VERY political: The Trouble With Islam

[Roxanne Appleby]

Somone will be along shortly to tell you why you shouldn't listen to this man, and to accuse him of various unsavory things. When this happens, please note that the detractor will not deny the truth or accuracy of anything written in this article. I hope you will not let the destractor(s) prevent you from forming an independent judgement about the content of this article. At its root it is a hopeful article, because it suggests a peaceful way out of the present dilemma. - Roxanne

The Trouble With Islam

By TAWFIK HAMID

Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published a short history of the Islamic world's decline, entitled "What Went Wrong?" Astonishingly, there was, among many Western "progressives," a vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis's implicit statement that things have been, or could be, right.

But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists' defense.

These "progressives" frequently cite the need to examine "root causes." In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological "rootlets" of Islamism, the main tap root has a name -- Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals -- who unceasingly claim to support human rights -- have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria -- which happened in the last few decades -- or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.

The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.

Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine's formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.

Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's enemies.

Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.

Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand -- but so far haven't -- that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates."

All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.

Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.

Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.

~~~~

Roxanne again - Someone else may be along who will dismiss the lifetime work of the respected scholar quoted in the first sentence by labeling him a "suave racist." I hope that does not happen, because it is not only a false slander, but the use of such a device is beneath the person who has used it here in the past.

 

[Liar]

From the mouth of someone who ought to know, Abd Al Haqq Kielan, local imam of the progressive kind:

----

People often ask me "What is wrong with Islam?", when they've read of jihadist violence or sharia injustices in the news. It's the wrong question. The right question would be "What is right with Christianity?" Likewise, what went right in the far east societies, which also have progressed further on many topics. The answer is this; a century long explosion of rapid social and political change, fuelled by an astonishing economic growth that never quite happened in the morepart of the Islamic world. The reasons why it didn't happen is complex and multi-levelled, but mainly geopolitical. Bad location, bad timing, bad luck.

So we missed the revloution. Yes, revolution. In the scope of history, the pace of social progress in the west have been nothing short of revolutionary since the end of the 19th century and on. Instead, we have to make do with the baby steps of uncatalyzed social evolution. Which, put simply, takes time.

The best thing you can do is to realize this, and not look at a stoning or a car bomb and say "this is Islam". Instead, look at it and say, "this is wrong", which it is, and leave it at that. Encourage progressive ideas where you see them, and do what you can to help the Arab world out of the geopolitical bog it's in these days.

If we're ever to mature as a collective, we need your support, not your condemnation.

-------

 

[S-Des]

From the mouth of someone who ought to know, Abd Al Haqq Kielan, local imam of the progressive kind:

----

People often ask me "What is wrong with Islam?", when they've read of jihadist violence or sharia injustices in the news. It's the wrong question. The right question would be "What is right with Christianity?" Likewise, what went right in the far east societies, which also have progressed further on many topics. The answer is this; a century long explosion of rapid social and political change, fuelled by an astonishing economic growth that never quite happened in the morepart of the Islamic world. The reasons why it didn't happen is complex and multi-levelled, but mainly geopolitical. Bad location, bad timing, bad luck.

So we missed the revloution. Yes, revolution. In the scope of history, the pace of social progress in the west have been nothing short of revolutionary since the end of the 19th century and on. Instead, we have to make do with the baby steps of uncatalyzed social evolution. Which, put simply, takes time.

The best thing you can do is to realize this, and not look at a stoning or a car bomb and say "this is Islam". Instead, look at it and say, "this is wrong", which it is, and leave it at that. Encourage progressive ideas where you see them, and do what you can to help the Arab world out of the geopolitical bog it's in these days.

If we're ever to mature as a collective, we need your support, not your condemnation.

-------

