Ahmad: Zohran Mamdani and How to Be a ‘Good’ Muslim in America

Good long read on Mamdani and being Muslim in America:

…But Muslims have been made to grin and bear it in America for more than two decades. Watching Mr. Mamdani stand unwaveringly in the face of a stream of anti-Muslim abuse is to witness the distillation of that dynamic in a single person. I’d be lying if I said I think his fate in this particular matter will improve over time. It is a certainty that Mr. Mamdani, if he wins the mayoralty, will have to contend with even more Islamophobic slurs, on a national scale.

In the face of this, it’s easy to become cynical, even as his popularity marks a moment of triumph for Muslims. Mr. Mamdani sees it differently.

“I used to be quite consumed by forever being a minority — of being an Indian in Uganda, Muslim in India, all of these things in New York City,” he said to me. It’s a sentiment he’s had to express often over the course of his campaign. It’s at once well rehearsed and heartfelt. “I remember my father telling me that to be a minority is also to see the truth of the place, to see promise and to see the contradictions of it.”

Mr. Mamdani finds hope in that tension.

“I was always left with a cleareyed sense of the world that I was in,” he said, “and how to ensure that the contradiction of that world didn’t leave you with a sense of bitterness.”

Meher Ahmad is an editor in the Opinion section.

Source: Zohran Mamdani and How to Be a ‘Good’ Muslim in America

André Pratte: Quebec prayer ban would render freedom of religion meaningless  

Good commentary but the police need to more willing to use the tools to remedy street blockages and enforce bubble zones:

…Yes, some of the demonstrations, tied as they are to the war in Gaza, are provocations. The demonstrators want to shock the public in the hopes of raising awareness to their cause. This is exactly the kind of unpopular behaviour that is protected by freedom of expression, as long as the demonstrators do not break the law, for instance by blocking traffic or intimidating others. If they cross those lines, the police already possess all the tools necessary to remedy the situation. An all-encompassing ban on prayers in public spaces is neither necessary nor reasonable.  

Separatist intellectual Mathieu Bock-Côté, who inspired many of the CAQ’s nationalist policies, wrote in Le Journal de Montréal that Islamic street players are “symbolic aggressions”: “We are talking about a conquering Islam, that is to say, an Islam shaped by Islamism and carried by waves of migration that are transforming the demographic composition of our societies.” However, Islamists are in no position to “transform the demographic composition” of Quebec, where Muslims represent a mere five per cent of the population, compared to 54 per cent for Catholics and 27 per cent for those who have no religion.   

For make no mistake: as with bill 21 banning the wearing of religious symbols by teachers, only one religion, Islam, is being targeted here. Other religious groups, including Catholics, have held ceremonies in public in Quebec for decades without anyone challenging their right to do so.   

The promised legislation will very probably violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. It is not yet known for certain if the Legault government will pre-emptively invoke the charters’ notwithstanding clause, but we do know that they have done so for two previous pieces of legislation, bill 21, already mentioned, and bill 96 strengthening the protection of the French language. This abuse of the notwithstanding clause is extremely serious, for in effect it deprives Quebecers of the right to challenge rights-infringing measures adopted by the state. Citizens are left with no means of defence, as if the charters did not exist. 

And so it is that Quebecers’ fundamental rights are being slowly but surely eroded. Sadly, that worrisome trend is met with an immense collective shrug.  

Source: André Pratte: Quebec prayer ban would render freedom of religion meaningless  

Rioux | Drôles de prières

When is a prayer a prayer, and when is it more a political event. Other examples would arguably include the Annual March for Life and telling that most Christian religious figures oppose the ban:

…La France a toujours résisté à la tentation de légiférer sur ces prières, consciente que la religion a toute sa place dans les lieux publics pourvu qu’elle ne gêne pas l’ordre public et que sa présence ne relève pas de la provocation. Il n’est pas besoin d’être diplômé en théologie pour savoir que, dans nos pays, la prière n’est pas un banal instrument d’agit-prop. Ce prosélytisme exacerbé est en contradiction avec nos traditions culturelles et le sens même de la prière, celle-ci étant généralement considérée comme un geste intime et personnel qui exige le recueillement et ne saurait donc être confondu avec des slogans militants hurlés par une foule hystérique. Comment s’étonner dès lors que, en s’exhibant ainsi sur la voie publique, ces hommes (car les femmes en sont exclues) provoquent des réactions de rejet ? Et, à plus forte raison, s’ils le font un dimanche devant une église !

