A Recurrent Theme: On Moderate Muslims

When I write about our current struggle with Radical Islam, I try to maintain a careful differentiation between the Radical Islamists (Islamic fascists) who desire to kill as many of us as possible and impose their will upon us, and those "Moderate" Muslims who are more willing to live and let live.  On a fairly regular basis, such posts are met with comments that are variations on a theme:

Moderate Islam is an oxymoron.  There is no such thing as Moderate Islam.  Islam itself is an imperialistic, intolerant, and murderous ideology. 

Sadly enough, such comments may be accurate, if we accept the words of such an authority on the subject as the Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan: [HT: Snouck Hurgronje]

PM Erdogan: The Term “Moderate Islam” Is Ugly And Offensive; There Is No Moderate Islam; Islam Is Islam

Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

This is especially disheartening when we consider that Turkey has been the shining light of an Islamic democracy.  Yet I would propose a radical notion of my own:

Even if there is no such thing as Moderate Islam it is in our best interests (and the Muslim World's best interests) to act as if the distinction is valid.

I have written about Moderate Muslims on many occasions.  I have discussed the parallels between "Good Muslims" and "Good Germans":

It is also worth wondering if there even exists a sizable population of moderate Muslims. The MSM, our government, most civilized people seem to believe that if they insist there exists a moderate Islam, then it must be so. While I have no doubt there are moderate Muslims, their lack of visibility is troubling. When even in this country, where dissenters are safer than most anywhere else, a rally for Muslims against terror draws minimal numbers, it is troubling.  Whenever there is an article written, or a public stance taken, opposing the Islamic fascists, the brave individual Muslim puts their life at risk, receives condemnation from official organs of Islam, and often receives death threat fatwas. They receive nothing but calumny from the governments which are supposed to be our allies in this war. The official Egyptian press and the state sponsored Imams in state supported mosques, regularly spew out the worst hatred of infidels (that is Americans and Israelis, especially, but with special vitriol for those Europeans who have the temerity to object to their increasing dhimmitude) and apostates. Most Islamic states have death penalties for apostasy, for desecration of the Koran, and for any of a number of offenses against Islam; at the same time, Shariah law openly, arrogantly, discriminates against those who are not sufficiently Islamic, and grants almost no rights to non Muslims.

I followed that post with Moderate Islam and Moderate Muslims Revisited; in both posts I commented on the dearth of evidence supporting the existence of a large cohort of Moderate Muslims, yet I continue to write as if the distinction between Islam and Radical Islam is valid and important. 

How can I support the apparent use of denial by proposing we act as if there is a valid distinction between Islam and Radical Islam when such a distinction may not in fact exist?

No one argues there is no such thing as a Moderate Muslim.  There are obviously a great many Muslims who believe in their religion and yet do not seek to use violence to impose it upon the rest of us.  There are also most certainly a great many Muslims who are perfectly willing to "let and let live", which is the hallmark of a tolerant, liberal religion.  Such liberal and modest Muslims are prime targets of the Radicals who are intolerant of any measure of apostasy.  They are natural allies to the West although they do seem to be cowed and/or marginalized by the Radicals, who threaten them with death, and the liberal MSM and governments which do all they can to ignore such people.  (As an example, why is CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, so often quoted as representative of American Muslims, rather than Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a truly moderate American Muslim?)

The problem we face is not a lack of Moderate Muslims but a surfeit of Muslims who have a fundamentalist view of the Koran and Sharia, which is admittedly intolerant, violent, expansionist, and cruel.  Among the 30-75% of Muslims that accept such a view of Jihad, a significant fraction support extreme violence against their enemies (especially Americans and Jews, but not excluding Europeans, other Christians, non "peoples of the book", etc.)  A much smaller fraction take active part in financing and carrying out such deeds. 

The ideological fight of our times is the fight against that fraction that supports overt violence against us.    Out tactics must always be in the service of a strategy or strategies which can effectively minimize the size of the cohort willing and able to take violent action against us.  Once fundamentalist Muslims are willing to eschew violence and engage in an ideological fight, they will have already lost.  Radical Islam cannot survive Modernity.