Perfectly said. I said something similar (although far less eloquent) a long time ago. The difference between the problems being experienced with Islam and what Christianity had to deal with was globalization and technology. Now the people who pervert the religion can spread their hate quickly. They have better means of killing people in large groups. But they are NO worse than Christians were who slaughtered non-believers, enslaved other races, approved of wiping out entire cultures. It's just happening at a different time. Christianity (and all other religions and philosophies) still have their faults (often very large ones). I feel sadness for the people who are suffering and hope the religious leaders can force all of Islam to join us in this century (I just heard that Iranian clerics had declared the earth was actually flat ). I've never met a Muslim who was anything but kind, so I don't assume my religion (or someone else's lack of one) is any better.

 

[colddiesel]

in the beginning

"The trouble with Islam" might be the fact that in his religous thinking Mahomed was profoundly influenced by both judaism and nestorian Christianity,- just a thought.

 

[Kintrub]

Follow the ideology. Was Moses a warrior? Nope.
Was Jesus? Nope.

Was Muhamad? Yes.

 

[R. Richard]

Around the year 900, the Muslims led at least the Western world in Astronomy, Mathematics and Medicine. In the commercial world, the Muslims were the distributors of the riches of the East and of Africa. Now, the Muslim world is backward in many areas and would probably be a backwater, save for the presence of oil under the Muslim lands. Obviously something went wrong.

After a rapid expansion of Muslim lands under Umar Ibn al Khattab in the seventh century, the Battle of Tours in 732AD was a major defeat for the forces of Islam. By the end of the 11th century, the Muslim Caliphate in Spain was eroded and weakening.

Perhaps a major problem was that the Muslims were policially unsophisticated. They were led by Kings who ruled, under Allah, by divine right. There was little discussion permitted of the rule of a Muslim King and that led to some infighting among the Muslims. The Christian Crusades also took their toll of the Muslims. Then, the Muslims began to use Mameluk slaves as fighting forces. After a time, the Mameluks overthrew their masters and ruled Muslim lands for themselves.

 

[3113]

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals -- who unceasingly claim to support human rights -- have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity?

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Roxanne. Trying to play a little trick on us? This isn't an article about what's wrong with Islam, it's what's wrong with liberal-western-progressives and why you shouldn't listen to them. Evil creatures that they are. They're to blame for everything. Even the hatred of America which is "emboldinging" the extremists.

I'm especially annoyed at the way this article takes western Feminists to task. They don't care about the women in Islamic countries? Really? For YEARS it was ONLY the western feminists who were bringing abuse of Islamic women to ANYONE'S attention and no one would listen to them.

And while we're at it, why doesn't this article complain about the fact that the conservatives on the right were happy to do nothing about these extremists so long as they were selling us oil and fighting on our side?

I'll happily agree with this guy that Islamic extremism is bad. And I'll happily agree that no one should apologize for "insulting" them. Extremists of ANY religion are not usually good and I'd be delighted if we did something about the evangelicals of any religion who are trying to impose their views on us all, and preach violence to achieve this end.

But don't you fucking point the finger at me and say that my "political correctness" is the reason that these assholes are thriving. Sorry, no, *I* didn't open the door for them--and it certainly wasn't a government that *I* voted for which has the rest of the West hating the U.S. It's too bad if it's had bad results in the East, but we Americans fucked up that relationship all on our own. We made that bed and we're lying in it now.

*I* was with all the other feminists denouncing radical Islam's treatment of women, gays, etc. for the last ten years without anyone listening because it was only women and gays...and it was conservative right-wingers in this country that insisted that we couldn't impose OUR views on the east and force them to treat women better. That wasn't political correctness...that was political expediency. So don't you DARE post an article taking *ME* to task because, liberal that I am, I must also be a hypocrite and a wuss and tolerant of atrocities. Sorry, but every liberal I know has been intolerant of such, and very vocal about it.

Next time you want to post something like this, post what it's REALLY criticizing and preaching. Don't mask it as one thing (a study of Islam) when it's really something else (blaming "progressives" for Islamic extremism).

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Roxanne. Trying to play a little trick on us? This isn't an article about what's wrong with Islam, it's what's wrong with liberal-western-progressives and why you shouldn't listen to them. Evil creatures that they are. They're to blame for everything. Even the hatred of America which is "emboldinging" the extremists.

