A Message to Conservatives: Is Islam Really our Enemy?
Introduction and Note to Readers:
Warning: This blog is very lengthy, and has taken me a few days to write and to compile the material discussed herein. You may want to print it. I originally planned to run the different parts on consecutive days. But much of the material is time-bound and events may occur in these coming days that answer some of the tentative questions I raise.
My intention is to set off an honest and real debate about the issues I raise. I am frankly distressed about the growing volatile and rancorous choruses on the Right that seem to insist that there is only one position to take on the nature of Islam. By giving full links to the various sides, you can read through all of them and reach your own conclusions.
But the subject is too serious to act on partial and misleading information, or on the blogs coming particularly from one strident side. So please- read and think!
Part I: Who is Our Enemy?
An important issue is now emerging in the conservative constituency. It boils down to the following: Is Islam itself our enemy, and should Americans work to oppose Islam throughout the world; or, is it only radical Islam, what Christopher Hitchens calls Islamofascism and others call Islamism, the enemy we must oppose?
The issue has been raised as well by Peter Beinart in his column I commented on the other day, and by columnist Maureen Dowd in the New York Times. Like Beinart, Dowd also pretended to miss the approach taken by George W. Bush, whom she says understood that “the war against terrorists is not a war against Islam.” Dowd writes: “George W. Bush understood this. And it is odd to see Barack Obama less clear about this matter than his predecessor. It’s time for W. to weigh in.”
Actually, W’s big mistake was to not go onto to say that we were not simply fighting a war against terror, but a war against radical Islam. Instead, he seemed to suggest by omitting ever mentioning the ideology of our enemy that there was no such thing as Islamofascism, (although he once used the term and then later abandoned it) thereby making it appear that those who named the enemy were opposing Islam itself as a religion that many in the world believe in.
Dowd was more than furious at Newt Gingrich, who speaking on Fox News, said “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.” Dowd commented: “There is no more demagogic analogy than that.” Others have noted that legally, since the U.S. Government owns the Holocaust Museum, it has the legal right to refuse such a sign were one to seek to put one up. Writing at Slate.com, Briam Palmer says that in general, “putting up a sign should be value-neutral.” But as to a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum, Palmer writes:
While the law can’t discriminate against private speakers based on their views, the government has its own free speech rights. Uncle Sam can say almost anything he wants on public property and may adopt the views of some people and reject those of others. So, on a very technical level, Gingrich is right that we’ll never see a permanent Nazi sign erected next to the Holocaust museum, since the government would be unlikely to allow it. (None of this applies to the proposed mosque in New York, which is to be built on private land.)
But, he notes correctly, in Chicago in 1978, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that Nazis had a right to march in Skokie, Illinois, despite how deeply offensive it would be to the largely Jewish population who then inhabited that city. This became, he says, “a landmark free speech decision.”
But what about Gingrich’sargument, which has been to equate Nazism and its racialist ideology with Islam? And here is where it gets sticky. Writing at Contentions, Peter Wehner, a former Bush speechwriter, argued that Gingrich and others should be “careful about the rhetoric they employ,” he first argued that critics should not invoke the Saudis and their rules about other religions as a standard for comparison. Moreover, he adds that “Nazism was intrinsically malevolent, whereas mosques are not.”
But his main point is the following:
At the same time, we have to be very careful not to conflate American Muslims with al-Qaeda and Wahhabism or argue, explicitly or implicitly, that mosques qua mosques are comparable to Nazism. Some mosques do fan the flames of hatred and violence; but of course many more do not.
Wehner argues, as I did also, that the decision to build this particular mosque next to Ground Zero “is terribly imprudent” and was certain to create a “divisive and dangerous debate,” and that for good reason, most Americans want that mosque built elsewhere. But, he says, “To characterize that opposition as bigoted, malicious and un-American has evoked a perfectly predictable counterreaction.” He ends by citing historian William Lee Miller, who writing about Abraham Lincoln at the time of the Civil War, notes that Lincoln had said that all those who fought, including the Confederate Army, “were all part of a universal community of human reason,” and Miller wrote, “He did not demean or demonize the enemy.”
On this point, and on the general issue of whether Islam itself is our enemy, I received the following e-mail from conservative writer and activist David Horowitz, who has generously allowed me to use it. Horowitz writes:
Wehner misses the entire point of Gingrich’s remarks. The mosque builders are the bigoted, racist, misogynist, anti-American, anti-religious, devious, lying, Jew-hating murderous and repulsive wing of Islam. If the Mosque sponsors want to promote interfaith tolerance they can start with their own backyard. The Saudis — who ban all other religions from their turf — are the funders of 80% of the mosques in America. The other force behind this Islamist project is the Muslim Brotherhood and its baby Hamas. Gingrich should be applauded for stepping out from the crowd of credulous appeasers and deniers not only in the Democratic Party but evidently among Republicans as well.
And writing at PJM, my blogging colleague Roger Kimball, a brilliant and insightful writer, makes his own strong case that Islam- not just so-called radical Islam- is the real enemy. He writes: “My own view, which I’ve stated in this space before, is that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with “foundational Western values like free speech, the separation of church and state, and equality under the law. Such things are not simply missing from Islam: they are positively repudiated by Islam.” While Roger says that Muslims have a right to build a mosque anywhere else in America, he does think- it’s the bottom line- that “Islam is a proselytizing, intolerant religion. Its aim is to institute Sharia as the ‘sole reference point for . . . ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community . . . and state.’ That is the end. The means are multifarious. Steering commercial aircraft into American skyscrapers is only one tactic. Using and abusing liberal democratic freedoms in order to promulgate an ideology that is neither liberal nor democratic is less ostentatious but may in the end be more effective precisely because it is less dramatic. This is the lasting significance of the case of the Ground Zero mosque. It represents another step on the march to Islamize the West.”
David Horowitz, Andrew McCarthy and Roger Kimball are all smart, shrewd and articulate observers of our culture and our world. But are they correct when they shift the argument from opposing those who seek a radical Islamist agenda- imposition of Sharia law in the West- from most American Muslims who practice their faith and belief and consider themselves law-abiding patriotic Americans, and who have a strong commitment to this country?
If they are, I fear it means supporting an unwinnable proposition, that in effect, says that the interpretation of the Quran by Bin Laden and others is correct- that they truly represent the only real Islam, and those claiming to be moderates are heretics who also must be destroyed. It means writing off potential allies in the Muslim community who could become the spearhead of an Islamist reformation to the ranks of the Islamist radicals. It would give them no choice but then to support radical Islamists since our leaders have already condemned them as believing in a faith that is incompatible with the rules of American citizenship.