To that end, we need to stabilize Iraq and leverage the Iraqi's loathing of the excesses of al Qaeda to create a country that is intolerant of such extremist violence.  This seems achievable in the light of the successes we have already seen from the surge.

Further, as our troops on the ground have discovered, we need to be careful not to alienate the population of Muslims who believe in their religion and are primed to see infidels as evil enemies.

The idea that we are creating more enemies than we are killing is a valid concern; recent evidence suggests we are now creating many more allies than enemies among Iraqis (though the ease of dissemination of Radical Islamic propaganda and the monopoly on information that is held by their fellow travelers throughout the Arab world especially, means that for the foreseeable future, until Iraq is unmistakably a better place, we will see both Shia and Sunni Radicalism grow in susceptible locations.)

Again, in the long term, Radical Islam is fundamentally incompatible with modernity, which is why the Islamists are so desperate; they know they cannot win. 

Tom Barnett commented on the Lilla article I wrote about (and will return to) in a recent post, The renovation, not liberalization, of fundamentalist faith in a globalizing world; his conclusions parallel mine:

Does that speak to a long struggle? Sure. Globalization's penetration of traditional societies is highly disruptive, so don't expect less fundamentalism in response but more. The Great Separation is a refuge from the nastiness of religious wars, but we can't expect people to pre-emptively make that leap of logic without first indulging their wars of the spirit (Fukuyama's point).

Again, that's why I called it "The Pentagon's New Map." I have no illusions about the inevitable violence ahead. I just want people to understand our best strategies for the long haul so they can keep their eyes on the prize.

In a different post, Questioning the most sacred national interest, Tom Barnett comments on how expanding the war into Iran has the predictable outcome of derailing globalization's progress in the Middle East.  His piece is a fascinating read, which delineates some of the ways in which even the most disquieting and noxious ideas can serve a long term interest.  I will not attempt to describe his response to Walt and Mearsheimer's thinly disguised reprise of the Protocols, but do find his strategic thinking useful and provocative:

We’re being sold a war right now with Iran that will likely prove the death knell for the Big Bang strategy and all the American lives so far sacrificed for that ambitious goal. And that’s a showstopper that need not occur, especially as dynamics in the region are finally gelling nicely toward the sort of movement I tried to depict in my Mideast-one-year-from-now-column (laid out nicely in the Erlanger piece, where he says “The Bush administration finally seems to understand, one American official said, that there is no sustainable status quo.” To which I reply, “Duh!” Wasn’t that the whole point of the Big Bang?!?!).

In this, I agree with Tom Barnett that our goal needs to be to create conditions for the advance of globalization (ie, the penetration of the modern world into the formerly hermetically sealed world of Islam, any puns fully intended) though I think he underestimates the danger of communal violence and anarchy, and the passions thus liberated, to derail globalization as effectively as any American missteps of commission.

Any ideology that prescribes a narrow, pinched, ascetic life for its minions in the face of a world in which the individual is becoming more and more free and empowered, will lose adherents at an accelerating pace when the fruits of globalization reach them.  We can expect that the Radical Islamic intelligentsia (those who see themselves as the vanguard of the revolutionary mix of Islam and socialism they espouse) will continue their efforts to recruit the losers in the Islamic world as their spear carriers and suicide bombers, but their pool of potential recruits will shrink in direct proportion to the increasing potentials that globalization brings. 

If we can avoid creating situations which support the Radicals' meme that the West is waging war against all of Islam, the conflict will remain limited and containable.  And just as Communism lost adherents when the gap between its promises and its reality became unmistakable, so too will Radical Islam lose adherents when the gap between the promised Utopia of the Caliphate and the reality of the disaster that Radical Islam has brought upon its people wherever it has been imposed becomes unmistakable.

When the adherents of an ideology lose battles, whether militarily or economically, the ideology loses followers.  That is human nature.  Radical Islam looks like a loser when it fails, whether on the battlefields in Anbar or the economic arena in Iran.

