Placating the Muslim Mobs

Christians in India suffer the effects of the acts of individual Americans, reports the leader of a mission agency , who said Muslim mobs in India destroyed a church and a school in response to the burning of the Koran in Michigan.

Although things appear to have settled down now, the incident reveals a deeper problem. “Mob violence by Muslims against Christians is quite unusual in India,” says Stravers [Dave Stravers of Mission India], “and it shows the depth of reaction against these very unchristian actions,” which could mean provocation won’t take much.

I wonder about this. The idea that Muslims in places like India react violently to gestures, and don’t understand that the actions of a lone American have nothing to do with the Christians in their village, fits a stereotype. They lack, we like to think, our sophistication and our ability to restrain ourselves. We have to treat them like emotionally-imbalanced children, and walk softly and talk in whispers, and it’s our fault if we send them into a rage. It’s a flattering stereotype, to us, and fits a broader western stereotype of religious people in general.

But as I say, I wonder. As an e-mail friend, Joe Long, wrote after another friend sent round the story:

I find it very, very difficult to believe that anyone who wasn’t already going to commit violence, suddenly decided to, based on some sensationalist preacher on another continent.  Can you say “pretext”?

If anything, the condescending expresssions of “concern” by Western media figures are much more responsible, telling the rioters that they really are intimidating the West — and thus should keep it up.  When the media-savvy Islamic leader sees, for instance, the unprecendented spectacle of an American general lecturing protestors at home on behalf of the tender feelings of Muslims . . . he most certainly is not mollified; he sees an advantage to press.

This reading isn’t much more flattering, but it’s less patronizing, and at least it treats the members of the mobs as moral agents, and tells us that placating them will not help.

Dear Reader,

Can I be direct with you?

War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.

First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.

But we can’t do it without readers like you.

Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.


Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.

Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.

GIVE NOW

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.

Next
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Church in the Age of Therapy

Matthew Loftus

In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…

Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot

Anna Farrow

On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…

The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen

Mike Aquilina

Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…