospective convert recites the declaration of faith (الشهادة), that individual is considered to be a Muslim.  
9. Arabic is its liturgical language. This feature is not directly related to the religion, but is rather a part of Islamic culture. I took some Arabic courses during my graduate school studies. The variety of phonemes, the three-letter roots in Arabic words, the writing style and calligraphy all make Arabic an aesthetically pleasing and linguistically intriguing language. 

Postscript: To be honest, I found writing this blog entry to be a challenge. Islam is a religion that can be and has been interpreted as hostile towards Jews and Judaism, which is all the more disconcerting considering how that has been put into practice throughout Islam's existence. When that level of animus is launched at you simply for existing, it's difficult to appreciate any of the positive aspects of Islam. However, a previous classmate of mine inspired me to transcend it, hence the impetus of this blog entry. Even though I'm not exactly going to hold my breath on this, I would hope that as time progresses, the Islamic community can tackle its internal challenges so that I can make this list longer in the future.

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

With all religious texts, one can find verses that are pleasant and others that insult our modern sensibilities. Islam is no exception. One can find loving verses in the Koran (2:256, 49:13), as well as verses of intolerance, violence, and bigotry, although the latter is significantly more prominent.

The question for us in the twenty-first century is whether we are able to condemn the religion of Islam itself based on the reprehensible actions of terrorists who motivated by a fundamentalist view of religion. After all, every religion has had practitioners, whether done on an intrapersonal level or by a governmental entity, that have committed morally egregious behavior in the name of religion. It could very well be that in this instance, the media is inaccurately condemning a religion based on a few bad apples.

Since I am part of a religion that has been the most misunderstood in human history, I really want to be able to give Islam the benefit of a doubt. Therefore, in order to adequately answer such a question, we need to do our best to take emotion out of the analysis in order to come to as objective of an answer as possible. Emotions that typically get in the way of discussion of this topic are bigotry of Muslims, a stalwart post-9-11 patriotism, and the über-tolerance stemming from political correctness that allows an individual to tolerate the intolerable. The advantage of being libertarian is that I do not succumb to any of the aforementioned forms of emotionalism that are commonly associated with the Right or the Left in regards to this topic. With that in mind, let us take the factors in consideration that will help us arrive at an answer to the question of whether Islam is really a religion of peace.

1) The Nature of the Koran. To analogize the Koran with the Torah or the Christian Bible is, at the very least, inaccurate. According to Islamic theology, the Koran is the inerrant, literal, eternal word of Allah passed from the angel Gabriel to Mohammed. How is this different from the other Abrahamic religions? Judaism has an interpretive tradition that does not merely explain its text in a literal sense, but also has figurative, mystical, and philosophical interpretations that have evolved over the centuries. Even Christians remind me that Jesus spoke in parables, thereby admitting that figurative language exists even in Christian Scripture. The Koran, however, is a literal and fundamentalist text, applying to all Muslims for all times.

2) Abrogation. The only exception to the "the mandate doesn't change" is with the exegetical concept of نسخ (abrogation). In Sura 2:106, it states that if a more recent revelation comes in the Koran, it nullifies the previous one. Although the notion that an infinite being would literally change their minds can come off as unusual, we nevertheless have to keep this in mind with the overall context of the Koran.

3) Chronology. Most fiction and historical non-fiction is chronological. We think to ourselves, "Since the Bible is chronological, the Koran must be, too." Not the case here! Although there is some debate as to the exact chronology of the Koran, it comes as a virtual consensus that the suras (chapters) from Mecca came before the verses in Medina (see here, here, and here).

4) History of Mohammed. Chronology and abrogation are key when we consider the history of Mohammed. The peaceful verses that moderate Muslims love to cite are in the verses of Mecca, which come in the earlier part of Mohammed's history when he had no power, riches, or any way to coerce people into his way of thinking. Around the time where he heads to Medina, which also marks the time in which Mohammed ascends to power, is when we see the violent verses arise. Chronologically speaking, the last two suras in Koranic revelation are Suras 5 and 9. This context gives us insight to what have to be considered the real intentions of Islam, since these last two suras encompass the last and most recent revelation given to Mohammed. What is troubling is that Suras 5 (see verse 51) and 9 are by far the most bigoted and violent chapters of the entire text. Sura 9 is worth mentioning, since many believe it to be one of the last Suras. Unlike the other suras, Sura 9 does not begin with the preamble of بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ (In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful), which is as troubling as it is telling. This is also the sura in which we see the call for a militaristic jihad (9:5, 25, 29, 73, 123), as opposed to the self-struggle that apologists discuss. In short, the principle of abrogation has rendered the peaceful verses nullified by the violent ones.