Pour peu que l’on daigne sortir de sa bulle, on constatera que ces prières publiques sont aujourd’hui instrumentalisées aussi bien sur Downing Street que devant la porte de Brandebourg. Si l’idée de la laïcité est étrangère à l’islam, se pourrait-il que, comme le voile, ces prières soient une façon pour lui de marquer son territoire ?

L’idée n’est pas nouvelle. On ne compte plus les intellectuels qui, durant tout le XXe siècle, et même avant, ont démontré le caractère conquérant de l’islam. Admirateur de la richesse de la culture musulmane, l’islamologue français Roger Arnaldez fut un ami du grand écrivain égyptien Taha Hussein, l’un des artisans de la renaissance intellectuelle arabe (la Nahda). Il considérait que « la conquête est pour les musulmans un moyen normal, voulu et conduit par Dieu, pour répandre la foi dans les pays des infidèles ». Cette conquête n’est pas toujours le fait des armes, écrivait-il dès 1994, mais « d’une volonté non seulement de convertir des individus, ce qui est normal, mais de prendre pied et position dans la vie sociale et politique des pays de l’ancien Dar al-Harb [où l’islam n’a pas triomphé]. Il n’est plus alors question de djihad armé, moins encore de terrorisme, mais d’un projet de conquête insinueuse qui n’en est pas moins une conquête ».

Tout en reconnaissant que ces thèses pouvaient être contestées, l’islamologue membre de l’Académie des sciences morales et politiques de France jugeait que « l’Islam, par beaucoup de ses traits et par son histoire passée, pose des problèmes que ne pose aucune autre des grandes religions. Il en résulte qu’on doit, à son égard, rester très attentif et garder une attitude de grande prudence »….

Source: Chronique | Drôles de prières

Globe editorial: A premier goes out on wing and a prayer

Valid questions but some of the public prayers have been more political than spiritual in nature:

…It is already presumed that whatever law the government tables will infringe on an individual’s freedoms of expression, of religion, of conscience and of peaceful assembly, and then duck behind the notwithstanding clause. But how far will the government go?

What happens to a Quaker standing silently in a park? Is the government aware that this can constitute a form of prayer? Should the person be detained for questioning? 

What about someone doing yoga in a park? While yoga is generally a secular practice in Canada, it can for some be a devotional exercise and a communion with a higher power. How will the government know what intentions the person doing yoga al fresco has set?

What about doing tai chi in a park? It, too, is most often a secular, meditative practice in Canada. It is not a religion in and of itself, but it can be used as part of a spiritual journey by people of different faiths. Like yoga, it depends on intention.

What about Falun Gong, a modern religious movement devoted to a god-like leader that has been banned in China? Its practitioners are often seen outdoors in parks, and sometimes on sidewalks in front of Chinese consulates, their hands clasped in the prayer position. Will Beijing suddenly have an ally in the suppression of Falun Gong members? 

What about the annual Roman Catholic Good Friday procession in Old Montreal, an event involving public prayer? Will that still be allowed? It could make a secularist uncomfortable.

Or what about a soccer player who, smack in the middle of a public stadium, crosses himself before a game or when he scores a goal? Is that permissible?

If this seems ridiculous, it is no more ridiculous than the failing CAQ government taking a desperate swing at a divisive issue to save its skin.

How far Mr. Legault goes with this will be telling. Is it even possible to ban public prayer based on the actions of some Muslim protesters without also ensuring that people of other faiths and beliefs aren’t allowed to get away with the same infraction? 

Or is that the whole point – to again single out the one group that was most affected by Bill 21 and its ban on hijabs, and which has so often come under fire in Quebec?

Like yoga, it’s all about setting intentions. 

