My Learnings

I recently came across a video of a former Muslim arguing that Islam isn't really a religion but a political system of conquest — that Muslims preach tolerance as minorities and abandon it once they hold power. My first reaction was to reject this as a sweeping, unfair generalisation. I still do. Nearly two billion Muslims are not one political project, and I've seen no convincing evidence of some coordinated strategy to feign tolerance until the numbers turn. But dismissing the criticism outright isn't enough. There's an uncomfortable question buried inside it, and I think we owe ourselves an honest answer. The asymmetry As minorities in the West, Muslims rightly demand full religious freedom: to build mosques, preach, dress as they choose, raise their children in the faith, and invite others to it. That demand is legitimate and shouldn't be diluted. But in a number of Muslim-majority states, the reverse freedoms are constrained. Apostasy carries the death penalty ...

Many people today feel that democracy is failing. But perhaps democracy itself is not the problem. The real problem is that the environment in which democracy operates has changed dramatically, while its institutions have not. For most of modern history, influencing public opinion was difficult and expensive. A political leader had to persuade newspapers to publish their views, speak at public meetings, or appear on television. Information spread relatively slowly, giving journalists, experts, and opponents time to question claims, expose falsehoods, and offer alternative viewpoints. No single person or group could instantly influence millions of people. Today, that has changed. A message—true or false—can reach millions within minutes. AI can generate convincing fake videos and images. Social media algorithms reward outrage over accuracy because outrage keeps people engaged. Political campaigns can target different messages to different groups without public scrutiny. Wealth, data, an...