1 readers online now  |  69 million page views

two perceptions of social order

Reader comment on item: Islamic religion: motive for terror?

Submitted by myth (Germany), May 31, 2013 at 17:42

I agree with both explanations as to why Cameron did not want to attribute the Lee Rigby murder to Islam. First, Cameron avoids antagonizing moderate muslims. Second, he wants to evade the necessity of policy measures directed against muslims were he to blame islam.

I offer a third explanation that is at the core of the second. Cameron overlooks that social order was seriously and intentionally challenged and had not been restored.

The murder of a soldier disrupts public order. When the police arrest the murderer Cameron sees social order restored. The number of islam-related murders is insignificant compared to the total sum of homicides in Britain - no need to respond. That is the Western perspective. It is based on the idea that all citizens share the same concept of social order.

The perception of social order from an islamist standpoint differs in sequence. When the killer murders a soldier in the name of islam, it is this act that restores social order. It is the social order of the sharia. The subsequent arrests by the police are but a negligible side effect.

When Cameron concludes with "go about our normal lives" he misjudges the restoration of social order. A substantial fraction of 10% or more muslims go along with the sharia social order. They may be disgusted with the details of the killing, but they do welcome the death of a british soldier who fought on muslim territory.

The police could do nothing to re-align those non-violent islamists with the British social order. Cameron underestimates the extent of the effects. He does see the killer but he is blind to the many silent islamist supporters who are reaffirmed both by the crime and the PM's reaction.

If I was Prime Minister on that day I would have said "The British people and I have doubts that every muslim in Britain condems this murder".

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to two perceptions of social order by myth

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)