I'm especially annoyed at the way this article takes western Feminists to task. They don't care about the women in Islamic countries? Really? For YEARS it was ONLY the western feminists who were bringing abuse of Islamic women to ANYONE'S attention and no one would listen to them.

And while we're at it, why doesn't this article complain about the fact that the conservatives on the right were happy to do nothing about these extremists so long as they were selling us oil and fighting on our side?

I'll happily agree with this guy that Islamic extremism is bad. And I'll happily agree that no one should apologize for "insulting" them. Extremists of ANY religion are not usually good and I'd be delighted if we did something about the evangelicals of any religion who are trying to impose their views on us all, and preach violence to achieve this end.

But don't you fucking point the finger at me and say that my "political correctness" is the reason that these assholes are thriving. Sorry, no, *I* didn't open the door for them--and it certainly wasn't a government that *I* voted for which has the rest of the West hating the U.S. It's too bad if it's had bad results in the East, but we Americans fucked up that relationship all on our own. We made that bed and we're lying in it now.

*I* was with all the other feminists denouncing radical Islam's treatment of women, gays, etc. for the last ten years without anyone listening because it was only women and gays...and it was conservative right-wingers in this country that insisted that we couldn't impose OUR views on the east and force them to treat women better. That wasn't political correctness...that was political expediency. So don't you DARE post an article taking *ME* to task because, liberal that I am, I must also be a hypocrite and a wuss and tolerant of atrocities. Sorry, but every liberal I know has been intolerant of such, and very vocal about it.

Next time you want to post something like this, post what it's REALLY criticizing and preaching. Don't mask it as one thing (a study of Islam) when it's really something else (blaming "progressives" for Islamic extremism).

That's more than a bit harsh, 3. There is some validity in the things you say, and you're correct that I'm always happy to expose the contradictions of the western left, but I'm not nearly as cynical or manipulative as you imply. I accept much of what you say about western feminists critique of Islam, until this decade, when they have been strangely silent about the plight of women in Islam, while many of their ideological allies have actually become apologists for the oppressors. (Actually, my criticism of the feminst left extends back another decade, when they became the apologists for the asymetric power relationship blow-job receiver-in-chief's oval office exploitation of a vulnerable young woman, setting aside principle for misguided political expediency on the issue of abortion, but that's a different subject for a different thread.) (Actually, maybe not: It shows a susceptability to succumbing to political expediency that may explain being AWOL on the status of women in Islam in recent years.)

Yeah, you're right, this article is as much a criticism of the west's left as it is of the current state of Islam. I don't think he says that our left are why Islamicist extremism is thriving, and I would never say that - that would be another version of neo-con hubris, actually, to claim a central role for us in what motivates them. But I do believe that you shouldn't try to divert attention to the sins of the right, or the blunders of the current administration, or any of that, at least until you have taken a good, hard look in the mirror, in the context of what this guy has said. Seriously - I would have a lot more respect for the criticisms of the left if they engaged in a little (a lot) of introspection and self criticism in the area he points to. Specifically, these three points:

- The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam.
- The anti-Americanism among many Westerners is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's enemies.
- Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity.

To the last I would add, placing the concept of cultural relativism above the principles of the Enlightenment in your hierarchy of values. How many of our precious and fragile babies are you willing to throw off the relativist sleigh to appease the pursuing wolves - free speech, freedom of the press, religious and political tolerance, separation of church and state, etc. The Danish cartoons were a frightening lesson in this regard.

Something I've come to appreciate in recent years, in part due to debating with all you reprobate lefties on this site (Ami's "usual suspects" ), is that we are all liberals at heart, in that we believe in the principles and values of the Enlightenment, and that these things are fragile and precious, and increasingly are threatened by the forces of intolerance and barbarism. We need you guys, and can't afford to have you get lost in the political/ideological swamps this guy describes.

 

[cantdog]

That's more than a bit harsh, 3.