I wish to point out two recent articles in Tablet Magazine that further address this question. The first is by Lee Smith, who writing recently, offers a lengthy and important discussion of the nuances of Sharia law. He argues that “The word ‘sharia’ necessarily means many things to many people. Even though Islam is very simple in its basics, including conversion—you are a Muslim if you testify there is no God but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God—the faith comes with a fabulously esoteric scholarly tradition.” I urge you to download and read his entire article.
The second article appeared a few days ago and is by Daniel Luban. He provocatively calls anti-Islamist phobia “the new anti-Semitism.” His key paragraph follows:
Many of the tropes of classic anti-Semitism have been revived and given new force on the American right. Once again jingoistic politicians and commentators posit a religious conspiracy breeding within Western society, pledging allegiance to an alien power, conspiring with allies at the highest levels of government to overturn the existing order. Because the propagators of these conspiracy theories are not anti-Semitic but militantly pro-Israel, and because their targets are not Jews but Muslims, the ADL and other Jewish groups have had little to say about them. But since the election of President Barack Obama, this Islamophobic discourse has rapidly intensified.
He then adds the following:
Most of the tropes of the American “anti-jihadists,” as they call themselves, are taken from European models: a “creeping” imposition of sharia, Muslim allegiance to the ummah rather than to the nation-state, the coming demographic crisis as Muslims outbreed their Judeo-Christian counterparts. In recent years the call-to-arms about the impending Islamicization of Europe has become a well-worn genre, ranging from more sophisticated treatments like Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe to cruder polemics like Mark Steyn’s America Alone and Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia.
I take exception particularly to Luban’s characterization of Mark Styen’s book as a crude polemic. I have not read Bat Ye’or’s book, but I suspect many will rightfully take exception to that characterization as well. And it is telling that he does not mention Bruce Bawer’s books, clearly because he is a gay conservative who makes a strong case about the dangers posed by Islamists in Europe. But I agree with him that the view that America is in danger facing the same impact large Muslim communities are having in smaller European states like Denmark, France or Britain are unlikely to be recapitulated here. Many of our Muslim immigrants have taken roots here, and have become middle class and assimilated.
There is no equivalent demographic threat to the United States as that posed by Muslims in Western Europe. It is also true, of course, that a real danger exists that has to be addressed. Many of the Saudi financed Wahhabi mosques, as Stephen Schwartz and others have endlessly pointed out, preach radical Islam and have in fact led some of its members to adopt their dangerous interpretation of Islam, and some of them, as we well know, have become terrorists. This point has been made effectively by Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal. He writes that our pundits have a long history of claiming that many Imams were true moderates, when within a short time after they were heralded as such, they turned out to be the worst of Islamist extremists and supporters of terrorists. Stephens says there is but one ground on which to judge:
Which brings me to the fundamental problem with too many self-described moderate Muslims. A few years ago, my friend Irshad Manji made the point to me that “moderate Muslims denounce terror that’s committed in the name of Islam but they deny that religion has anything to do with it.” By contrast, she noted, “reform-minded Muslims denounce terror that’s committed in the name of Islam and acknowledge that our religion is used to inspire it.”
Luban goes on to attack many of the figures on the Right whom he condemns as proponents of Islamophobia, including Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Paul Sperry and P. David Gaubatz, all of whom have written books and articles propagating their position. He then writes:
Radical Muslims who engage in violence are only the tip of the iceberg, goes the argument; the more insidious threat comes from the far larger group of religious Muslims (most, perhaps all) who aim to subjugate the United States under sharia law through ostensibly peaceful and legal means. In this they are aided and abetted by the leftist elites controlling the government, media, and academy—above all, the ambiguously Muslim Obama himself—and a cast of villains that includes some mix of the Muslim Brotherhood, Jeremiah Wright, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Obama adviser Dalia Mogahed, ACORN, and George Soros. Some of the authors of these works have ties to the European far right themselves; Geller and Spencer, for instance, have alienated former political allies by championing Geert Wilders and the Vlaams Belang.
Here, he is clearly over the top and descending into foolish ridicule. Only a few fringe commentators have accused George Soros and ACORN, for example, as being part of the Islamic threat in America. And some of those he names, are in fact advocates of or apologists for radical Islam, such as CAIR. Luban shows his own bias of left-liberalism by going on a foolish comparison of opposition to radical Islam with 19th Century anti-Semitism and the Red Scare or McCarthyism of the 1950’s. (He warns that we now possibly face “a new McCarthyism.”) But the anti-Semitism of our past was indeed paranoia, while in the 1950’s, there were real Communists- and many of them were recruited for espionage right out of the ranks of their movement. Today, there are real Islamofascists, and Luban clearly minimizes their danger. And like some of the old Communists who became KGB agents and spies, many American Muslims are recruited in Wahhabi mosques to become part of terrorist cells.
Most of his critique is directed at the former Justice Department prosecutor of Islamic terrorists, National Review contributor Andrew McCarthy, author of the book The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. In the past, McCarthy has written potent on target criticism about how the real threat of Islamism has been long ignored and downplayed in our society. I have read with profit much of what he has written. And the country owes him a debt of gratitude for his role in bringing terrorists to justice. As Luban acknowledges, “he came to prominence by winning convictions against Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and others linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”
But sadly, Luban I think correctly criticizes McCarthy’s most recent arguments when he writes that “his book helps illustrate both the potency of the Muslim-conspiracy myth and the extent to which it has taken hold of mainstream right-wing discourse.” He sums up McCarthy’s position in these words:
The bulk of the Muslim population, then, aims to impose sharia over every aspect of American life. How will they do this? Through violence, if need be—but McCarthy is keen to note that Islamists are above all master dissimulators who will seek to impose sharia through legal means if they can (“grand-jihad-by-sabotage,” he calls it). This means that even peaceful attempts to follow Islam through strictly private means (for instance, through sharia-compliant finance) are simply precursors to a takeover of the overall system. Muslims who live within religious or ethnic enclaves are not merely trying to remain within a familiar community or preserve shared values; rather, they are presented as deviously following the “voluntary apartheid” strategy of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood—the group whose “global tentacles” extend into nearly every Muslim-American civil society organization.
Some will argue he exaggerates and distorts McCarthy’s argument. But his summary is similar to what Roger Kimball has argued at PJM when discussing McCarthy. He quotes McCarthy directly as writing “foreign Muslims should not be permitted to reside in America unless they can demonstrate their acceptance of American constitutional principles.” And he rightfully asks how are they supposed to do that? If they agreed to take loyalty oaths, McCarthy would undoubtedly say as does Robert Spencer, that this is a tactic of “stealth Jihad” and their words cannot be trusted.