Comments

[David Thomson]

There are moderate Muslims in the world. The leaders of Dubai are a quintessential example. They most certainly take Sharia with a huge grain of salt. The same may very well be true regarding most of America's Muslims. Too many people are searching for a theological revolution. The reality is that the needed reformation may be accomplished by a more subtle and evolutionary manner.

[Morton Doodslag]

"Radical notion"???

You say: "Even if there is no such thing as Moderate Islam it is in our best interests (and the Muslim World's best interests) to act as if the distinction is valid."

Nothing radical about that.

I want to pose a question: Why should we tolerate living under threat from a triumphal violent and repulsive so-called "religion" which has insinuated itself in our society? I'd say there's nothing "radical" about your suggestion -- I think it's the M.O. of most western leadership, and nearly the entirety of academia and the media today.

What has this denial of reality brought us so far? Among other things, these are the results:

1. The influx of millions of non-participating, seething Muslims into the heart of our western society.
2. Growing tensions between Muslims and everybody else WHEREVER Muslims reside in sufficiently large numbers.
3. Mosques and madrassas and "Islamic Community Centers" springing up like so many poisonous mushrooms in strange places like Lodi, Lackawanna, Puget Sound, Mulga Creek, Red House VA, and Deposit NY, not to mention every major metropolis in the Western World...
4. Simmering and innumerable Jihad plots in virtually every community where Muslims reside.

Islam Rampant is the result of such denial of reality. We have allowed 10,000 burgeoning little Beiruts and tiny Chechnyas to flourish in our domain, and for no purpose whatsoever, no benefit to our culture and society whatsoever.

Historically, Islam has proven its effectiveness many times over at attacking and dismantling former great societies: Byzantium, Spain, India, Persia... This was accomplished sometimes by the sword -- and sometimes by the death of a thousand cuts and simpler forms of domination and intimidation. We see Muslims engaged in this exact same way today -- attacking with bombs and suicide backpacks in subways, flying planes into buildings, poisons, and bakesales at the local Mosque. Why put up with any of this triumphal mumbo jumbo? It's time to identify their hideous religion for what it is: a War Doctrine. Muslims are Islam's soldiers. Such a doctrine and such perpetrators need not be tolerated. There is no requirement to endure such an assault, but first one must comprehend that one is under assault. The best I can say about the so-called "live and let live" Muslims among us is that they are dangerous enablers of far worse types of Muslims -- their sheer presence, in sufficient numbers will probably ALWAYS host Islam's more sinister players. How many times have we heard the parents say "I had no idea -- he was such a nice boy!"?

The magical thinking which has place us in our current predicament viz. Islam must be shattered before we can repel their onslaught. Make no mistake -- the Muslims aren't nearly as muddled as we are when it comes to the contours of Jihad and the very nature of their vile creed. They may live in fear of Islam, or they may truly love Islam -- but ALL Muslims perpetuate Islam in any event, and thus perpetuate the horrors attendant to Islam. Sometimes Jihad can be as simple as giving birth to another Muslim baby, another susceptible soul raised in the atmospherics of a corrosive creed of hatred and destruction.

[GaryK]

Shrink—I’m having a hard time following your logic here. It seems that you are proposing that we follow the old advice that, if we act as if we believe, eventually we will believe and in this case this means that if we posit, talk and act as if there are all these “moderate Muslims’ out there, then, somehow, such a force of moderate Muslims will come into being and one, by implication, that will be favorable to us "unbelievers."

After looking at the texts themselves, I am persuaded that the basic facts are that the core texts of Islam—the Qur’an, Hadiths, Sira—are violent, totalitarian, supremacist and xenophobic and that their central message is that all observant Muslims, in emulating Muhammad and in obedience to the words of Allah as found in the Qur’an, have the duty to “fight in the way of Allah” until all unbelievers are either converted, made dhimmis, or killed. We are merely unlucky enough to have been born into an era where trillions of dollars in oil revenues have reanimated the Jihad at a time when “Christendom” is withering away or busily committing suicide.

