I hear you, but I am not quite sure if you hear me. You are hypnotized with the sound and fury of our era. The cacophony of the here and now drowns anyone seeking to speak, write and contemplate on what is eternal.
So, everyone who disagrees with you is a superficial captive of the Zeitgeist? There are plenty of philosophical reasons to oppose the idea that Islam contributes any positive value to life in general. Let’s start right at the top, with the idea that Allah wants us to submit to him. My version of god wants me to stand up for myself to the point of even fighting against god in my own mortal way if my conscience demands it. Does that make me a person deluded by the “cacophony of the here and now” or does it make me a student of the possible configurations of god and our relationship as mortal men with an eternal god? My conception of god is just as profound as the Muslim’s conception, it’s just diametrically opposed. Diametrical opposition is only possible when the things being set in opposition exist at the same level in the cosmic hierarchy. So, stop your arrogant claiming to the moral high ground.
In other words, you indicate the prerequisite of reform for Muslims is repudiating Islam.
You say this like it’s a bad thing. Draw up a “pros and cons” list. Let’s see, you won’t have to worship a false god, you won’t be subject to the “Five Pillars” of Islam, you won’t have to believe that as long as your political leaders are divinely inspired they are legitimate (“rightly-guided caliphs”), you won’t have to believe that women are inferior to men and non-Muslims are inferior to Muslims, you won’t have to worry about being sent to Hell for impiety. Yeah, seems like actually if Muslims had any common sense, they would want to repudiate Islam.
Since they have not done enough – however you measure what is enough – you conclude there cannot be “moderate” Muslims.
How’s this for a measure: When Muslim terrorism occurs at the same or lower per capita terrorism rate among all other religions, then it will be rational to conclude there are enough “moderate” Muslims out there to make a difference. Your subtle accusation here appears to be that we who make claims about the relative numbers of “moderate” Muslims haven’t a leg to stand on with our claims. Well, professor, I can explain to you very exactly what we are doing: We are making a deduction about the number of “moderate” Muslims based on the number of terrorist actions being taken by “radical” Muslims. The logical link is that the higher the number of “moderates” the lower the number of terrorist incidents the “radicals” will execute. Anyone who understands group dynamics will be able to validate this logic, yet you seem to be claiming that Muslim groups are immune to it, yet you offer no proof of how the Muslims have escaped this logic of group dynamics.
Because of this fact, those who revile Islam and scorn “moderate” Muslims need to answer how they intend to wage an endless war of occupation within the Muslim world.
“Occupation” is not the only method. Fortunately, the West is strong enough, should it find the will, for a “Containment” strategy. Othewise, it’s probably going to end in “Annihilation”. Since “Occupation” isn’t my goal, I don’t find I have any need to provide a blueprint to how it would work. Blueprints for “Containment” can be found in, e.g. Diane West’s articles on how to defuse the threat jihadis in the West represent.
