Theo Hobson

Usama Hasan, an imam attached to the Quilliam Foundation, argues in the Times that Islam is steadily adapting to modernity. It has been doing so since the nineteenth century, when the Ottoman Empire launched certain reforms. Islam should not be judged by a few marginal hiccups in this process. ‘Isis follows a fundamentalist and selective reading of scripture which is ahistorical and heretical. They are linked to Islam and the Koran in the way the Ku Klux Klan and Anders Breivik are linked to Christianity and the Bible.’ This is not helpful. For extremely reactionary Christians have not gained power in a large proportion of the traditionally Christian world.

Some advice. Don’t watch the rugby world cup final with anyone too politically correct. My friend Tom and I were so busy arguing about the Haka that we missed the first try during the semi-final on Saturday. ‘I love a bit of primitive ritual’ I said, as the men in black became animated wood carvings that would make a missionary quake. ‘Er, I’m not sure you’re allowed to say that.’ ‘Eh?’ ‘I think you’ll find that word’s kind of you know…racist?’ ‘What, primitive?’ ‘Yeah.’ ‘Racist? But there’s white people doing it too.’ ‘Yeah but it’s a Maori thing, so you’re basically calling Maoris primitive.

Are you a Phillist or a Teddist? A Phillist is not a Philistine in a hurry, but one who warms to the sensibility of Philip Larkin. A Teddist prefers that of Ted Hughes. Recent BBC documentaries on each poet have clarified the choice. Whose vision of life is more convincing and compelling – the glum librarian or the dashing naturalist who made the ladies swoon (in and out of ovens)? To define their difference it’s tempting to call Hughes a Romantic, and Larkin an anti-Romantic. But it doesn’t quite work. Hughes’s fascinated reverence for the natural world has some Romantic features, but his vision of nature’s brutality is hardly ‘Daffodils’.

The Pope has in effect said this to his Catholic flock: Let our rhetoric be liberal; Let us sound like a Church that is moving from harsh rigour to soft friendliness. Does that mean he seeks the reform of any of the Church’s traditional teachings? God knows. He began his US tour in Washington, where he warned the bishops that there is a temptation 'to think back on bygone times and to devise harsh responses'. They should try to persuade people 'with the power and closeness of love' rather than obsessively condemning 'their positions, distant as they may be from what we hold as true and certain'. In his final address, in Philadelphia, he presented himself as the enemy of legalism, like Jesus railing at the Pharisees.

Are you already dreading Christmas, on account of having to host relatives who hardly bother hiding how much they hate each other? Well spare a thought for Justin Welby, who will host a big powwow of global Anglican leaders in January – many of the Anglican primates he will host don’t bother hiding their mutual antipathy at all. He is doing the brave and right thing, trying to agree a new looser model of communion, in which the 38 provinces declare themselves in communion with Canterbury, but not necessarily with each other. Such a move would confirm the current situation as the new normal, which is definitely the least worst option. Welby reportedly admits that there is a large chance of creating a permanent schism.

The migrant crisis raises the largest questions about our basic public creed, our ideology, secular humanism. Normally we pay little attention to this creed. Yes, yes, we affirm the ideal of universal human flourishing, the equal worth of all human beings, human rights. But do we believe it? This crisis forces us to wonder. As Matthew Parris says here this week, we simply do not know what our moral obligations are in relation to these people. Should we love our neighbour as ourself, and rush off to help them? How can we reconcile our universal humanism with the need to prioritise the welfare of our own tribe? Isn’t Western morality just too demanding? Its excessive demands on us leave us without a sensible, moderate, realistic sense of our moral duty.

I’m getting tired of the self-righteousness of Owen Jones. His response to the terrible spate of deaths of people fleeing Syria and Africa is to imply that if only everyone were as moral as him, the problem would be solved. He seems to think that the key cause of these people’s deaths is that many people in Britain call them by the wrong word. To call them 'migrants', he says, shows a total disregard for their humanity. 'Those of us who want more sympathetic treatment of people fleeing desperate situations have failed to win over public opinion, and the cost of that is death.'  The implication is that if his right-on attitude was shared by all of us, the deaths would be avoided. This strikes me as completely nuts.

David Cameron is right to speak against religious extremism, even if it claims not to support violence. But what exactly is religious extremism? He defined it in opposition to British values, meaning democracy and the rule of law and so on. Maybe this is clear enough. But I think the matter can be clarified further. I think it should be defined in this way. Religious extremism idealises religious unity as the basis of good politics, and denigrates pluralism, liberal values, ‘secularism’ (in the political sense). In other words, it is theocratic religion. ‘Theocracy’ is an old-fashioned word, but I think we need to use it a lot more. It gets to the heart of the matter.

Let’s put the question very bluntly: do British Muslims affirm British values, or are they outsiders to our way of life? Or, even more bluntly: can we trust them? It is important that we learn to answer this question with nuance, and not in a self-righteous and simplistic way. A week before the Tunisian carnage, David Cameron implicitly raised the question, when he said that too many mainstream Muslims were equivocating, seeming to condone Islamic State and to disparage the West –this 'paves the way for young people to turn simmering prejudice into murderous intent', he said. His comments, and his planned counter-extremism bill, were strongly condemned by commentators, and also by his former party chairperson Sayeeda Warsi.

Through some freak accident of PR, I was invited to an event organised by Tinder. If you’re over 40 or have become prematurely married, you might not know what Tinder is. It’s the mobile-phone app that facilitates courtship by allowing people to signal their interest in other users within a certain radius — you can set it to just a mile, if you’re in a real hurry to ‘connect’. It’s the modern human version of mating calls and frog croaks. A million Londoners are said to use it. But Tinder is now under threat. Trendy dating apps such as Happn or Hinge, which present themselves as a bit less nakedly Darwinian, are growing in popularity. In response, Tinder is launching Tinder Plus, and the venue for the launch is a boutique gym called One Rebel.