Hi, this is anan. Omar invited me to post at Brown Pundits. I am deeply honoured [Queens English spelling versus US spelling] to participate in this community, which I have read since its inception. If it is okay with all of you, I would like to write a series of articles on why nonmuslims treat muslims so badly. Please watch this video on how the UK mistreats UK muslims:
UK statistics on honor crimes are from the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service]:
- “honour” based violence includes forced marriage and FGM reported to the police
- However, despite the rise in reporting, the volume of cases referred to the CPS for a charging decision is the lowest it has been for five years.
- The number of “honour” crimes reported to the police increased from 3,335 in 2014 to 5,595 in 2015 – a rise of 68%, according to data collected by the charity from every police force in the country.
- The number of reports dropped slightly to 5,105 in 2016.
- However, the latest figures published by the CPS show only 256 “honour” crimes were referred to the organisation by police in 2016/17 – just 5% of the cases reported over a similar period.
- The 256 referrals resulted in 215 prosecutions and a subsequent 122 convictions.
- a man was to be charged for FGM, following an investigation by the Metropolitan police. If the prosecution is successful it would mean the first British conviction for FGM since the practice was outlawed in 1985.
- Insp Allen Davis who leads Project Azure, the Met’s response to FGM, said: “These are hidden crimes and police data is never going to reflect the true scale of the problem. The data is really useful for shining a light on this complex area but it needs to be taken in context.
- “For example, with FGM, we get a lot of reports where a child may be at risk but it doesn’t necessarily mean a crime has occurred. It will be counted as a police report but the response may involve obtaining a protection order.”
From other crime reports, honour [Queens English spelling versus American spelling] crimes against young muslim females are prosecuted at a much lower rate than other types of crime in the UK. I don’t understand why this is. Is it because of widespread bigotry, sectarianism and racism in UK society? A sense that young female UK muslims “deserve it”? What am I missing?
I think society should bend over backwards to be respectful of muslim culture and religion. For example, if a patriotic UK muslim family wants to nonviolently punish their minor daughter for what they see as inappropriate conduct; they have the right to do so. Any UK muslim family can ask their relative who is 18 or older to leave their house and excommunicate her. What is illegal is to use violence. What is wrong is not to give young UK muslim females the same legal protection and help that non muslim UK females get. What is wrong is to treat muslims worse and differently than nonmuslims.
I believe that when nonmuslims fail to protect muslims from Islamists, this hurts not just muslims, but all nonmuslims too. This makes muslims afraid of Islamists and resentful of unequal treatment by nonmuslims. Which in turn ends freedom of speech for muslims and kills dialogue with Islamists, since muslims are afraid that they won’t be protected from Islamist violence. I believe that dialogue with extremists is the only way to ameliorate Islamism. For dialogue to happen, those who engage in dialogue need to be protected. And that starts by protecting vulnerable young muslim females from “honour” [Queens English spelling versus American spelling] violence. Muslim families and communities have the right to engage in “honour” social ostracization, but don’t have the legal right to engage in “honour” violence.
To be clear FGM is a complex issue. I don’t think that male circumcision should be banned, and perhaps that logic might apply to some very light forms of FGM to accommodate muslim culture. But most FGM is far more dangerous and intrusive than male circumcision. Global society needs an open and honest discussion about FGM and what to do about it; including banning very dangerous types of FGM.
The UK isn’t the only country that mistreats her muslims. The same is true for many other countries around the world, which might be the subject of future articles.
My views on this and most other things are not set in stone and I am open to changing them based on new information. Please let me know the many things I am missing or misunderstanding.
Thanks again for letting me be a part of the Brown Pundit community.
21 thoughts on “Why nonmuslims treat muslims so badly?”
I found this a confusing mishmash.
““I think society should bend over backwards to be respectful of muslim culture and religion.””–
In what way is society not respecting Muslim culture? All cultures should be respected? or only Muslim culture requires this bending over backwards?
Only example given is “” For example, if a patriotic UK muslim family wants to nonviolently punish their minor daughter for what they see as inappropriate conduct; they have the right to do so.””
Again why this restriction of patriotic Muslim family? What has patriotism got to do with this.
I think the issue is of human rights. All citizens should be treated alike by police. Does not matter if honor killing or FGM has got acceptance in some circles. If they are a crime, they should be treated as such.
