At the Library of Law and Liberty, Dalrymple describes a recent conversation with an obviously decent and moderate Muslim man, who nevertheless claimed that violent jihad had been justified in the past due to repression of Muslim preaching, which he granted no longer exists. It raised an interesting dilemma for Dalrymple:
…did it really matter if he held an opinion that was mistaken or even absurd? No doubt we all have a tendency to believe six impossible things before breakfast.
If people are peaceful and law-abiding in the belief, say, that Islam is a religion of peace (or indeed in any other belief), should one strive to correct it merely because one holds it to be not merely mistaken, but grossly mistaken? The answer does not seem straightforward.