Source: A premier goes out on wing and a prayer

Brooks: The Rise of Right-Wing Nihilism

With the Trump administration arguably being the example, with its substantive weakening of public and private institutions, reversing long standing efforts to improve equality, and the consistent coarse nature of public discourse, enabled by normally more responsible Republicans, business and others:

…Other people, of course, don’t just cope; they rebel. That rebellion comes in two forms. The first is what I’ll call Christopher Rufo-style dismantling. Rufo is the right-wing activist who seeks to dismantle D.E.I. and other culturally progressive programs. I’m 23 years older than Rufo. When I was emerging from college, we conservatives thought we were conserving something — a group of cultural, intellectual and political traditions — from the postmodern assault.

But decades later, with the postmodern takeover fully institutionalized, people like Rufo don’t seem to think there’s anything to conserve. They are radical deconstructors. In a 2024 dialogue between Rufo and the polemicist Curtis Yarvin, published by the magazine IM-1776, Rufo acknowledged, “I am neither conservative by temperament nor by political ambition: I want to destroy the status quo rather than preserve it.” This is a key difference between old-style conservatism and Trumpism.

But there’s another, even more radical reaction to progressive cultural dominance: nihilism. You start with the premise that progressive ideas are false and then conclude that all ideas are false. In the dialogue, Yarvin played the role of nihilist. He ridiculed Rufo for accomplishing very little and for aiming at very little with his efforts to purge this university president or that one.

“You are just pruning the forest,” Yarvin said dismissively. He countered that everything must be destroyed: In general, Yarvin is a monarchist, but in this dialogue he played a pure nihilist. One version of nihilism holds that the structures of civilization must be destroyed, even if we don’t have anything to replace them with. He argued that all of America has been a sham, that democracy and everything that has come with it are based on lies.

The Rufo/Yarvin dialogue was sent to me by a friend named Skyler Adleta. Skyler had a rough childhood but has worked his way up to become an electrician and is now a project manager for a construction firm. He lives in southern Ohio, in a community that is mostly Trump-supporting. He himself generally supports the president. I know him because he is also a fantastic writer who contributes to Comment, the magazine my wife edits.

Skyler told me that in his community he is watching many people lose faith in the Rufo method and make the leap into pure nihilism, pure destruction. That is my experience, too. A few months ago, I had lunch with a young lady who said, “The difference is that in your generation you had something to believe in, but in ours we have nothing.” She didn’t say it bitterly, just as a straightforward acknowledgment of her worldview.

Faith in God has been on the decline for decades; so has social trust, faith in one another; so has faith in a dependable career path. A recent Gallup poll showed that faith in major American institutions is now near its lowest point in the 46 years Gallup has been measuring these things. But the core of nihilism is even more acidic; it is the loss of faith in the values your culture tells you to believe in.

As Skyler and I exchanged emails, I was reminded of an essay the great University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter wrote last year for The Hedgehog Review. He, too, identified nihilism as the central feature of contemporary culture: “A nihilistic culture is defined by the drive to destroy, by the will to power. And that definition now describes the American nation.”

He pointed to our culture’s pervasive demonization and fearmongering, with leaders feeling no need to negotiate with the other side, just decimate it. Nihilists, he continued, often suffer from wounded attachments — to people, community, the truth. They can’t give up their own sense of marginalization and woundedness because it would mean giving up their very identity. The only way to feel halfway decent is to smash things or at least talk about smashing them. They long for chaos.

Apparently, the F.B.I. now has a new category of terrorist — the “nihilistic violent extremist.” This is the person who doesn’t commit violence to advance any cause, just to destroy. Last year, Derek Thompson wrote an article for The Atlantic about online conspiracists who didn’t spread conspiracy theories only to hurt their political opponents. They spread them in all directions just to foment chaos. Thompson spoke with an expert who cited a famous line from “The Dark Knight”: “Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

This may be where history is leading. Smothering progressivism produced a populist reaction that eventually descended into a nihilist surge. Nihilism is a cultural river that leads nowhere good. Russian writers like Turgenev and Dostoyevsky wrote about rising nihilism in the 19th century, a trend that eventually contributed to the turmoil of the Russian Revolution. The scholar Erich Heller wrote a book called “The Disinherited Mind” about the rise in nihilism that plagued Germany and Central Europe after World War I. We saw what that led to.

It’s hard to turn this trend around. It’s hard enough to get people to believe something, but it’s really hard to get people to believe in belief — to persuade a nihilist that some things are true, beautiful and good.