Luban is on firm ground when he writes bout Pamela Geller, a grand conspiracy theorist whose absurdities and crazy arguments demean those conservatives who pay her any credence. If you doubt me, simply read around on her own blog, Atlas Shrugged. Here is one grand example. Download and read it for yourself. I will not reprint any of it here. It is so convoluted, so clearly nutty, that it is amazing that now she is not only part of the discourse, and even appeared on CNN as a leader of the movement to stop the mosque near Ground Zero. As Michelle Boorstein points out in The Washington Post, “Through her blog, Atlas Shrugs, television interviews and appearances at political rallies, Geller has become one of the chief organizers of opposition to the so-called Ground Zero mosque as well as efforts to build other Muslim prayer centers across the country.” In that regard, Geller’s rise to prominence in the national debate vindicates Luban’s concern about “the potency of the Muslim-conspiracy myth and the extent to which it has taken hold of mainstream right-wing discourse.”
2. Are There Really Any “Moderate” Muslims?
So is there such a thing as a moderate Muslim, and are they trying to influence their own community? Let us turn to the review put on line by Stephen Schwartz, an American who converted a few years ago to the Sufi brand of Islam. Writing on the website of The Middle East Forum and in their journal Middle East Quarterly, Schwartz offers his take in a review of a book by Bassam Tibi, Political Islam,World Politics, and Europe. Schwartz is himself author of two books on the issue, the influential The Two Faces of Islam: Saudi Fundamentalism and Its Role in Terrorism (2003) and the more recent The Other Islam: Sufism and the Road to Global Harmony (2008). In his review of Tibi’s book, he stresses that as a man dealing with the role of Islamist ideology in Europe, “Tibi is committed to a moderate and pluralistic form of Islam, which supports democratic principles, for a Europe in which Muslims could live on equal, non-confrontational terms with their non-Muslim and non-religious neighbors.”
He adds, in what might be the understatement of this era- given the views of conservatives with solid credentials like Roger Kimball, David Horowitz and Andrew McCarthy, -that “His approach will doubtless be especially provocative to those who deny that a moderate Islam is possible, much less can flourish, or who see the new presence of Islam in Western Europe as a threat to a major component of Judeo-Christian civilization.”
In his book, Tibi writes the following: “”It matters whether a political jihadist Islam or a civil Euro-Islam will prevail among Muslims living in Europe.” He further declares, “I want to warn against any indiscriminate criticism of the Islamic diaspora in Europe and propose my concept of Euro-Islam as an alternative to jihadism.”
Having not as yet read Tibi’s book, I offer the following point. Before deciding who is right, doesn’t it behoove those who say the enemy is Islam to read the arguments of those who, like Tibi, are moderate Muslims fighting the good fight within their own community? Isn’t his entrance into the fray evidence in and of itself that there are those who consider themselves true Muslims who are opposing the radical Islamists?
Tibi agrees that Muslims do have a higher birth rate, and hence in the following decades will play a stronger role in Europe. That is why he is fighting for what he calls a need for “Europeanizing Islam” instead of accepting “the Islamization of Europe.” Seeking acceptance of Enlightenment values, Tibi supports “the idea of Europe endorsed by a liberal and reformed Islam.” Tibi, like Paul Berman in this country, is evidently a strong critic of the misleading views propagated abroad and in the U.S. by Tariq Ramadan, the man so wrongly offered by many liberals and leftists here as an example of a “moderate Muslim.” He accuses Ramadan of favoring a “religious imperialism” which he calls “an offense to the idea of Europe.” Similarly, Tibi favors “cultural pluralism” over the excuse offered by Western leftists for acceptance of radical Islam—that we have to obey the need for a “multicultural” approach.
It is the latter that led Joan Wallach Scott of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ., at a forum in New York City with Ramadan, to rationalize and support Ramadan’s refusal to condemn the stoning of women, but only to support a temporary moratorium. As she said at the widely reported forum, as reported by another panelist, George Packer of The New Yorker, “Scott, a feminist scholar, was asked by the moderator, Jacob Weisberg of Slate, about the treatment of Muslim women and Ramadan’s views on the subject, including his call for a ‘moratorium’ in Muslim countries on the Islamic criminal code, including stoning of adulteresses. Her answer came in two parts: first, she said, the whole question is just a distraction from the plight of unemployed Muslims in Europe. Second, who are we to criticize? Let them work things out according to their religion.” As Marc Tracy observed in Tablet Magazine, “For this Western non-Muslim observer, who really wants to be ecumenical and tolerant about a wide range of issues, but who simply can’t abide even a single crack in the door between stoning women being okay and stoning women being not okay, this is the night’s most distressing moment.”
These are the really critical issues that divide a true moderate Muslim from an apologist for Islamism. Andrew McCarthy, for one, would not be surprised. For what he argues is that in the West, as Scott’s comments show, there is a large part of the Western left-wing that stands with the radical Islamists, whom they see as comrades in the war against the “evil” and “imperialist” United States. Hence, in Britain and elsewhere, we have seen the prominence of Trotskyist communists in open alignment with Islamic radicals, joining them in their marches, and working with them to isolate and condemn Israel.
I agree with Cathy Young, another wise libertarian and conservative columnist. She writes that the opponents of the Ground Zero mosque have some valid points, but the problem is “the opposition is so tainted with intolerance and irrationality that to hand it a victory would be far worse.” Young gives us a very shrewd analogy. She asks what would have happened had a group of Christian anti-abortion foes bombed Planned Parenthood’s New York offices, if ten years later, a conservative Christian group that said it opposed violence, sought to build a 13 story community center and church next to the old PP headquarters. She writes:
Most likely, the roles in this debate would be reversed. Quite a few liberals would denounce the planned construction of the center as a slap in the face to the victims and their families; the likes of Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin would decry anti-Christian bias and voice outrage that the actions of a handful of extremists would be used to denigrate all Christians or all abortion opponents.
So Cathy Young understands the issues and what divides us. But, she writes, the problem is that “Anti-Muslim zealots have been in the forefront of protests against the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’- people such as writer and blogger Robert Spencer, who openly declares that the Islamic faith itself is a terrorist ideology and that ‘moderate Islam’ is a deceptive myth.” The conclusion if one believes Spencer and company is that, as Young writes, “that every peaceful Muslim is a potential jihadist. She quotes one protester of mosques built in California as saying that we are too concerned about religious freedom. This protester, Diane Serafin, said : “I know it’s there in the Constitution and everything, but everything I read says Islam is a political movement,” she told a reporter, adding that “there’s a movement going on in the United States to take over our country.” One Congressional candidate in Tennessee, Lou Ann Zelinik, Young reports, says the US is not obligated to allow Muslims to practice their religion at all. Unless they prove they are fighting our enemies, the Zelinik stated, “we are not obligated to open our society to any of them.” How they are supposed to prove that before being allowed to build a mosque or pray in one is something that the hopeful candidate does not pause to explain.