The evidence I’ve seen daily tells me that the ummah is composed of a smallish, younger activist Jihadi segment—but remember 10% of 1.2 billion is still 120 million--which follows these religious commands and a much larger, less energetic majority who, while they may not want to strap on a suicide vest just yet, basically support or acquiesce to the Jihadis’ efforts; remember, they’re taught from the same texts which tell them, over and over again, that Muslims are “the best of peoples” and that us unclean, deluded, inferior, treacherous unbelievers are “the worst of peoples” and their enemies forever. Muslim doctrine is that those Muslims who can’t actively, physically fight can fulfill their religious obligation to go on Jihad by funding and supporting the Jihadis, which I believe the majority of the umma, one way or another, does through funding and various other forms of support, most especially including their silence.

There are a handful of very courageous and very endangered ex-Muslims and an even smaller number of Muslims we in the West are aware of who are against the Jihad and Islam as it is presently constituted. While there are conflicts and controversies within the umma about power, control, land and just how Islamic various Muslim states should be-- Turkey being a prime example—these internal power struggles are not over questions about the Qur’an and Muhammad’s view of “unbelievers” or of whether Muslims should pursue Jihad against all unbelievers or seek to rule the world.

There is absolutely no evidence that I can see of a great popular groundswell within the umma against these central doctrines of Islam, against Jihad, against the Jihadis themselves, or against the ideas, ideology and interpretations that support them in as far as they deal with Jihad against all unbelievers. Moreover, since Muslims are taught from the same texts, there seems to me no guarantee that individual “peaceful, moderate Muslims” will not, one fine day, decide to “get right with God” and follow the Qur’an’s command to “fight all unbelievers wherever you find them.” It seems to me that we have seen evidence of just such things happening here in the U.S.—with the Jihadi’s friends, coworkers and relatives usually saying things like “oh, he was such a nice easygoing guy, I don’t know what got into him.”

I believe that people’s reliance on the “moderate Muslims” as saving us, moderating the Jihadis or Islam or coming in on our “unbeliever” side in this conflict is really a way of avoiding having to realize and face the very terrifying and unpalatable fact that, to one degree or another, in one way or another, we are at war with all of Islam, whether its is the armed wing of Islam on the battlefield, or the ‘peaceful” wing of Islam angrily demanding ever greater accommodations to Muslim sensibilities and Shari’a law in airport taxi lines, in our schools, on TV, in our public lives or in our courts.

[Morton Doodslag]

Said a different way -- there's every indication that Islam will not be the one to retreat in this battle between "modernity" and the rank primitivism of Islam.

Example: there is probably no society within Islam which has been more "penetrated" by the goo-gaws of modernity than Saudi Arabia -- yet SA is the epicenter of Al Qaida -- a veritable sewer of Islamic hatred for everything in the West. How effective has our "penetration" been there?

As for Dubai -- I believe you're falling for the veneer of modernity. Is this a permanent arrangement? There are gleaming buildings, lavish western style shopping opportunities, amazing civil projects (all funded by unearned unsustainable accidental wealth) which appear modern on the surface -- but they still enslave "infidels" in their compounds, they still snip the clitorises of their daughters -- they still subjugate women and tacitly accept the primacy of Islam and the correctness of sharia in their law. Dubai also does their Da'wa and conducts Jihad. The fund Mosque-building projects around the world -- they are an epicenter of global Jihad finance and money laundering. Given the proper and likely happenstance, the veneer of modernity can and will be ripped away in an instant in places like Dubai. Iranian aggression in the gulf, instability in this tiny peninsula -- revolution is always possible there, as it is in SA, UAE, etc -- all of these would show how unsustainable such a 'modern' wonderland as Dubai actually is, how retrograde -- how unpersuaded it actually is by all the modern looking flimflammery.