One spot of good news is the fact that more young people, and especially young men, are returning to church. I’ve been skeptical of this trend, but the evidence is building. Among Gen Z, more young men now go to church than young women. In Britain, according to one study, only 4 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds went to church in 2018, but by 2024 it was 16 percent. From the anecdotes I keep hearing, young people seem to be going to the most countercultural churches — traditionalist Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

They don’t believe in what the establishment tells them to believe in. They live in a world in which many believe in nothing. But still, somewhere deep inside, that hunger is there. They want to have faith in something.

Source: The Rise of Right-Wing Nihilism

    Coren | Gaza has me thinking about my Christian and Jewish heritage and the urgent need to learn, listen and love

    Amen:

    The founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, was a deeply secular man who once believed that assimilation would defeat antisemitism. He changed his view when exposed to the Jew-hatred of the Dreyfuss trial, when a blameless Jewish French army officer was arrested and imprisoned, with the Roman Catholic Church at the forefront of the campaign.

    It took until the 20th century for systemic change, especially when churches were exposed to the horrors of the Holocaust. Today, I almost always experience sensitivity and understanding. Yet, just last month at a major gathering of Christians there was a large banner calling for solidarity with the “crucified Palestinian people.” Of all the words that could have been used to describe the appalling state of the Palestinians and their treatment by Israel, why the ugly accusation that has been thrown at Jews for centuries?

    All of us have to learn, listen, and ultimately love. It’s the only chance peace and justice have.

    Source: Opinion | Gaza has me thinking about my Christian and Jewish heritage and the urgent need to learn, listen and love

    French: Why a ‘Paleo-Confederate’ Pastor Is on the Rise

    Depressing:

    This should tell us that white evangelical support for Republicans is far more cultural and tribal than it is ideological or (certainly) theological. As Ryan Burge, one of the nation’s foremost statisticians of American religions, has said, white evangelicals “vote for Trump because white evangelicals are Republicans, and Donald Trump is the standard-bearer of the G.O.P.”

    As a practical matter, this reality puts the Republican nominee at the center of white evangelical politics. And if he wins, he instantly becomes the most influential political thinker in evangelical America, and his political ideology and temperament become the political ideology and temperament of millions of American evangelicals.

    When you live in evangelical America (especially in the South), you experience the sheer power of its culture up close. It’s theologically tolerant and politically intolerant. You can believe many different things about matters as important as baptism, salvation and the role of women in your denomination.

    But if you leave the Republican Party, much less publicly criticize Trump? Well, you’ll quickly find that political orthodoxy matters more than you could possibly imagine.

    Do you want to know the cultural and political future of American evangelicalism, including the cultural and political future of men like Wilson? When the white smoke rises from Super Tuesday, the Republican Party won’t just choose a new political leader, evangelicals will choose their next political pope, the single-most-influential person in the church.

    We should pray fervently that he or she is a better person than Donald Trump.

    Source: Why a ‘Paleo-Confederate’ Pastor Is on the Rise

    ICYMI – Urback: Did we really have to make this D-list MAGA singer famous in Canada?

    Yep:

    …But perhaps most irritating of all is that this totally unnecessary controversy has made a MAGA martyr of Sean Feucht: a man who was, and should’ve continued to be, mostly anonymous – a D-list celebrity, if that, in Canada. It is irritating that many of us now know how to pronounce his name; irritating that he has accidentally stumbled upon the type of mainstream attention his brand of worship rock could have never organically drawn; irritating that there will be more eyes on his Pride month posts about the “agenda seeking to destroy our culture and pervert our children.” And irritating that those who value and understand the rights protected by our Charter – of free speech, and free assembly, and freedom from discrimination – have to defend this guy’s rights, even if they loathe what he’s saying. 

    Had licensing officials politely shut down the minority of protesters who knew of Mr. Feucht’s existence and objected to his performances, the majority of us could have continued to exist in blissful ignorance, and Mr. Feucht would’ve soon returned to his long list of other grievances. Instead, they’ve set a terrible new precedent for access to public spaces, while inadvertently forcing the rest of us to give him what he clearly desires most: attention.

    Source: Did we really have to make this D-list MAGA singer famous in Canada?