“” I believe that when nonmuslims fail to protect muslims from Islamists, this hurts not just muslims, but all nonmuslims too. This makes muslims afraid of Islamists and resentful of unequal treatment by nonmuslims.””
Non-muslims are not doing a great job of protecting themselves from Islamists. It is the job of everybody (Muslim and non-muslim together). Why blame only the nonmuslims and absolve Muslims of this responsibility?
But this issue is different from other cultural issues.
“In what way is society not respecting Muslim culture?” Through the condescending pretentious bigotry of low expectations. By not treating muslims the same as nonmuslims (including by not spoofing and making fun of muslims the way nonmuslims are made fun of). By not protecting muslims from Islamists.
“or only Muslim culture requires this bending over backwards?” There needs to be a gradual transition to treating muslims the same as nonmuslims.
“Again why this restriction of patriotic Muslim family? What has patriotism got to do with this.” You are correct. Was trying to emphasize that most muslim UK families are highly patriotic. Patriotism is one of the reasons they moved to the UK in the first place.
“I think the issue is of human rights.” Correct.
“Non-muslims are not doing a great job of protecting themselves from Islamists.” True. Much of this is because of non-muslim stupidity and incompetence. The way to protect non-muslims from Islamists is to protect muslims from Islamists. Then non-muslims will be automatically protected from Islamists.
Welcome to BP Anan
“I think society should bend over backwards to be respectful of muslim culture and religion.”
Haha, sure! Would they like fries with that?
There is very little that’s worth respect in *any* religion, let alone in the rants of medieval Arab cattle-herders.
Next we know Hindu fundos asking for cows to be used as currency, Christian bigots banning blasphemous speech etc. Where will the bending over backwards in front of medieval morals stop?
Slapstik, thanks for sharing your wisdom; I look forward to learning more from you.
Is it possible that ancient civilizations (such as ancient China, ancient Crete, ancient Egypt, ancient Ethiopian, ancient Sumeria, ancient Vedic Aryan) had great wisdom and knowledge of various kinds? If so, shouldn’t we study what they knew with great respect and an open mind; so that we may learn from them? Can we strive for the blended wisdom of what was best in the ancient world and what is best from the modern world; while rejecting the worst parts of the ancient world?
Some things are true even if medival Arab cattle-herders believed them. And some things are not true even if medival Arab cattle-herders believed them. There is great wisdom and beauty in parts of the Koran; and parts of the Koran that I am not wise enough to understand . . . or parts that shouldn’t be “literally” enforced over humans today; especially if Islamists are doing the interpreting.
Hindus have a deep emotional and spiritual love and attachment to cows, much the way some westerners have for their pet dogs and cats or all of us have for human children.
Since 1947 many Indians have proposed a combined ban on both pork and beef as a way to respect both Muslims and Hindus. Many great Indian Muslims and Hindu leaders have favored this. However there is no chance these ideas will be implemented since beef eating has become so widespread among Hindus; and because PM Modi and the BJP oppose a Pork/Beef ban.
I don’t know nearly as much as you, Slapstik, but I think that perhaps there is much to respect in every religion. At the same time all of us have the right to strongly and respectfully disagree with parts of all religions.
Please as always correct my many misunderstandings.
Thank you for the reply. There are a lot of things I disagree with what you’ve written above, but responding in the comment section is a little too cumbersome – so I may add a post with my response. Quite busy with year-end work, so may take a little while.
In the ancient and medieval worlds life for most people was only a tad better than animals-economically socially and politically.
I suspect that the ‘wisdom’ handed out to us -now- as ancient wisdom has actually been refined glorified and romanticized by the subsequent generations. Any wisdom purported to be 5000 years old must of necessity been transmitted thru smriti ( memory) and shruti (hearing). And we know what that does.
And then most writing was organised by Kings ( most of them ran ‘protection rackets’ anyways) who of necessity had to be glorified.
Maajid Nawaz explains how the bigotry of low expectations significantly harm muslims:
Is the bigotry of low expectations really veiled institutionalized racism, bigotry and sectarianism?
“A living being wants above all else to release its strength; life itself is the will to power.”