That is why Roger Kimball’s assurances that “no one disputes the right” of Muslims to practice their religion and build a mosque or community center is not good enough . In fact, these people- having read Robert Spencer in particular- and perhaps Andrew McCarthy- are reaching just such a conclusion. Yes we all understand that Roger Kimball is correct when he writes that you can’t build a church, a temple or sell a Bible in Saud Arabia. Very true. But we are not Saudis. Do we have to emulate their standards for ourselves? Will that really contribute anything to the fight against Islamism?
That is why I agree with Cathy Young when she writes: “It is unfortunately true that, for whatever reason, militant and violent fundamentalism in Islam today occupies a much more prominent place, and is much closer to the mainstream, than in other major religions. But surely the answer to that is to promote modernization and moderation in Islam, not to demonize the entire faith.”
One must also heed what Daniel Pipes wrote some years back, that the real problem is identifying correctly who is and who is not a moderate Muslim. Imam Rauf may not turn out to be one—but that does not mean that moderate Muslims who actively seek influence are not real moderates. “With time,” Pipes wrote, individual Muslims are finding their voice to condemn Islamist connections to terrorism.” He presents many examples which must not be overlooked; yet he too warns that “There are lots of fake-moderates parading about, and they can be difficult to identify, even for someone like me who devotes much attention to this to this topic.” If it is difficult for Pipes, imagine how difficult it is for those of us attempting to make sense of all this from the outside.
Pipes shrewdly concludes: “The task of identifying true moderates cannot be done through guesswork and intuition; for proof, note the American government’s persistent record of supporting Islamists by providing them with legitimacy, education, and (perhaps even) money. I too have made my share of mistakes. What’s needed is serious, sustained research.”
3. Who is Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, and what Does he Believe?
This is the key question we know must decide. Clearly it is one the mainstream media has been avoiding. Last week, the former CIA covert operative and now distinguished writer, Reuel Marc Gerecht, wrote about how one should identify moderate Muslims. He began by immediately putting his finger on the difficulty of knowing what to make of Iman Rauf. “Some of his short essays and interviews in English suggest that he is a preacher of moderate disposition and views. But some of his more tentative, if not deceptive commentary about terrorism against Israelis, America’s culpability for 9/11, and the nobility and value of the Holy Law for Muslims living in the West suggest something different.” But Gerecht thinks, quite wisely, that he has a “sneaking suspicion” that those pledging their guarantees that the imam is a moderate and who go on to attack his critics, may very well not have done their homework.
Moreover, Gerecht notes that building this particular mosque raises another question. If it was a mosque built anywhere else, he writes, we may well “frown on monies flowing to it from Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi establishment, given Wahhabism’s virulently anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and just all-around anti-fun traditions, but we certainly would not try to shut it down.” But in the case of this mosque, “If Mr. Rauf has collected monies from individuals or Muslim organizations overseas that preach contempt for infidels, have financially supported religiously militant organizations, or, worse, provided aide to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, then his project, which has been approved by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, ought to be cancelled.”
So it comes down for Gerecht to whether or not Rauf is or is not a moderate Muslim. A moderate Muslim in our country, moreover, is different from one considered moderate in the Persian Gulf. Thus he presents standards for reaching a judgment; they include rejection of terrorism against anyone and renouncing the applicability of Sharia law in American society. A moderate American Muslim, he concludes, would see Sharia law “in much the same way that a faithful ‘moderate Jewish American’ views the Old Testament and the Talmud: documents of a certain time that contain considerable ‘divine’ wisdom (as well as much looniness) and many imperatives for a good, healthy life.”
The argument about what Imam Rauf stands for was first raised a while back by Stephen Schwartz, a moderate Muslim who contrary to Kimball, McCarthy, Geller and Spencer, believes that moderate Muslims do exist. But writing in The Weekly Standard, Schwartz cautioned about “Rauf’s refusal to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization; Rauf’s leading role in the Perdana Global Peace Organization, ‘a principal partner,’ in its own words, of the Turkish-launched flotilla that tried to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza; and the project’s questionable sources of funding.” And more recently, he wrote that moderate American Muslims should reject the Ground Zero mosque, and that Rauf “has maintained links with Muslim radicals, including enablers of terror, whom he declines to disavow. These include the Malaysian politician Mahathir Mohamad, who supports Hamas’ Gaza dictatorship.” He also notes that “Nor, for that matter, can Muslim leaders allow any accommodation with the clerical tyranny in Iran or with such extremists as the Saudi Wahhabis, Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is a branch) or Pakistani jihadism.”
Writing today, Lee Smith makes a slightly different point. He acknowledges Rauf’s now well known refusal to condemn Hamas. He writes that “Rauf is just an imam—and more importantly, in this context, he is an entrepreneur. Among those from whom he seeks funding are Muslim elites throughout the Middle East, a caste that often supports the anti-Israel ‘resistance’ financially as well as morally. While there are some such elites who may detest Hamas for any number of reasons, few are apt to criticize the outfit publicly, especially in front of outsiders like the Americans. Were Rauf to disown Hamas to gain favor with the Americans, the doors now open to him throughout the Muslim world would be shut, forfeiting both his immediate access to money as well as the much more lucrative long-term opportunities afforded him as bridge between the United States and the Muslim world.”
Smith is suggesting that Rauf’s actions are taken in order to not give Muslim audiences abroad an excuse not to listen to what he has to say about the United States. In other words, if he condemned Hamas in the US, that’s all his audience would ask him about. They would not listen to what the State Department- which is now sponsoring his tour of Muslim countries- is bringing Rauf to their domain for- to hear him attempt to build bridges. Rauf has, Smith says, “the ear of American policymakers.” He adds that “the Bush State Department was similarly supportive of his travels.” I would add that now that Obama is in office, this tour is offered as further evidence by the hard Right of Obama’s Muslim sympathies, while when Bush was in office, little was said in the way of attacks on the President for giving credibility to Rauf and for having him accompany Karen Hughes on a government tour.
Smith notes that “Rauf, said State Dept spokesman P.J. Crowley, is a distinguished Muslim cleric who ‘brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States.’” But Smith corrects Crowley, noting that after Iran’s June elections, “Obama, Rauf wrote on his website, should say that, ‘his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 [Iranian] revolution—to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, that establishes the rule of law.’ Leaving aside the apologetics on behalf of a terror-sponsoring regime that tortures, rapes, and murders its own people, this is a curious statement coming from a Sunni like Rauf.”
Smith therefore suggests that “Rauf the self-described Sufi is [not] the avant-garde of an Islamic ecumenism. More likely, he is just the iteration of a type, familiar both in the Arabic-speaking Middle East and New York real estate circles—he’s an operator. To be all things to all people is to avoid alienating potential donors—like the Arab elite that supports Hamas, and the Islamic Republic of Iran’s business sectors.” Or, to make it simple, just another opportunist.