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/24/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

[ShrinkWrapped]

I don't think any of these comments contradict my thesis. I am perfectly willing to posit that Islam supports all the terrible things we see done in its name every day. However, that does not imply that we need to deport all Muslims and declare war on all of Islam. I have not yet suggested any responses to the excesses of Islam. What I do strongly believe is that as long as we find the common values that most of us support and demand that residents of our country do the same in deed, in not in word and thought, we will win the ideological struggle at home, and as globalization and connectivity increases in the Arab world, we will win the war there as well. Saudi Arabia is an excellent example. Morton confuses money and gadgets with the essence of globalization which is enhanced individual freedom and dignity. Saudis are trapped in a narrow, intolerant culture that restricts human freedom to the greatest degree. Yet even there, more Saudi young men and women want opportunity and status (not to mention sex) than want to die as martyrs. It is the lack of such opportunity for status that drives so many to seek martyrdom.
I will have more on this when I return to ideas about finding common ground. I will continue to support and elaborate the notion that modernity represents a paradigm shift that Islam is incapable of mentally metabolizing.

[Commenter]

"When I write about our current struggle with Radical Islam, I try to maintain a careful differentiation between the Radical Islamists (Islamic fascists) who desire to kill as many of us as possible and impose their will upon us, and those "Moderate" Muslims who are more willing to live and let live."

The important thing here is to remember that the religion of the "radical Islamists" and the "moderate Muslims" is exactly the same. It makes sense to differentiate between different groups of Muslims based on the degree to which they adhere to Islam, but one needs to recognize the moderation among Muslims for what it is - a failure to practice Islam, and not the adherence to a benign and moderate version of Islam (which actually cannot exist, just like a round square cannot exist).

"Even if there is no such thing as Moderate Islam it is in our best interests (and the Muslim World's best interests) to act as if the distinction is valid."

The problem with upholding this non-existent distinction is that it is in effect Islam apologism, as it contributes to concealing the identity of what is in fact our enemy. Is it in our best interest to conceal the identity of our enemy? I'd say no.

[MaxedOutmama]

SW, you have said it all right here What I do strongly believe is that as long as we find the common values that most of us support and demand that residents of our country do the same in deed, in not in word and thought, we will win the ideological struggle at home, and as globalization and connectivity increases in the Arab world, we will win the war there as well.

If we will not be what we claim to be, then irrationality and destructiveness will win the day.

[Commenter]

"I am perfectly willing to posit that Islam supports all the terrible things we see done in its name every day. However, that does not imply that we need to deport all Muslims and declare war on all of Islam."

Could ShrinkWrapped tell us what parts of Islam (I'm assuming he's talking about the religion and not its adherents since he writes "Islam" and not "Muslims") we should not declare war on and what criteria we should use to determine what Muslims should and should not be deported (if, that is, he supports deportation at all)?

[David Thomson]

"Why should we tolerate living under threat from a triumphal violent and repulsive so-called "religion" which has insinuated itself in our society?"

We should not in any way tolerate Islamic nihilism. As matter of fact, we must pursue these thugs and either kill or incarerate them. There is no other viable option. Still, we should also hope and encourage the advancement of moderate Muslim theology. Why do some folks perceive this to be a contradiction? Is there something I fail to comprehend?

[Morton Doodslag]

"Yet even there, more Saudi young men and women want opportunity and status (not to mention sex) than want to die as martyrs. "

Proof, please? I think the adherence to Islam is proportional to the amount of money Muslims have to throw at indoctrination. In large strokes, Muslims exploit our inventions, our money, our culture, all the benefits of globalization, for the benefit of Islam and all it entails. This would appear to place your thesis on its head. The more benefits Muslims accrue, the more generosity they recieve, the more likely we are to see more Muslims wanting more Islam.

As I've posted here before, I believe there's a causal link between the influx of staggering wealth into Islamic coffers and the explosion of Jihadism which is rampant in the world.

So let's do a reality check:

Has Islamic exposure to our culture, to globalization with all the atmospherics, to wealth -- has any if it persuaded them to have less Islam? An easy argument can be made for an alternative narrative: as the Muslim world becomes increasingly exposed to the undifferentiated cacaphony of Western globalized culture, the more hate-filled and disgusted their creed will make them feel for "unbelievers" such as we. Sure -- they lust after cars, gadgets, they love porn and booze and vice as much or MORE than the next guy -- their pious hypocrisy knows no bounds -- but come on! They worship a supremacist God who mandates war, death and subjugation for the "unislamic" world!