And you needed the medicine. I am very happy to blame Liberals for keeping Bush in the white house in the shameful 2004 election, and for prolonging the war in Iraq, which both Kerry and Bush supported. But they surely didn't cause Islamic hatred for America. It's ludicrous to suggest that, when another group in America has been bombing, slaughtering, disappearing and torturing muslims wholesale. Even if liberals in the West embolden radicals, I rather think the ongoing war crimes, torture, death squads, illegal invasions, and whatnot-- including stationing armies in the Kingdom and supporting Israel in its invasion and re-re-bombing of Lebanon-- might have a more direct and demonstrable 'emboldening' effect.

There is some validity in the things you say, and you're correct that I'm always happy to expose the contradictions of the western left, but I'm not nearly as cynical or manipulative as you imply. I accept much of what you say about western feminists critique of Islam, until this decade, when they have been strangely silent about the plight of women in Islam, while many of their ideological allies have actually become apologists for the oppressors. (Actually, my criticism of the feminst left extends back another decade, when they became the apologists for the asymetric power relationship blow-job receiver-in-chief's oval office exploitation of a vulnerable young woman, setting aside principle for misguided political expediency on the issue of abortion, but that's a different subject for a different thread.) (Actually, maybe not: It shows a susceptability to succumbing to political expediency that may explain being AWOL on the status of women in Islam in recent years.)

Yeah, you're right, this article is as much a criticism of the west's left as it is of the current state of Islam.

No; it hardly touches a critique of Islam.

I don't think he says that our left are why Islamicist extremism is thriving, and I would never say that - that would be another version of neo-con hubris, actually, to claim a central role for us in what motivates them. But I do believe that you shouldn't try to divert attention to the sins of the right, or the blunders of the current administration, or any of that, at least until you have taken a good, hard look in the mirror, in the context of what this guy has said.

Great. Now let's get back to Shock and Awe, naked unilateral aggression, torture and death squads. Blunders of the current administration, and enough to piss off anyone.

Seriously - I would have a lot more respect for the criticisms of the left if they engaged in a little (a lot) of introspection and self criticism in the area he points to. Specifically, these three points:

- The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam.

I thought you advocated looking in the mirror and introspecting? Now alla sudden self-criticism sucks?

- The anti-Americanism among many Westerners is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's enemies.

Horseshit.

- Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity.

To the last I would add, placing the concept of cultural relativism above the principles of the Enlightenment in your hierarchy of values. How many of our precious and fragile babies are you willing to throw off the relativist sleigh to appease the pursuing wolves - free speech, freedom of the press, religious and political tolerance, separation of church and state, etc. The Danish cartoons were a frightening lesson in this regard.

Fuck cultural relativism. Who said anything about cultural relativism?

Something I've come to appreciate in recent years, in part due to debating with all you reprobate lefties on this site (Ami's "usual suspects" ), is that we are all liberals at heart, in that we believe in the principles and values of the Enlightenment, and that these things are fragile and precious, and increasingly are threatened by the forces of intolerance and barbarism. We need you guys, and can't afford to have you get lost in the political/ideological swamps this guy describes.

 

[cantdog]

Honestly, Rox. Spend 600 hours of your life and learn a little Arabic. Find the hell out about this stuff.

 

[elsol]

The trouble with Islam is very simple:

It's not the only game in town.

Communism has the same problem.
So does Christianity, Paganism, The Religion of El Cathol, Capilitism, Nihilism...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And you needed the medicine . . .

Cant, I think this post is beneath you. The way it comes across is that this guy hit a nerve and you're lashing out and in denial. I know that if you chose you could respond to specific objections with reasoned arguments, but this is not that. Of course nobody's required to respond to anything here and is free to respond any way they want, obviously - we all only do this for fun. But when I see that you have posted something, I expect to see a lot more content than this.

I will accept this criticism, though: I should have labeled this better, making it clear that it included a lot of harsh criticism of the western left. I apologize for not doing so. It was not my intention to "play a little trick" to use 3113's phrase - I respect her and you and most of the other "usual suspects" here , and don't want to commit any kind of dishonesty against you.

 

[ishtat]

Follow the ideology. Was Moses a warrior? Nope.
Was Jesus? Nope.

Was Muhamad? Yes.

It is difficult not to treat comments like this with sufficient contempt. It is firmly founded in ignorance and nurtured in prejudice.