Most important, however, is the claim made today on Bill Bennett’s radio program by the distinguished anti-terrorist investigator, Steven Emerson. You will hear Emerson say, early in his interview, that he has uncovered new tapes of Rauf he has not as yet released, but which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Imam is not what he claims to be- but is instead a radical pledged to destruction of the United States. In particular, Emerson says that Rauf defends the Saudi brand Wahhabi view of Islam; calls for Israel’s destruction, and defends Osama Bin Laden. We must wait for Emerson to release the tapes and to write about their contents on his organization’s website. If they prove to be true, the debate over Rauf’s role will be over, and the Obama administration, and its attempt to build bridges to would-be moderates who really are cooperators with terrorists, will be in shambles.
On the other side of the spectrum, Middle East expert Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the top journalists of our time, swears that Imam Rauf is a true moderate. Writing on his own Atlantic Monthly blog, Goldberg says that in 2003, Rauf spoke at a memorial for Daniel Pearl, the martyred journalist, and was invited by none other than Pearl’s father. Identifying himself with the Judaic tradition, Rauf said: “I am a Jew.” Goldberg stresses that “any Muslim imam who stands before a Jewish congregation and says, ‘I am a Jew, is placing his life in danger.” To radical Islamists, that would automatically make Rauf an apostate. Not only is Rauf not a terrorist, but to the contrary, Goldberg asserts, Rauf “placed himself in mortal peril in order to identify himself with Christians and Jews, and specifically with the most famous Jewish victim of Islamism.” His words cannot simply be taken as words chosen to appease a suspicious Jewish audience. He quotes Rauf as saying he stands by the “Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic faiths.”
Either Rauf has pulled the wool over the eyes of Daniel Pearl’s father and Jeffrey Goldberg, and is the biggest Muslim liar on the planet, or the contrary view of what Rauf believes asserted by the Right and by Steve Emerson is based on simple paranoia and false evidence. I suspect that quite soon, evidence alone- not polemics- will settle this issue.
4: Where Does This Leave Us?
I suggest first we must separate two issues. Unlike those in the conservative movement who believe Islam is the enemy, I argue that there are real moderate Muslims, who need to be encouraged and supported in waging the fight within Islam against the uses of the Quran for radical purposes. These Muslims exist. We must support them, and not fall into the trap of backing imposters and charlatans who claim they are moderates, and who use our gullibility to pull the wool over our eyes, and who gain our monetary and political backing for what in reality are nefarious purposes dangerous to our national security.
But to view all Muslims as per se extremists is to give up this fight in advance, and to push real moderates into the hands of the extremists. If all Muslims are our enemy, we give credibility to the radical Islamofascists, who claim that their view of the Quran is the only true one, and if one is a real Muslim, they must join Bin Laden and the other radicals in their holy Jihad against the West.
The best statement to date on this, I think, is by John Guardiano at FrumForum.com. Called “Drop ‘the war with Islam’ talk,” Guardiano answers an argument he found at Frontpagemag.com and NewsRealblog.com written by a young editor at David Horowitz’s websites, David Swindle. Like Horowitz, whom I quoted at the start of this article, Swindle believes that Islam is “a Jew-hating creed” that has to be “eradicated.” Swindle had in fact e-mailed me a few days ago, and told me that he once thought Islam could be just another religion one respected, but he came to the conclusion that in effect it was incapable of reform.
Drawing a parallel with the Left, he argues that just as there can be no Left without a belief in socialism there cannot be an Islam without Sharia law. If followers of Islam go back to the doctrine of its founder, Swindle says, they end up with Hamas. As for those who say they are Sufi and that they are genuine believers in Islam, Swindle argues that Sufism is no more Islam than Madonna’s version of Kabbalah is Judaism. To all this, Guardiano answers:
I am sorry that Swindle feels this way: because if he is right, then it seems to me that he is consigning America to a state of permanent war with the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims. And I’m not sure that the United States can win this war, given the overwhelming demographic and geographic challenges inherent in such a conflict. There are, after all, some 50 countries with a majority Muslim population.
But more to the point, I’m not sure that such a war is right, wise or necessary. There are, after all, practical and prudential reasons to oppose the type of harsh and virulent rhetoric that Swindle typically employs against all of Islam.
He adds that “demonizing all of Islam will seriously undermine our efforts to win over the vast majority of Muslims who are both moderate-minded and religiously devout.” Noting that this is not a minor matter of debate, the very success of our counter-insurgency in Afghanistan that these same hard liners claim to support, is based on winning over the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, most of whom are believing Muslims. If we demonize them, and say their religion is irredeemable and incapable of being reformed, we have lost the war before we have begun to completely win it. We may as well pack up and go home, and face the coming war with a good part of the earth inhabited by believers in the faith of Islam.
He adds that the view of Islam believed by David Horowitz, David Swindle, and the likes of smart men like Roger Kimball, Andrew McCarthy and others, “seems entirely textually based and devoid of any historical context.” Daniel Pipes notes (in the article I cited earlier) that in fact Islam has changed through the ages, as has the very concept of Jihad. Even in the 1800’s, when Sharia law was intact, to get around its strictures, Pipes notes that “pre-modern Muslims (that is, Muslims before 1800) developed legalistic fig leaves that allowed for the relaxation of Islamic positions without directly violating them.” Thus they were able to “stick to the letter of the law while negating its spirit.”
Guardiano’s conclusion is one I wholeheartedly endorse: To insist there is only one Islam- and it is radical and must be crushed- “helps no one but the Islamists and other radicals who are at war with America and the West.”
Is that the goal conservatives, and other patriotic Americans, really want for our country?
Addendum:
On RealClearPolitics.com, Cathy Young has just posted an article that is complimentary to mine.
Called “Reality Check in the Ground Zero Mosque Debate,” she raises points similar to those I have just raised, with some new examples. She too notes that “claims by Cordoba Center supporters that Rauf is the very model of a modern Muslim moderate are overly optimistic. Much of Rauf’s work is admirable. In his writings on sharia, he has consistently argued that Islam should preserve what he believes is the true spirit of Koranic law — justice, equality and tolerance — while discarding tenets that promote the subjugation of women or hostility to non-Muslims. In his 2004 book ‘What’s Right With Islam,’ he suggests that the U.S. system of government may be ‘the form of governance that best expresses Islam’s original values and principles.’ Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, a program run by the American Society for Muslim Advancement co-founded by Rauf and Khan, has included such dissident voices as Irshad Manji, a lesbian feminist strongly critical of traditional Islam.”
But, she continues,” some of Rauf’s comments over the years are legitimate cause for concern. He has made statements that seem to minimize radical Islamist terror — by pointing to the Christian West’s killing of civilians in Hiroshima and Dresden, or asserting that the West must apologize for its wrongs toward Muslims before terrorism can end. (Rauf may be rightly critical of Western support for repressive regimes in the Muslim world, but any call for an end to terror should be unconditional.) He has refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization — which is not an encouraging approach to promoting moderation, even if his motive is a misguided inclusiveness rather than sympathy.”