So wrote Nietzsche in his Beyond Good and Evil. You claim that Muslims are somehow mysteriously deficient in this will which causes them to let the expectations of others define their desires?
“You claim that Muslims are somehow mysteriously deficient in this will which causes them to let the expectations of others define their desires?” Perceptive point. Brown Pundit has remarkable readers.
Some muslims (obviously not all) do give far too much power to pretentious condescending bigoted nonmuslims who claim to care about muslims. If only humans understood the transcendental greatness inside all of us. Sigh. 🙁
Am thinking about writing another article about how nonmuslims treat muslims so badly which directly addresses the point you made S3. Too often nonmuslims quietly allow or condone Islamist violence against muslims. It is hard for individual muslims to defend themselves from Islamists; and muslims clearly have a collective action challenge in protecting themselves from Islamists.
Quillium (one of the largest muslim advocacy organizations in Europe . . . albeit with a branch in New York) has suggested a plan for England to fight extremism. In that plan they request that England track all 23 K potential Jihadis. They also demand that England fully investigate all muslim on muslim crime in the UK (only a very small fraction are fully investigated now). One reason for this demand is that England might have a lot of veiled islamist against muslim violence; and carefully investigating all muslim on muslim crime would sharply improve the safety of muslims; and maybe restore freedom of speech for UK muslims. I am of the view (and for that matter many are of the view) that protecting muslims from Islamists would result in a torrent of muslims saying what they think in public . . . and engaging in dialogue with Islamists. This is how extremism dies.
// Too often nonmuslims quietly allow or condone Islamist violence against muslims. //
That is indeed true, but a result of cultural relativism (often touted as enlightened non-interference) prevalent in mainly Western societies.
It is a very post-colonial notion whereby your garden variety left-liberal thinks that social/political morals are subjective. E.g. treating women as subservient, asking them to veil themselves etc in one culture cannot be, even in principle, compared to treatment of women in another. So what’s good for Western women (equality of pay, say in whom they choose to marry or not, what they wear etc) may not necessarily be good for Arabs or Pakistanis etc.
That (otherwise well-intentioned) “racism” of low expectations, as Maajid Nawaz beautifully puts it, is the root of what you’re describing. The only way to solve is to
a) posit that Western Enlightenment values aren’t merely different but *superior*
b) they are universally applicable standards, i.e. objective, not subjective. Therefore the behaviour of an Arab Muslim in Palestine, a Hindu Rajput in Rajasthan, and a Christian Englishman in the UK must be judged by the same standards.
I didn’t think it was a “mishmash” at all. Your thoughts were coherent. It’s interesting how many readers didn’t pick up on your approach and seem to believe that you were advocating appeasing Muslims… and therefore Islamists.
What you’re describing is equal protection under the law and equal application of the law. This has three parts that I’d like to acknowledge; intramural violence, hate speech (illegal in the UK) and low expectations.
First, honor killings and FGM are domestic violence. It should be intensely investigated and prosecuted. For every external societal norm that clashes with our civilization, there is a process of bringing immigrants into compliance with law. Simply put, “That practice is incompatible with our society and will not be permitted nor tolerated here.” Regardless of who the victim or perpetrator are, violations will be thoroughly investigated and, if violence is found, prosecuted.
Second, if hate speech is illegal, it must not be allowed in either direction, even if it is cloaked in religion. If an Imam preaches hate, he gets the same treatment as a white nationalist. It must not be tolerated out of some misplaced sensitivity. That said, I do not believe that hate speech… or any speech… should be illegal. But if it’s going to be illegal, it must be illegal for all.
Lastly, young Muslim women deserve the same protections a white Protestant woman receives. If she is a victim of violence or unlawful coercion, that is against the law. Protect her. Giving less protection under the law is demonstrating both low expectations and fear of offending Islamists who complain vociferously when any enforcement is felt to interfere with what they want to do.
The only thing that stops the subtle expressions… underhanded bigotry, lowered expectations, and other manifestations… is evolution. Society evolves and subsumes. It absorbs, over time, the different. Different becomes normal, and at the same time it gives up part of its difference. Like our melting pot, or the Roman Empire. Absorption changes both components; the water and the sponge.
Ethnic or religious minorities… immigrants… often contain constituencies who resist absorption to some degree. They don’t want to forget their heritage, their language, certain religious expressions. Understandable. Futile.