We know that Imams are raping little boys and girls across the Muslim world -- that their populations are prey to all the horrors of prostitution, disease, corruption, and chaos that any society is subject to - yet the Muslims seem singularly ill-equipped or even completely incapable of facing the truth about themselves or their predicament or their disgusting flailing societies. Every success is credited fatalistically to Allah --every mistake and calamity which befalls them is projected onto their eternal scape-goat -- the "infidel". It's never Islam at fault. It's never the Muslims -- not the "true" Muslims, at least.

Also, I don't think I'm confusing money and gadgets with the "essence of globalization" in any manner whatsoever. I think I'm observing patterns, large and small. What I see is an influx into the Muslim world of trillions upon trillions of unearned dollars -- and I see the Muslims using that money to propegate more Muslims and more Islam -- their populations are exploding (!) across the board, and they are conducting unprecedented da'wa and jihad, the export of massive excess populations. Are they exporting Islam and excess Muslims to fellow Muslim nations? NO. They are attracted to the West, to the non-Muslim world - is this because they are charmed? Read any newspaper -- watch any interview -- speak to any Muslim -- they aren't in love with the West -- they mostly despise the West, and live here contemptuously of their new home. They hold themselves apart because their "religion" instructs them to live apart -- to not take Jews and Christians as friends (per the Koran). They hold themselves to be superior in every way, despite all the evidence to the contrary -- we are filthy -- Muslims are clean -- we are untrustworthy -- Muslims are pure of heart and noble -- we are tainted -- Muslims are holy.

I disagree -- the atmospherics of Western globalization are no surety against the success of their retrograde project. We are witnessing small brushfires turning into conflagrations across the planet wherever Muslims have colonized a patch.

Last, the implicit assumptions that many in the West make, that our charms and our modernity will prevail over the dark forces of Islam is not born out by ancient or modern history. In fact, evidence supports my thesis that strangling Islam, and impeding its spread in every manner is probably the best remedy for all the populations which Muslims are now menacing.

After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Islam was on a terminal decline due to lack of funds. But massive oil reserves were discovered in primarily Islamic dominions - this happened exactly at the time that Western primacy was poised to exploit the resource. Before WW2 concluded, Roosevelt sat down in the desert and made his deal with al Saud -- and today we see some of the unanticipated consequences. Will 'their' oile run out any time soon? No. Will oil's price drop any time soon, sufficient to starve their rampage? No. Will Muslims continue to exploit this unearned wealth to breed more Muslims, spread more Islam, and subsidize more Muslim colonies across the globe?

Yes, unless they are stopped somehow.

I don’t particularly believe in grand conspiracy theories. People will talk, fools are everywhere and perfection very hard to find, someone who is part of the conspiracy will blow the whistle for any number of reasons, the conspiracy will be exposed through chance or bad luck, people will catch on to what is happening and, the longer a time a conspiracy is supposed to exist and function, the more such problems multiply. That being said, I’ve always marveled at how, knowing for so many decades that we are critically dependent on oil; oil that comes from countries very hostile to the U.S., countries which we invigorate and reinforce--to our detriment--with every U.S. dollar spent for their oil, we have not come up with a real, workable substitute energy source or viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine.

The technology of the basic internal combustion engine is what, a hundred years old or thereabouts. Energy problems during WWII forced the Germans and I’m sure other countries to do all sorts of research on alternative energy production methods and that was almost 70 years ago.

In the six decades plus since WWII we’ve had whole new technologies appear and mature which have radically altered our world and we can do things today that people a few, short decades ago would marvel at yet, the internal combustion engine, gasoline for fuel, oil for heat and power generation, petrochemicals for all sorts of manufacturing processes are still central to our economies.

The U.S. has embarked on innumerable, multi-billion dollar projects, over and over again that were aimed at coming up with new forms of energy generation and storage to give us “energy independence” yet, here we still are, giving our enemies trillions of our dollars for oil which we use to power our internal combustion engines and which they use to fuel the Jihad. I find it very hard to believe that our technology and ingenuity have not been able, despite many decades of research, to come up with viable substitutes for the internal combustion engine or the use of oil as fuel. Yes, I see a hybrid here and there on the road and there are a few wind farms, much to Senator Kennedy’s chagrin but, by now we should be largely energy independent and the internal combustion engine and our dependence on oil should have become a thing of the past. Instead, we are like a hooked junkie looking for his next fix from OPEC and that is one of our major vulnerabilities vis-à-vis Islam.