[Before I continue with my fifth point, I would like to make a point. Dennis Prager always said that he would not judge the religion itself, but only its practitioners. I cannot be as dismissive of what the Koran has to say since the Koran is the primary impetus for influencing Islamic culture, not to mention current international affairs. However, I will now focus on the practitioners themselves since they are interconnected with what we see in Islamic theology and jurisprudence.]

5) Islam Practiced Throughout History. I will admit that if I were a Jew living in the Medieval Ages and I had to choose between living in a Christian society and an Islamic one, it would be an Islamic one. That is not because it is such a utopia of tolerance, but because it was the lesser of two evils. Christendom gave Jews the choice of "convert or die." Islam at least provided Jews with the option of living in a subordinate, second class status called أهل الذمة. And in some instances, Jews were even able to climb somewhat up the social ladder. This, of course, was contingent upon the surrounding political climate, which is what drove the overall extent of oppression of the non-Muslim. I will direct you towards my previous blog entry on the topic, but it should go without saying that living in a pre-modern Islamic society was anything but a democratic, free society that was tolerant of people of all religions.

6) Islam Practiced Today. This is not a question of whether there are moderate Muslims. Of course there are! There's a reason is why a lot of the Muslims that moved to the West, and that was either because they wanted to get away from the authoritarian grip of theocracy or wanted to be able to practice a more moderate, Westernized version of their religion that better co-exists with its non-Muslim neighbors in peace and harmony.  It's not the microcosm of certain, honest Muslim individuals that worries me since individuals can live how they choose here in America.  It's about the global macrocosm, which is why I find it to be more intriguing to see how practice of Islam is in countries in which Muslims are the majority because then there cannot be any griping of any Islamaphobia, alleged or otherwise. This topic merits further detail, much further than I will be able to give here today, which is why I can foresee further elaboration in future blog entries. The point I want to drive home is that in these nations, the Shar'ia law that Mohammed instated is the same one that is practiced today. That means enacting such laws as that a woman's testimony is half of that of a man's (2:282), domestic abuse is acceptable (4:34), polygamy with up to four wives (4:3), punishing homosexuals (4:15-16), and amputation for theft (5:33). The fact that Muslim nations partake in actions commonly associated with ancient times should not shock us.  Going back to Point #1, the words in the Koran have no historical context because they are eternal and should be applied as such.  Therefore, the penalty for cutting off one's hand for theft is as applicable back in 622 C.E. as it is now.   

But what about Muslims in the West that want to co-exist? Taking a look at Europe right now, Islam cannot remain its status quo and expect to cultivate such a climate. Can Islam have a Reformation much like the Christians had a few hundred years back? It's possible. But to have a peaceful Islam would be such a radical departure from the orthodox Islam that has been practiced for centuries. Why? Because as hard as it is for certain Westerners to believe, fundamental Islam is mainstream Islam. Mohammed is considered to be the human being par excellence, at least from an Islamic viewpoint, and as such, is the human being to imitate. If one wants to be "a good Muslim," that entails imitating his violent and uncouth ways. Making Islam peaceful would violate the First Pillar of Islam, which is لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله ("there is none but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet") because based on the exegesis of abrogation, peace was superseded by violence.

What about Sufism? Sufism has been around since the last millennium.  It is considered by some to not be truly Islamic. And with being around for that length of time, you think that it would have mustered more influence if peace, tranquility, and tolerance were truly goals in Islam. But being a minority within the Muslim community, this seems dubious, especially since Sufism is the only sect teaching love and tolerance.

Conclusion: If Islam were currently a religion of peace, shouldn't it be self-evident?  Why do Muslims have to keep reminding us? Maybe it has to do something with the Koran.  Within its chronological context, it illustrates that it is not a peaceful text.  It might be its treatment of non-Muslims throughout history.  Or maybe the skepticism is based on the fact that out of 47 countries with a Muslim majority, with Indonesia as an exception, none of them are considered free.

Now, if Islam were to become tolerant and loving, it would need a serious re-vamping of Shar'ia law.  This would have to be done while ignoring centuries of Islamic practice and jurisprudence, which is tantamount to violating one of the Five Pillars of Islam.  If such reform were to happen, however, the extent of reform and standing up to the establishment would have to take place on a historically unprecedented level. Short of that, it would be safe to assume that Islam will continue with its overall status of being a religion that greatly encourages violence and intolerance.