Finally, Young also ends by asking whether or not self-proclaimed moderate Muslims are what they say they are? Her wise final conclusion:
There can be no real discussion of Islam in America without an honest admission that Islamic extremism is not limited to a few fringe groups of crazies, and a willingness to confront this extremism. But at the moment, there is an equally urgent need to confront a pervasive extremism in the anti-jihadist movement that seeks to demonize Islam itself and tar virtually all Muslims with the terrorist brush.
Addendum: 8/21/2010 3 pm EST
I find that I agree with Andrew McCarthy’s latest piece on this issue. You can read it here. He makes good distinctions, and is a nuanced artile
That was a long read.
I implore you to read more about ISLAM, Ron. This is NOT a religion of ‘peace’.
Symbolism means everything to the very backwards tribal mentality of ISLAM.
Of course there are ‘moderate’ Muslims, the refuse to follow Islam to the teeth which makes them Infidels in their own right.
Study up. Christianity has its fugly past too…key word ‘past’… The Islamists hate all and any information that brings down their ‘faith’…they stone, they hate gays, women…the list goes on and on… That’s ‘fine’…but when ‘they’ become terrorists’…they are not just a religion any longer.
Just as I’m sure there would be hellfire for a ‘Nambla’ building built right next to an all-boys school…
There is such a thing as “COMMON DECENCY” and these Muslims have proven they have NONE and hard ANY of the ‘MODERATES’ have come out in droves to stand against this atrocity.
Sorry, Ron, this won’t end well.
Mr Radosh is a serious writer. But he misses the heart of the problem completely. He has been seduced by the Radical Islamists who pose as moderates into believing that they are the moderates and that America should accommodate to their desires. What he fails to see is that there are actually moderate Muslim in America and the West, but Radosh has betrayed them. The true moderates are against building the mosque at WTC. The true moderates (unlike Rauf, the wolf in sheep’s clothing) deplore sharia and in many cases have fled from it. The true moderates don’t justify the WTC attack, as Rauf did, by claiming that America was complicit and that America created Osama bin Laden. There is a big difference, which Radosh cannot discern, between actual moderate Muslims who love America and want to assimilate and the phony moderates who actually only tolerate America while planning to change it from within. The only difference between the Fort Hood bomber and all the other terrorists and would be terrorists and Feisal Rauf and his ilk is that the former group is in a hurry and the latter group is willing to be patient – to bring sharia to America through demographic change and gradual internal subversion.
If Mr Radosh wanted to be constructive he’d support the true moderates. They are in the county plain as day. They have websites and journals of which Mr Radosh is apparently totally ignorant – content as he is to listen to the voices of CAIR and the other manifestations of the Muslim Brotherhood, falling for their great lie that they represent moderate Islam. For Mr Radoish a suit and a tie and a soft voice is all that matters.
This is truly surprising from a writer who has studied Communism’s fifth-columns and the long sorry rogues gallery of useful idiots, fellow travelers and subversives. The conservative writers who are courageously exposing the truth and unmasking the Radical Islamic deception being perpetrated on America don’t need lecturing from Mr Radosh.
Sooner or later, just as has played out in Western Europe, when Mr Radosh has had his belly full of assasinations of filmmakers and cartoonists, when he’s been wearied by incessant fatwas against writers and artists, when he reads about the honor killings in Texas and the clitorectomies in Maryland, when he sees the TV screens filled with thousands more innocents dead at the hands of jihadists crying Allah Akbar on their way to paradise … maybe then we can expect a different essay and a more realistic appraisal from the great historian of the Cold War.
I’m with the late Samuel Huntington: Islam is fine in Islamic countries. I don’t think we have any business messing with Muslims in their own countries. Pushing Western ideas as universal is bound to make a lot of people angry, which it has. If Muslims wish to be left alone, we should leave them alone. Unfortunately, that’s not the full story.
I don’t see why we have to allow Islam to get a foothold in our country. Muslims seem to cause an enormous amount of trouble in any country that they inhabit where they are not in the majority. This is true everywhere from Nigeria to India to Thailand to Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were religiously motivated, and we were totally correct in retaliating. We should be left alone as well.
Obviously, we have a First Amendment and we should not have any laws condemning Islam.
But, most Muslims in the US immigrated here. We do not have to allow anyone in, nor do we have to accept people from cultures that are historically impossible to assimilate and are bound to cause trouble. It’s our country, not everyone should be allowed to live here. I can’t think of a religion, culture, and civilization less suited to peaceful coexistence with the West than Islam. I don’t think we should try. At the inter-state level, we should do our best to reduce friction between Western and Muslim countries. We should not try to push our values onto an ancient civilization that is deeply proud and easily offended. At the intra-state level we should avoid creating a substantial Muslim minority that cannot accept the modern West.
Muslims have their own countries, and we should reduce conflict by staying out of them. Conversely, we should be very, very reluctant to allow Muslim immigrants into our countries. It’s simply asking for conflict down the road.
We aren’t at war with a billion people. We are at war with the fraction that wishes to attack us. To defeat them, we must have Muslim allies. That’s fine. It does not mean that we should trust such allies of convenience after the mutual threat has passed. The goal is security for ourselves, not to change the minds of a billion people.
That’s a long and well-written article, Mr. Radosh, and I think you raise some valid points about the general debate on Islam. I’ve known too many Muslims to believe that Islam as a whole is the enemy. Michael Totten has written about Muslim variance in practice, including Kosovars who live in peace with their Christian neighbors, resisting the Saudis. I think some of the arguments do go into the abyss of conspiratorial hatred, as you mentioned.
However, this mosque is a particular act, by a particular person. I don’t trust Rauf, and I certainly think he is being deliberately provocative. Cordoba is a symbol of al-Andalus, the Muslim rule over parts of Spain, after all. (Islamic Supremacists never forgive and never forget, something anyone in Israel is painfully aware of) Islamic Supremacists claim ground zero as a holy victory, after all, and a Mosque would be suitable as a monument. Debris from the attack actually landed in the building on 9-11.
You yourself mentioned that there are real Islamists/Islamic Supremacists out there. I think a sizable portion of the people opposing the mosque believe Rauf to be one of them, along with the financial backers.
If they want to show their tolerance, then please move to another site. I would be infuriated at the thought of terrorists killing in the name of my God, and I would want to make sure I gave no credence to their views, even unintentionally. If the backers of the mosque cannot understand why people are outraged, that says something about their disconnect with the rest of America. Just make a good-faith effort to show some respect for the dead.
