Link back to comment

My post was edited for clarity, there was no change at all to the point I was making and my critique of Peter's central notion of "civilisational challenge" has been at the heart of what I've written in this thread. My post pointed to the long lineage of this "civilisational challenge" alarmism and it's troubling origins. I suppose editing for clarity is just another one of those morally rotten things progressives do but it seems pretty mundane to me.

While it's not essential to the debate on this thread I do recommend reading Pankaj Mishra's article, it's a superb demolition of Ferguson. In the follow-up letters (placed after the end of the article) Ferguson alleges "character assassination" and absurdly threatens defamation actions against Mishra and the LRB. Needless to say this did not happen but it is academic fight theatrics at its finest. Here's the link: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v33/n21/pankaj-mishra/watch-this-man

Peter has made much of me not joining him in discussing various crimes Muslims have committed and has convinced himself that I'm a heartless bastard. But my response has always been very clear: show that the level of crime committed by Muslims is of a different order of magnitude to any comparable group and social class in our society. If you can show that we have something to discuss but, if not, this singular focus is just bigotry. I suppose one path would have been to tot up and compare the crimes of the various Catholic and Muslim clergies but that seems pretty unproductive.

FGM is a serious problem that is most prevalent within Islamic communities, but also within some other religious communities, and is entirely prohibited in Western countries. In Britain a small percentage of Muslim girls are disfigured in this way and only a small minority of Muslims support it. it seems likely that the vast majority of British Muslims who want to see it eliminated will prevail, aided by government public health education campaigns and legal sanctions. It obviously has no prospect of becoming legal and it's absurd to consider it part of a "civilisational challenge".

It's better considered as a health matter that can be dealt with by respectful dialogue with faith leaders in the small sections of the Muslim community where it occurs combined with public health action and education, and policing and legal measures. In other words we deal with it in a primarily 'public health' way, similar to the way we deal with culturally-induced public health problems in 'white' society, such as drug abuse. It won't be solved by anti-Islam hysteria, inciting Islamaphobia, and generalised vilification; just as drug abuse is not effectively dealt with by drug hysteria, wars on drugs and all the associated vilification.

If Peter thinks critiquing his views is intolerance of his differing opinions then he should not post them in a public forum, where they are explicitly put up for debate. If he views the philosophy forum as a personal plaything, a place to air his self-congratulatory 'free-thinking' views without vigorous challenge, then he should say so.

If he persists in saying that if 'Muslim invasions' "are allowed to roll on unimpeded, we are likely to see a transformation in European civilization that is profound, irrevocable and very much for the worse" then he can expect that to be described as pretentious and pompous bigotry which has dangerous repercussions for our society, and Muslims in particular, if enough people were minded to take this silliness seriously. I'm interested in ensuring that as few people as possible do take this tosh seriously, that's why I've taken the time to vigorously critique it.