According to the Guardian (so keep the salt shaker handy), the British government is considering a new set of criteria for identifying Islamic supremacists:
According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:
• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.
• They promote Sharia law.
• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.
• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.
While I suspect that the only consequence of the “extremist” label will be increased welfare benefits, there’s much to be said for singling out mullahs whose principal message is hatred of Western civilization. Four of the five markers look eminently reasonable. Believers in a pan-Islamic caliphate, the importation of Moslem law into Western lands, jihad or attacks on British troops are clearly enemies of Her Majesty.
But what elevates opposition to homosexuality to that level? “Calls for violence against homosexuals” would be a sign of extremism, no doubt, but is it equally pernicious to argue that homosexual acts are morally blameworthy? And is a negative attitude toward them a surer sign of extremism than approval of forced cousin marriages, “honor” killings or wife beating?
Good point. And any neutral observer would have to agree that Islam, like Christianity, says homosexuality is sinful. This is simply a matter of fact, not a value judgement. To say otherwise is like saying that it is horrible for anyone to say that the Republican position is that you should have voted against Obama. It may be a shocking position, but Republicans actually believe it!
Posted by: Eric Rasmusen | Sunday, March 01, 2009 at 07:57 PM