I am not a conservative but, nonetheless read your blog regularly. I also read your book about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg – a stellar piece of scholarship – and, on your recommendation, James Weinstein’s The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State 1900-1918 (which Zinn’s book completely misrepresents, in my view), among other books. Which is to say, I take you very seriously.
You have written a stellar piece. I think that, in studying Islam, one needs to be careful how one looks at the issue – i.e., whether we are talking history, sociology or religion -. If we go by classical expression of the faith, it is hard to ignore that Jihad is an important doctrine that calls on Muslims to, as a community, fight to enlarge the lands governed by Muslims under Sharia law although such is supposed to be under the leadership of the commander of the faithful, not NGO terror groups.
So, a devout Muslim who understands the matter, including the requirements of Sharia law – and notwithstanding what Lee Smith writes, which seems more sociology than either history or religion (and, to note, I like Smith a lot and, in particular, his recent book The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations) – must take the basic injunction to fight very seriously. Bernard Lewis writes somewhat euphemistically in, if I recall, one of his stellar books, The Political Language of Islam, that Islamic civilization has a more realistic understanding of war than other civilizations.
Lewis’ point becomes obvious, if you consider that the Jihad doctrine is not merely a religious/theological construct of a few theologians but a basic part of the Sharia law – as understood by the four main Sunni schools and the Shi’a schools. On this point I would recommend highly Understanding Jihad, by Prof. David Cook. The famed Islamicist, Ignaz Goldhizer, wrote (circa. 1906):
In addition to the religious duties imposed upon each individual professing Islam, the collective duty of the “jihad” (= “fighting against infidels”) is imposed on the community, as represented by the commander of the faithful. Mohammed claimed for his religion that it was to be the common property of all mankind, just as he himself, who at first appeared as a prophet of the Arabs, ended by proclaiming himself the prophet of a universal religion, the messenger of God to all humanity, or, as tradition has it, “ila al-aḥmar wal-aswad” (to the red and the black). For this reason unbelief must be fought with the force of weapons, in order that “God’s word may be raised to the highest place.” Through the refusal to accept Islam, idolaters have forfeited their lives. Those “who possess Scriptures” (“ahl al-kitab”), in which category are included Jews, Christians, Magians, and Sabians, may be tolerated on their paying tribute (“jizyah”) and recognizing the political supremacy of Islam (sura ix. 29). The state law of Islam has accordingly divided the world into two categories: the territory of Islam (“dar al-Islam”) and the territory of war. (“dar al-ḥarb”), i.e., territory against which it is the duty of the commander of the faithful (“amir al-mu’minin”) to lead the community in the jihad.
Goldhizer, as Prof. Lewis notes, was enamored of Islam and was the first non-Muslim to attend al-Azhar. And, his scholarship is second to none. See his book, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law (which includes, in modern editions, updates and notes from Bernard Lewis). So, noxious doctrines need to be taken seriously.
The other point, which addresses the sociology and historical point – comes from scholar Ibn Warraq (borrowing from Prof. Lewis) – Warraq, being the author of the truly brilliant, in my view, Defending the West (hard reading but worth the time) – who in a panel with Paul Berman and Judith Miller, stated:
IBN WARRAQ: I often think that this is a way of skirting the question. I prefer to bring in the nuances of history. I like to make a distinction that I actually owe to Bernard Lewis; oddly enough, Lewis, to my knowledge, has never made use of it. It’s a very useful distinction that he made between Islam One, Two, and Three. Islam One is what’s in the Koran, what the Prophet Mohammed did and enjoyed. Islam Two is the sharia and the theological construct that we call Islam, as developed by the theologians over the centuries. Islam Three is Islamic civilization, which is what Muslims actually did do as opposed to what they should have done, what actually happened in Islamic history. Often Islam Three—that is, Islamic civilization—was far more tolerant than what Islam One and Two demanded. For example, until very recently, Islamic society (Islam Three) was far more tolerant about homosexuality than the West was, whereas Islam One and Islam Two more firmly condemned it. There are several ambiguous passages in the Koran, but certainly Islam Two, the sharia, condemns homosexuality.
Islamic history has never been a relentless series of theocratic governments; it has varied from century to century, ruler to ruler. Sometimes it has been very intolerant, and sometimes it has been very tolerant. Just look at some of the poets who were given free rein—for example, al-Mahawi, an Iraqi who was certainly an agnostic and very probably an atheist, but he was very critical. He was left alone; no one bothered him, so this is witness to the period of tolerance. This is, for me, the best way to approach the situation. For example, some of the terrorists are taking literally what is in the Koran. There are all sorts of intolerant passages in the Koran about killing infidels and not taking Jews and Christians as friends. It’s undeniably there, and you can’t get away from it. Chapter four in the Koran: you can’t get away from the fact that it gives men the power to beat women. It’s no good pretending that somehow the real Islam is tolerant, the real Islam is feminist, and so on. There is a great deal of confusion because people do not want to tarnish with the same brush a billion believers. We don’t want to be too crude in our defamation. We don’t want to call all Muslims terrorists, so the best way is this distinction between Islam One, Two, Three.
I think that we need to take Warraq, in his reference to Bernard Lewis’ point, very seriously here. Which is to say, whatever the doctrines of Islam may be, we are dealing with human beings who, if they want, can effectively act as if their religion’s precepts were mere window dressing or whatever else they want. And, I might add, there may, at some point, be a sufficiently large collection of reform minded people like Irshad Manji, who may cause a serious rethinking of doctrines, rather than merely an ignoring of them, as likely is the case just now for most Muslims in the US. But, her world and that of Professor Tibi is currently a small world.
So, while I do not believe it appropriate to assert that an entire religion is evil or to be castigated, I think that the religion contains a great many troubling doctrines, at least for non-Muslims. And, the issue is not merely Islamism, because it is these doctrines, which are, in some sense, widely considered authentic by knowledgeable devout Muslims, allow the Islamists to find shelter inside the Muslim community.
One last point: it is difficult to imagine that a savvy community leader like the imam, with real political connections to boot, failed to consider the possibility that a multistory community center built by a Muslim group to supposedly heal rifts with non-Muslims but located near the WTC area would do anything other than stir of a dispute. That, in itself, calls his bona fides into question or that Islamists would see the matter as an act of triumphalism. While I believe in freedom of speech and that, absent some direct proof of Islamist connections, the objections should be toned down, I also think that we are dealing with a pretty appalling lack of taste on his part. But, in America, you have the right to have and act in bad taste. We learned that at Skokie many years ago.
Mr Friedman, you need to explain what happened to the various countries of the Middle-East & N. Africa after the Muslim conquest, re: the subject peoples.
It took centuries, and still continues today, to Islamize (and Arabize) the subject peoples. You need only look at the Copts in Egypt. As late as the 14th century, 50% of Egypt’s population was still Christian. Look at the situation of the Copts today.