[Commenter]

"Still, we should also hope and encourage the advancement of moderate Muslim theology. Why do some folks perceive this to be a contradiction?"

Because Islam is essentially non-moderate. In order for Islam to become moderate, it has to be stripped of its very essential features, in which case it would cease to be Islam.

[GaryK]

Commenter—I agree that the totalitarian, violent, supremacist and xenophobic parts of the Qur’an are at the heart of that document and intertwined throughout the Qur’an as well. I believe it was the people at the Center for the Study of Political Islam who estimated that some 70% of the Qur’an deals with unbelievers and their treatment in one way or another and that just a small portion, 10% or so, of the Qur’an was of a purely religious nature. So, remove the heart and the circulatory and nervous systems and you have nothing viable left.

The problems with calling for some sort of Islamic Reformation don’t stop there. Those who advocate us, the “unbelievers,” fomenting or midwifeing some sort of Islamic Reformation don’t seem to realize just how completely the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira have portrayed and labeled unbelievers as unclean, deluded, treacherous and inferior; “the worst of people.” For the Qur’an, for Muhammad, unbelievers are the eternal enemy, standing in the way of the just fulfillment of the commands of Allah, the one and only true God, to conquer the whole earth and its peoples. Many multiculturalists today talk abut hatred of the “Other.” I’d say the three central documents of Islam have done about as good a job as possible of making us “unbelievers” about as “Other” as we could possibly be and, therefore, I would think that most Muslims would be pretty unlikely to take any advice we might want to offer them about reforming their religion.

Finally, some have made the point that Islam has already had it’s Reformation—a term which means, after all, getting back to the original source, in this case the Qur’an, Hadiths and Sira--and that this Reformation’s result is the Jihad against all unbelievers we see today.

[pst314]

"those 'Moderate' Muslims who are more willing to live and let live"

I'm afraid that the vast majority of those moderate Muslims are like moderate Klansmen or moderate Nazis--they are moderate only in the sense that they do not themselves kill. But they still adhere to a religion that teaches domination over all inferior races--I mean beliefs--and they raise their children accordingly. Would America allow the immigration of vast numbers of "peaceful" followers of David Duke? Nor should we welcome followers of another fanatic.

[Commenter]

"I'm afraid that the vast majority of those moderate Muslims are like moderate Klansmen or moderate Nazis--they are moderate only in the sense that they do not themselves kill. But they still adhere to a religion that teaches domination over all inferior races--I mean beliefs--and they raise their children accordingly."

I think part of the problem is that people see ideologies such as Nazism in essential terms, but they fail to do so with Islam, confusing the nature of Islam with the actions and beliefs of a demographic group.

[GaryK]

Commenter--it is interesting to see how often those defending Muslims say that Muslims are being singled out because of their race when, in fact, Islam 's umma encompasses many people of many countries, colors and races. Muslims are being focused on because of their beliefs and how they express them by attacking "unbelievers" all over the world. This tendency to focus on race can also be seen in the U.S when Muslims and their supporters call some perceived harrassment or crime against Muslims a crime of racial hatred.

[Dorn]

This is an excellent comment thread. Having just finished Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "Infidel", I can see her thesis running through these comments, even if not all of the commenters have read it. One of her most central points is that Islam is what it is: a primitive, oppressive, violent, clannish "religion." If there are moderate Muslims, they are merely people who take their Islam rather loosely. Adherence to true Islam yields the kind of fanaticism we are seeing erupting in the world presently.

[David Thomson]

"If there are moderate Muslims, they are merely people who take their Islam rather loosely."

There is a good chance that a growing number of Muslims are beginning to take their religion less seriously. This is already the case in Dubai. Some people seemingly prefer to forget that mainstream Chrisitan denominations also used to violently fight between themselves less than 500 years ago. When is the last time a Catholic bishop had a Protestant "heretic" burned at the stake?