This resistance will be noted by many and feel threatening to a few. Over time, the absorption happens and both sides are changed by it. Language fades in a couple of generations. Religious expression adapts and at the same time becomes more “normal.” Clothing, mannerisms, accents all normalize in one way or another. Sometimes, society adopts practices. Sometimes, the new arrivals change to the local norm. It takes time, and it is often bumpy. It takes time. Sometimes a long time (2-3 generations) in human terms. But it happens. “Hate speech” is just a part of that, the same as resistance to absorption and the corresponding “loss” of the culture of the country/society of origin. They are opposite sides of the same coin, and are nothing new.
The one thing that must not change is the law and the application of that law. No society should fail to apply the law equally, whether to avoid offending or due to some misplaced “sensitivity” to archaic practices that happen to be violent. Creating special or protected classes simply interferes with the natural evolution of absorption.
You’ve handled objections and counterarguments gracefully. Well done. Thanks for the post!
This is a must see video of a Norwegian muslim–Deeyah Khan–who suffered many attacks and death treats from Islamists:
Nonmuslims in Norway, UK and Europe have long supported Islamists against muslims. Nonmuslims Europeans and European police often refuse to protect European muslims from Islamist threats and violence. European muslims lack freedom of speech, freedom of art, freedom of music, freedom of creativity, freedom of thought, freedom of intuition and freedom of feeling. Non muslim Europeans need to be strongly condemned for their anti muslim perfidy. Deeyah Khan interviews many European Islamists in an attempt to understand them and reach out to them. Free speech and dialogue with Islamists is how Islamism slowly dies and Deeyah Khan is a leader in dialogue with extremists.
Another must see video is by Karima Bennoune:
Karima’s family was attacked by Islamists in Algeria in the early 1990s and has been a leader of muslim reform and dialogue with extremists ever since. She describes many ways that nonmuslims refuse to help muslims when muslims are harmed by Islamists. Karima Bennoune is one of many female muslim American heroes.
Why do most nonmuslims refuse to help muslims targeted by Islamists? This is a sincere question. I don’t understand.
““Man who beat wife said he didn’t know it was against law,” read a recent headline in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal.
The man – Mohamad Rafia, a Syrian refugee – didn’t just beat his wife, he beat her with a hockey stick. For half an hour.
Rafia told a Fredericton court that he didn’t know it was a crime in Canada to beat your wife with a hockey stick for half an hour.
Following the attack, Rafia’s wife was taken to a local hospital and initially lied to protect her husband. She later revealed that he beat her with a hockey stick – for half an hour – pulled her hair, hit her in the face and threatened to kill her.
Rafia was charged and pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats. He was sentenced to eight days in jail and one year of probation.
This shocking and disturbing story failed to make national media, but the Telegraph Journal provides the startling details.
Rafia was a privately sponsored refugee who arrived in Canada more than 14 months ago with his wife and children. He spoke to the court in Arabic and his testimony was translated through an interpreter.
“He was not aware of the law and he was coming from a background where the laws are completely different,” said the interpreter.
“Officials didn’t inform him of the differences in the law in Canada and that more should have been done to educate him,” said the interpreter. “Why didn’t they explain the law?”
. . .
Not only did these Syrian refugees claim to not know it was a crime for a man to hit his wife with a hockey stick, they also defended the abuse and tried to direct blame onto Canadian officials.
Worse is the fact that this wife-beater got away with his crime, and was given a mere slap on the wrist by the Canadian court.
In similar cases, a foreign criminal like Rafia would face deportation. In this instance, however, because he’s a Syrian refugee and because Canada doesn’t deport people to unsafe countries, we’re stuck with this foreign criminal.
. . .
Also outrageous is the fact that after having lived in Canada for almost a year and a half, it appears that Mohamed Rafia still doesn’t speak enough English to be able to say: “I didn’t know this was a crime.”
For 15 months, Canadian taxpayers have paid for Rafia to receive free English classes, on top of gold-plated healthcare and welfare benefits, so he can try to fit into Canadian society.”
The failure of nonmuslims to protect muslim woman from large scale Islamist [meaning Islamist interpretation of Islam versus reasonable muslim interpretation] violence is a crime against humanity and anti muslim bigotry.
