Professor Raphael Israeli of Hebrew University recently caused a stir in Australia when he asserted that “”When the Muslim population gets to a critical mass you have problems. That is a general rule, so if it applies everywhere it applies in Australia.”
It’s an observation based on his own research, so bears attention. I wrote an opinion piece for the Daily Telegraph, a local Sydney newspaper.
6 comments:
Like Turkey for example. Now there's a nation that has a critical mass of Muslims and they deny people religious rights - like laws preventing women from wearing headscarves in school (just like France! Shock! Horror!)
(/sarcasm)
I think it may have something to do with poverty as well.
I thought was a great article, GC, though I am interested you chose this issue.
Just a small nit to pick: I have noticed that you tend to drop in 'Jesus died for their sins' in everything you write as a kind of formula. Could you be more creative/various in the way you get this accross? Isn't there a lot more to say? Doesn't this phrase need a heck of lot of unpacking?
Hey Mike.
I chose the issue because I heard Rafael Israeli speak on Virginia Trioli and it sounded quite different from the comments that had been made in other places, which annoyed me. For better or for worse, I write better when annoyed, which probably explains a lot.
Fair nit to pick. "Jesus died for sins" is shorthand for all sorts of things, and I should try for other ways to express the heart of the gospel. Actually, I am more likely to mention the resurrection than I am the death, if I can think of a way to smuggle it in.
Thoughts and suggestions welcome from all readers!
A few observations if I may:
(1) The Muslim population in Australia, or even in Sydney, is nowhere near the 10 percent threshhold that Israeli speaks about.
(2) Correlation often seems to be confused with causation. Is it really the Islamic population that cause civil unrest? Could it possibly be that the general population is intolerant of the Islamic population and take steps to marginalise them, thus creating social dislocation and other problems.
(3) Why do you seem to limit the locus of violence to mere physical force? It would seem to make sense to take into account violence in all of its guises when determining precisely how fundamentalist (or fanatic - whatever gets you going) groups respond to those who disagree with their respective orthodoxies.
(4) You seem to totally neglect the history of Christian responses to those who disagree with them. Perhaps it might be helpful to start with the ever tolerant John Calvin's treatment of Servetus.
I think the best "cure" is wealth and secularism. Muslims who experience both of these are, I believe, less likely to exhibit militant fundamentalism.
Really, oso?
Haven't the most effective recent terrorists been both wealthy and exposed to secularism?
A number of the 9/11 bombers seem to have had Western education, including flying lessons. Osama b-L comes from a billionaire Saud family. The bombers in the UK from a couple of years ago were Western educated.
The reasons why someone goes from peaceable Muslim to terrorist Muslim (or peaceable anything to terrorist) are tricky to work out.
Post a Comment