Yes Moses was a warrior. Read Exodus and see how he and his successor Joshua slew practically everyone they came across. In the eyes of the Egytian authorities - the legitimate legal authority of the time he was also a terrorist. Remember that history is only a point of view.

Jesus did not personally kill people, true. But more people have been killed in his name by so called god fearing Christians than any other group on the planet.

The debate is essentially about which brand of religious bigotry you want to buy.

 

[cloudy]

It is difficult not to treat comments like this with sufficient contempt. It is firmly founded in ignorance and nurtured in prejudice.

Yes Moses was a warrior. Read Exodus and see how he and his successor Joshua slew practically everyone they came across. In the eyes of the Egytian authorities - the legitimate legal authority of the time he was also a terrorist. Remember that history is only a point of view.

Jesus did not personally kill people, true. But more people have been killed in his name by so called god fearing Christians than any other group on the planet.

The debate is essentially about which brand of religious bigotry you want to buy.

Thank you.

 

[elsol]

I choose the religious bigotry associated with Sun worship and the Almighty Dollar.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It is difficult not to treat comments like this with sufficient contempt. It is firmly founded in ignorance and nurtured in prejudice.

Yes Moses was a warrior. Read Exodus and see how he and his successor Joshua slew practically everyone they came across. In the eyes of the Egytian authorities - the legitimate legal authority of the time he was also a terrorist. Remember that history is only a point of view.

Jesus did not personally kill people, true. But more people have been killed in his name by so called god fearing Christians than any other group on the planet.

The debate is essentially about which brand of religious bigotry you want to buy.

It often is just that, but is not necessarily that. The most potent critique of Islam I've ever seen is from the articulate atheist Sam Harris. Here's a sample:

Anyone familiar with my work knows that I am extremely critical of all religious faiths. I have argued elsewhere that the ascendancy of Christian conservatism in American politics should terrify and embarrass us. And yet, there are gradations to the evil that is done in name of God, and these gradations must be honestly observed. So let us now make sense of the impossible by acknowledging the obvious: there is a direct link between the doctrine of Islam and Muslim terrorism. Acknowledging this link remains especially taboo among political liberals. While liberals are leery of religious fundamentalism in general, they consistently imagine that all religions at their core teach the same thing and teach it equally well. This is one of the many delusions borne of political correctness. Rather than continue to squander precious time, energy, and good will by denying the role that Islam now plays in perpetuating Muslim violence, we should urge Muslim communities in the West to reform the ideology of their religion. This will not be easy, as the Koran and hadith offer precious little basis for a Muslim Enlightenment, but it is necessary.

The article in the OP appears suggest that there is a different tradition within Islam, in spite of that last sentence of this quote. That is what I found heartening about it.

 

[R. Richard]

Yes Moses was a warrior. Read Exodus and see how he and his successor Joshua slew practically everyone they came across. In the eyes of the Egytian authorities - the legitimate legal authority of the time he was also a terrorist. Remember that history is only a point of view.

Now wait just a minute! A lot of the deaths credited to Joshua were actually as the result of collapsing walls in the city of Jericho. Substandard construction does not a warrior make.

 

[Patrick_B76]

Jesus did not personally kill people, true. But more people have been killed in his name by so called god fearing Christians than any other group on the planet.

First, which wars were "in his name" and and how are you so sure to make that statement? Do you have any statistics?

I think you will be hard pressed to find any higher death tolls than those inflicted by the combined wars of communism in the twentieth century.

 

[Frank Noir]

Somone will be along shortly to tell you why you shouldn't listen to this man, and to accuse him of various unsavory things. When this happens, please note that the detractor will not deny the truth or accuracy of anything written in this article. I hope you will not let the destractor(s) prevent you from forming an independent judgement about the content of this article.Roxanne

Okay - what you're saying is: This is the truth - don't argue with it.

I will, anyway. If that makes me one of the bad people in your book, so be it.

I do think this article makes some good points. However, it's riddled with horrible generalizations, treating "Western intellectuals" and "Muslims" as homogenous groups who share the same worldview - when in fact both groups are very, very diverse. Or haven't you noticed how much intellectuals argue among themselves? And I sure don't think my local Muslim kiosk owner has many similarities to Osama Bin Laden...

One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists' defense.