There is zero excuse for this sectarian misbehavior.
To bend over backwards, a case can be made that the US and Canada have over criminalized minor physical altercations between spouses in the “heat of the moment”. Beating a woman close to death for half an hour with a hockey stick doesn’t remotely qualify, even in an alternate dimension. All laws for nonmuslims should apply equally to muslims, period.
Assault is Assault period.
But the guy quite possibly did not understand that you can’t beat your wife in Canada. Someone did need to tell him that basic fact.
Still not justifying “Islam” here. Though you should have seen how the Haryanvi guy on the TV show “Maryada: Lekin Kab Tak” treated his wife. Not pretty. And they were very much Hindu.
Kabir it has been many years since I have seen a significant quantity of Bollywood or Hindustani TV shows and I defer to your judgement.
Kabir, this wasn’t a man slapping his wife once in the heat of emotion–which even of itself is haram in the Koran. This beating was clearly in violation of anything Muhammed pbuh or major Sunni and twelver schools of jurisprudence would approve. I don’t agree with conservative muslims on some things; but they don’t beat a woman half to death with a hockey stick for 30 minutes. I think this farce of a judge should be ashamed of himself. I see it as anti muslim bigotry plain and simple. How dare this judge allow the implication that large numbers of reasonable muslims believe this kind of craziness is in some way acceptable.
Muhammed pbuh did not like beating wives–especially out of anger. Muhammed pbuh said that a husband should very lovingly and gently try to coax their wife not to misbehave several times. And only as the last resort use physical force–but implicitly then too not in anger. I think Islamists have misused this verse. Muhammed pbuh might have been referring to a specific extreme situation (for example a wife who was hurting other people, maybe violently) and not all woman for all eternity.
For the record I don’t think husbands should ever intentionally violently harm their wives. Even in extreme situations (for example a chemical brain violent mood swing that is dangerous to the people around the wife) a husband should try to temporarily lovingly physically restrain his wife from harming others until help can arrive to the degree he safely can. Obviously husbands have the right of self defense in extreme circumstances [by some estimates 40% of all American spousal beating is the wife beating the husband.]
No one should ever intentionally beat anyone. Marriage has nothing to do with it.
For the record, I think this had more to do with the culture the man came from than his religion. But again domestic violence is not simply a Muslim problem. The US is not a Muslim country and there are many cases of husbands beating their wives, shooting them with guns etc.
“Maryada: Lekin Kab Tak” featured a Haryanvi Jatt Police inspector carrying on an affair with his wife’s sister right in front of his wife. Should I blame “Hinduism” for that? If not, than don’t blame “Islam” for the actions of some Syrian refugees.
Kabir, every country has jerks who beat their spouses. About 25%-40% are woman. About 60%-75% are men.
I am not blaming Syria or Islam.
I am blaming the presumably nonmuslim Judge for engaging in anti muslim bigotry. The judge should treat this case like any other and not imply that this kind of beating might be acceptable in Sunni Islam or Syrian culture. The Judge’s behavior is insulting towards muslims.
I have actual disagreements with conservative Sunnis; but not over this. This kind of nonsensical anti muslim bigotry must stop so that we can deal with real issues.
I suspect this is an area of agreement between us and most of the brown pundit crowd.
This Iraqi second generation femnist is outraged about honor violence and FGM in America and how many American nonmuslims refuse to help muslim American females. Many American muslim girls and woman are beaten for being too “western”. She is also saddened about the way nonmuslim American woman intersectional femnists wear hijabs in “solidarity” during women’s rallies . . . which leads to an anti American backlash among muslim woman who live in the muslim world. She is also saddened that American femnists refuse to support the rights and dignity of muslim woman.
She was sent to a “Wahhabi” school in America to teach her values when she was 13. Some of the things she was taught were disgusting. Fortunately her parents believed her and her parents–who were very educated in the Islam–let her quit. Most American muslims are very afraid of Wahhabis but are afraid to defy the Wahhabi American mosques.
She also doesn’t like marxists since she believes that capitalism gives opportunity and freedom of muslim woman.
Personally I am one of the people she was complaining about that think American honor violence and FGM are not common (compared to Europe, Canada, Australia and the muslim world), but I might be wrong.
Comments are closed.