    Hate crimes 2024

    My latest analysis of the data, 2008-24. This year I have broken the data into three periods: Harper government, Trudeau government pre-pandemic, and Trudeau government post-pandemic and the ongoing increases save for anti-Muslim hate crimes post-pandemic.

    The two key comparison slides are below:

    StatsCan link: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2023026-eng.htm?utm_source=mstatcan&utm_medium=eml&utm_campaign=statcan-statcan-mstatcan

    French: Christian Cancel Culture Strikes Again

    Good take:

    …Yes, there is hypocrisy here. It’s a bit much to hear that it’s vitally important for Chip and Joanna Gaines to reject two gay dads (and their children!) from Christians who are also all in on Donald Trump. A gay couple on reality television is a bridge too far, but supporting a thrice-married man who was featured on the cover of Playboy magazine and was once good friends with Jeffrey Epstein is not?

    But in another way, they’re not hypocrites at all: They’re budding authoritarians, and for authoritarians, a principle like “tolerance for me and not for thee” is entirely consistent. Authoritarians, after all, are supposed to rule.

    When you possess a burning sense of certainty in your moral vision, intolerance is always a temptation. If you give your opponents a platform, won’t that lead some people astray? If error creates injustice (or worse, leads people to the gates of hell), why should error have any rights?

    Think of the sense of entitlement here. On one hand, evangelicals say, “How dare you discriminate against us in the workplace,” and then turn around and tell a fellow evangelical couple, “You’re betraying us unless you discriminate against gay men at your job.” Evangelicals aren’t a superior class of citizen. We don’t get to enjoy protection from discrimination and the right to discriminate at the same time.

    In times of religious and political conflict, I turn to two very different historic figures — the Apostle Paul and James Madison. In what might be some of the most ignored verses in the New Testament, Paul warned early Christians against imposing the same moral standards on those outside the church as those inside.

    “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people,” Paul said in 1 Corinthians, “not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.”

    “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?” Paul asks. “Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked person from among you.’”

    One of the fundamental problems with the American evangelical church is that it so often gets that equation exactly backward. It is remarkably permissive of abusive Christian individuals and institutions — especially if those individuals or institutions are powerful or influential — even as it can be remarkably hostile toward those people outside the church.

    Evangelicals then compound the problem by viewing with deep suspicion and mistrust those people who blow the whistle on church misconduct while revering those people who are “bold” and “brave” enough to focus their fire on everyone else.

    Paul’s words represent basic Christianity. Jesus himself admonished his disciples to remove the planks from their own eyes before trying to remove the “speck of sawdust” from someone else’s, and he warned that “you will be judged by the same standard with which you judge others.”

    This doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t make moral judgments, but rather that we should do so with extreme humility, focusing on addressing our own flaws first.

    But that’s a command to believing Christians. How should we all deal with disagreement on fundamental matters?

    In Federalist No. 10, Madison wrestled with the question of how to create a lasting republic that would invariably include a broad range of competing factions. It’s easy for us to look back at the founding and dismiss its diversity by comparison to our own. After all, the founders were mainly a collection of relatively privileged Protestant white men.

    That statement is true, but incomplete. Early America was remarkably diverse by the standards of the day. The religious complexity of early America was its own small miracle. When Europe encountered similar divisions, it descended into the Wars of Religion and drenched itself in blood.

    The Wars of Religion are ancient history to us, but they were much more present in the Colonial era. The Wars of Religion were as recent to James Madison as World War I is to us, and they were destructive on a vast scale. The challenge of genuine religious diversity was very much on the founders’ minds.

    How do you live in a pluralistic republic without abandoning your core convictions? Madison admonished us not to yield to two related temptations. Don’t try to diminish liberty and don’t try to establish uniformity of opinion.

    Instead, he said, the answer was to “extend the sphere” of the republic, to “take in a greater variety of parties and interests.” In this circumstance, “you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens.”

    The sphere of the American republic extends to conservative evangelicals and to gay dads. It includes people who believe every word of the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and those who think it’s no more credible than a comic book. One of the beauties of our culture at its best is that no side of the American divide has to abandon any of its core convictions to enter the public square or to engage in the stream of American commerce….

    Source: Christian Cancel Culture Strikes Again