Who is this nameless "enemy within"?
Here, the author clearly sets up a straw man, creating a fictional group having fictional views, in order to knock these down. See above - my misgivings about treating "Western intellectuals" as one homogenous group.

Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.

This is very unfair to all those Western feminists who are very vocal and actively combat the opression of women under Islamist rule. Yes - they do exist. In fact, I can't recall any Western feminists who are apologetic towards Islamist opression...

Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine's formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.

This, at least, is a complete fabrication.
The Danish magazine never apologized.
Our prime minister went on tv to apologize, but his apology was percieved as not thorough enough.
The riots broke out as a result of the cartoons, not the apology.
(I followed this closely, as I live in Denmark)

Roxanne again - Someone else may be along who will dismiss the lifetime work of the respected scholar quoted in the first sentence by labeling him a "suave racist."

"Respect scholars" also disagree among themselves. Appeal to authority

 

[cloudy]

First, which wars were "in his name" and and how are you so sure to make that statement? Do you have any statistics?

I think you will be hard pressed to find any higher death tolls than those inflicted by the combined wars of communism in the twentieth century.

You can't possibly be as ignorant as you're portraying yourself.

 

[cantdog]

It often is just that, but is not necessarily that. The most potent critique of Islam I've ever seen is from the articulate atheist Sam Harris. Here's a sample:



The article in the OP appears suggest that there is a different tradition within Islam, in spite of that last sentence of this quote. That is what I found heartening about it.

Is the thread, then, about what's wrong with Islam? The article you started with was rather a criticism of Western PC. But if you want to discuss what's wrong with Islam, let's go for it.

Firstly, you have to read beyond the core curriculum. No religion on the planet looks and acts the way one might reasonably expect from reading the holy book. Popular Buddhism for example-- check out the parade on a given holiday through the streets of Sri Lanka. Buddha's story is that of a monk, an ascetic, and deals with attaining release from the Wheel. The sermons are filled with advice to other people who might wish to apply mental technigues toward a goal which appears nowhere on earth. It's very abstract stuff; techniques. Nothing in it seems to have a lot to do with what you see in the street.

Popular Taoism is even more outre, having to do with demons and demigods, where the Tao te Ching is philosophical and doesn't mention those entities, particularly.

If Christians are supposed to be acting in accordance with their Bible, one would similarly be very surprised indeed to come to a country where Christians predominate with expectations derived from a reading of it. Your Sam Harris points this out, too. Every Christian group cherrypicks their scriptures. Harris also lists an enormous number of direct contradictions in those writings, and concludes that after all, with such a mishmash to draw from, one can hardly avoid rejecting some portions. A believer has to cherrypick, in other words. One result has been the shattering of the church into thousands of sects. It's impossible even to generalize about what a Christian will be like.

Now, the right in this country, the political right, is engaged in empire building, largely for usurpation of resources and leveraging markets for the benefit of the business people. That's what they mean by "American interests." Meanwhile the Christian right has another agenda, but it runs with theirs to some extent, in the middle east. The result has been a general agreement by both groups to portray muslims in a bad light. One can certainly read the core curriculum, the Qur'an, and discover many passages of contempt for unbelievers. Both groups do this, and draw the conclusions about Islam which serve their purposes.

Which wouldn't matter much, of itself. It's inaccurate as a portrayal of muslims as they would live in their peaceful milieu. But so what if people want to delude themselves?

The problem comes in the actions taken based on those ideas. When Brzezinski was concerned to deliver a check to Russians in central Asia, he attempted to arrange a religiously-based resistance in Afghanistan, in particular by going to Saudi Arabia. Not one Saudi prince was interested in leading an Arab Legion for the purpose of jihad in Afghanistan, though, even though the Saudi version of Islam is pretty darn puritanical. Eventually, though, Reagan was able to introduce bin Laden as the 'moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers' of the United States, to quote the President, as freedom fighters. Fringe believers could indeed be found to flesh out the Arab legion required, but the sentiment was by no means mainstream.

Because muslims do not, in ordinary circumstances, as contruction engineers and cheesemakers and teachers, seethe with dark desire to smite unbelievers. Islam as it's practiced isn't like that, however many quotes from the Qur'an one may cite to support the notion. Historical examples from the Ottomans ignore that the legitimacy of the Ottoman state was based on its resistance to unbelievers. The Ottoman state was a ghazi state in its origins, even as the kingdoms of Iberia were all about slaying the moors.