[Laura]

"There are moderate Muslims in the world. The leaders of Dubai are a quintessential example"
---------------------------
These so-called "moderates", as is the case with most muslim "moderates", are vicious anti-Semites which continue to uphold the Arab boycott of Israel. I'm not impressed with the supposed moderation of those potentates in Dubai.

"These so-called "moderates", as is the case with most muslim "moderates", are vicious anti-Semites which continue to uphold the Arab boycott of Israel. I'm not impressed with the supposed moderation of those potentates in Dubai."

You are mostly wrong. Officially, Dubai is anti-Semetic. The everyday reality, however, is that Jews are treated quite fairly within the country. A lot of trading goes on between Dubai and Israel.

[David Thomson]

The following may be of interest:

"Israeli diamond traders find favor in Arab Dubai
By Anjan Sundaram, Associated Press | October 25, 2006

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- As Israelis and Arabs emerge from the war in Lebanon, a booming diamond exchange in this Arab country 1,300 miles away is hard proof that some Arab-Israeli ties have survived despite the region's tensions.

The two-year-old Dubai Diamond Exchange has put the Gulf emirate squarely inside a global business dominated by Jewish traders. And that, inevitably, means trade ties with Israel, another world diamond hub.

"There has been no visible platform for Arab-Jewish cooperation since the 1960s," said Chantal Abboud, Beirut-based representative of Antwerp's diamond industry in the Middle East. "Now, Dubai has created it."

Israeli Diamond Exchange president Avi Paz says diamonds and hospitality flow freely between Israel and Dubai.

"We came there, they came here. There is no problem at all," Paz said in Tel Aviv. "I wish that wherever I go, they'll host me like they hosted me in Dubai."

Officially at least, the Emirates still enforces some aspects of the Arab League's boycott with Israel, although a government official said most restrictions were dropped long ago."

[David Thomson]

The citizens of Dubai often speak out of both sides of their mouth. And yes, they officially demand that Jews behave like second class citizens while in the country. Dubai is not utopia! Still, it is far more progressive than the other Arab countries. Dubai is at least going in the right direction. What will it be like within the next ten years?

[Commenter]

"Dubai is at least going in the right direction."

What is relevant here is that _Islam_ is not going in the right direction, as it _cannot_ go in the right direction. As long as Dubai is Islamic, the potential for greater Islamic influence will always be latent, and anything that might resemble "a step in the right direction" only indicates a momentary lapse of religious practice that, give time, is likely to be reversed.

[jerry]

A few problems with the thesis of Shrinkwrapped:

1. As a psychoanalyst he should know that threat, when it reaches core values, will result in violence. A slow death of Islam will not happen because vocal moderates are subject to elimination by murder, all justified by core values.

2. Testosterone knows no object, but is a general excitatory substance. Thus, as long as there are a surfeit of early and late teens, ideas expressed will take hold and cause a new generation of "radicals." Again, the violence will be ego-syntonic since the core values support violence.

3. Politicians in the West are generally older folk whose testosterone has a reduced effect on their thinking, thus leading us to the single modern value of "live and let live." It is thus that Europe will fall to Eurabia. Just as violence limits the "moderate" Muslim population because of fear, "live and let live" leaves an aging population in Europe vulnerable to poor judgment. The Europeans are quickly becoming numb to their own survival needs.

4. Success favors groups with longer horizons. Islam has waited a long time to impose its ideology and only now has oil allowed it to try for hegemony. Americans have a particularly short horizon. They want it "now" in their lifetime, while Muslims define "now" as "as soon as conditions permit." These conditions help them raise families, but prevents Muslims from seeking solutions themselves to social ills and problems.

These are only a few of the cognitive and cultural differences that divide the "moderns" from the "Islamists." However, just the few preceding points address the dilemmas faced by the human organism in trying to survive its own limitations. Contradictions between core values held by opposing groups makes for war. We all knew that before I said it, but none of us appreciate the strength of the statement until it hits us in the face.