Both examples, Castile & Aragon on the one hand and the Ottomans on the other, are late medieval examples, too, and as you point out in another thread, we are less bloodthirsty now that we all were then, worldwide. Consequently, the current fantasies, about the implacable and built-in hatred of us which all muslims must of necessity be participating in, are wrong. They are misleading and deliberately misleading. They are tools of public discourse to legitimize empire building.

World War II taught us that war is the cure for economic depression, and since then, we have had millions under arms nearly every year, and there has been a deliberate policy of endless war, or at least being on an endless war footing. Military production, to be used, must be wasted. Ordnance is fired, missiles discharged, whether in actual attack or in exercise, and so more must be produced. As an economic sector it not only has constant robust demand but the demand can be manipulated by simply ordering more military activity to take place.

Warriors require an enemy, and in the postwar era and for decades after that, the communist countries supplied it for us. We lied and built a large structure of defamatory propaganda about the dark designs of world communism, too, in support of this. Then the cold war was compelled to come to an end. The need to have an enemy did not come to an end, and we cast about pathetically for a new one, a new cardboard demon to fire ordnance toward.

We need oil, we think. Certainly, since oilmen are running the government right now, we are pretty sure that control of it is key. That means engagement in the middle east, accompanied by a permanent presence there. Clinton was made into a demon, a surrogate for the worldwide Russian conspiracy, but he could not hold up his end of the deal-- he was not actually evil enough. Hell, you could meet him personally, he was just a guy in a suit. Our opponents in our design to dominate the middle east are all muslims, though, and muslims as a group are largely alien and distant, easy to demonize. Control of the news outlets would insure that they appeared sufficiently black. And there are passages in our own holy book about unbelievers, too.

Criticism of the excessive nature of the anti-muslim stories flying around were bound to surface, since the stories are wrong. And equally inevitably, the critics of the stories would be labeled leftist, first, or liberal, since real leftists are pretty rare in America. Why? because it was the right who was pushing those stories, and they felt critics of them must be political enemies, hence liberals or lefties.

It's very important to head off those criticisms, because of the mendacity of the stories themselves. A true criticism is relative easy to demonstrate. Facts are facts. Attacks on the critics themselves, then, follow quickly when those factual criticisms emerge. Don't these people understand how necessary it is to have a reliable enemy? This has regulated the terms of both your article's discussion and your own. You cite a 'tendency... toward anti-Americanism... and sympathy for the enemy." Well, maybe, but in point of cold fact, your picture of muslims is wrong. You have no basis for confusing me with cultural relativists or politically correctists or enemies of the American state, just because I point this out.

 

[R. Richard]

It is instructive to review World War II. Religious leaders on each side, Allies and Axis stated publically that "God is on our side." At least half of them were wrong.

 

[cantdog]

And Harris would say, RR, that both were wrong. God does not take sides in political conflicts, for the excellent reason that he is a figment.

 

[Recidiva]

Roxanne, overly defensive of your premise, as if any disagreement is unreasonable. Which is never a good sign in a debate.

That being said, every philosophy, every powerful philosophy, has people who misuse its power.

This includes all religions, banking systems, politicians and petty tyrannies thoughout history.

Islam considers Moses and Jesus to be prophets. That's a great deal of source material. With a lot of good in it. And a lot of bad in it.

This is a generation after generation tradition of a large chunk of the earth's population that is being pigeonholed as "evil" by the works of a few, and not taking into account the works of the many, who do good, live decent lives following the pillars of Islam, and are just as appalled at the subversion of their religion as Christians who are appalled at evangelistic faith healers out to make a quick buck.

Those who use religions to their own political and power-hungry ends are at fault, not the reams and reams and centuries of thoughtful mysticism and pondering on the nature of the world that results in Islam deserving respect if you were to bother to study it or meet devout muslims.

 

[R. Richard]

And Harris would say, RR, that both were wrong. God does not take sides in political conflicts, for the excellent reason that he is a figment.

If a god falls in the forest and no one hears the fall, does that mean there was no god? [Something like that.]