Islam is finishing it’s task, the elimination of any identity except Islam.
I have seen this same phenomenon with my own eyes re: the Berbers of N. Africa, specifically Morocco.
A great deal of the past survives in many of today’s Muslim countries. And, it is this past, this other identity, which Islam tirelessly endevours to grind out of existence.
Terry,
The issue here is not about North Africa or other Muslim lands which were Islamized. I think that the most apt interpretation of that Islamization is that Muslim conquerors were among the best colonizers history has ever known. As an historian friend of my notes, the objects of many Islamic conquests side against their own ancestors in interpreting such events.
As for the process of undermining non-Muslim people of the book, there are a number of different versions of how that occurred. My view is that, in a society dominated by one group, where there are privileges for that group and social penalties for the other groups, those in the other groups will, with time, find a way to join, if permitted, the dominant/privileged group. Islam, which eventually came to permit conversion and, after conversion, came to accept non-Arabs as full Muslims having the same rank, in theory at least, as Arabs, allowed the conquered to join the conqueror.
Now, it is true that Muslim conquerors could be very cruel – although, at times, not. In India, the evidence, given that Hindus and Buddhists were not people of the book, shows remarkable cruelty which, were it a description of events in the West, we would call genocide on a scale beyond imagination. But, such occurred in a period where the slaughter occurred not all that infrequently.
The Christians and Jews of what became the Ottoman Empire were treated differently at different times. There, I think clearly, the theory that conversion brought an escape from sporadic cruelty and ongoing social disabilities is likely well taken.
The people who committed the heinous Sept. 11 acts weren’t even the ones still living in the “Dark Ages”. They were College educated and ‘Westernized’.
Regardng the “spit in your eye” Mosque eh “community center with a Mosque on top”:
http://michaelgraham.com/archives/there-will-be-no-9-11-mosque/
Mr Friedman.
Actually, the Arabs initially did not want to convert subject people to Islam, at least, that was the case in N. Africa. The reason, if they converted, they would not pay the taxes imposed on subject peoples.
You sound as if you admire the efficient colonization by Islam, the fact that the descendants of the subject peoples today defend Islam, the same Islam that murdered & pillaged their ancestors, is the most disturbing aspect of what this vile ideology imposed on the conquered. And this is exactly what they intend for us.
Terry,
What you write, namely, that Arabs did not,at first, want converts is probably correct. But, that, of course, was a very long time ago. Even after Arabs began to accept converts, they did not treat them as true Muslims. That did not occur for a number of centuries.
The point, though, is irrelevant. You inquired what happened to N. Africa’s Christians. And, as I wrote, they mostly converted. That, at one point, Arabs did not want converts does not change the matter one iota.
I have a bad typo near the end of my post. If you would change the last paragraph to read what is shown below, it would be appreciated:
One last point… It is difficult to imagine that a savvy community leader like the imam, with real political connections to boot, failed to consider the possibility that a multistory community center built by a Muslim group to supposedly heal rifts with non-Muslims but located near the WTC area would do anything other than stir up a dispute. That, in itself, calls his bona fides into question; and, as would be the case with any possible failure by him to have imagined that Islamists would see a WTC Cordoba Center as an act of triumphalism, not healing. While I believe in freedom of speech and that, absent some direct proof of Islamist connections, the objections should be toned down, I also think that we are dealing with a pretty appalling lack of taste on his part. But, in America, you have the right to have and act in bad taste. We learned that at Skokie many years ago.
Tortured logic and strained rationalizations worthy
of Neville Chamberlain.
Mr Radosh has been Frumixed!
Thank you for writing this. This is a very compelling post, and timely as well.
One of my greatest frustrations in the whole Islamophobia affair is that the Left is essentially egging on the Right; Because any criticism of Islam is condemned as bigotry by the Left, more and more people on the Right seem to take the attitude that they may be hung for a sheep as a lamb, and actually descend into bigotry. Witch-hunting is an ugly spectacle, and only ever breeds stronger hatred.
For those of you who are still convinced that all Muslims are evil, all I can say is that my best friend is Muslim, and over the years I’ve known him he has never shown any inclination to kill anybody. He was born in Connecticut to Iranian immigrants, and is as much a child of the West as any of us are. He doesn’t rage against America, he doesn’t treat women with anything but respect, and he is perfectly content to befriend any person of any religion.
I cannot believe that I must wage war against one of my best friends. You cannot make me believe that.
Why hold on to islam if your friend is so nice?
Maybe because if sharia is implemented during your lifetime, you get to be his slave…
My guess is you will revert to islam should this possible future occur to avoid the humiliation…
A prodigious effort, Mr. Radosh, going to great lengths to be fair, in the tradition of Jewish scholars. Too far, I believe, because, because it is representative of of an prevailing American mindset of obsession with tolerance which, jihadist strategists count on in their war against the Great Satan.
Of course there are millions more moderate Muslim than there are crazed jihadists. Of all the followers of Islam in the word, the Arabs represent about 300 million. If jihad-believers constitute only 15%. that’s 45 million, the ones that dance in the street and consider the events of 9/11 a great victory, worthy of celebration down the centuries. The other 255 or so million are moderate, from those who are devout but stop at massacre to outright apostates.
Unfortunately for America and the rest of the infidel world, and the moderates, the “small” literalist is suicidally committed, aggressive, fantastically well funded, and led by skilled strategists. Islamic Terrorist have declared war, literally and specifically, on the U.S.A. It is important that they be so identified.
That said we, should, as you conclude, remain apprehensive about the faith that generates and too frequently fosters such crazed acts of devotion. “Moral Equivalence” is a stupid philosophy. A faith that is founded on domination, subservience, and intolerance is certainly not morally equivalent to one based on forgiveness and love of neighbor, even if the majority of its subscribers do not rigidly observe its commandments. No more than we can a faith that condones sutee. Our growing lack of belief in the catchism and unwillingness to defend out judeo/christian principles, is a strong factor in jihadist strategy.
Far too much effort is being put into sugar-coating the faith of Muhamad, and the glories of Granada, the gentleness of Sufism. I first became aware of the dangers in Islamic governance and Sharia, in reading V.S. Naipal on his journeys through Pakistan and India. Presently revealed as a rather nasty old man, he is a great writer and a brilliant observer. He was totally horrified at the stultification of freedom and enterprise by the dead hand of Islamic rule in Pakistan. There are thousands of examples of the effects of its intolerance and primitive forms of oppression not only in Asia and he middle East but in Europe. But our media will not print or broadcast anything linking the words Muslim and Terror or even rank intolerance.
Not very long ago, I was a member of a group who had invited a Muslim speaker, and got what many would identify as a moderate speaker. American born, served in the military, owner of a small business. His first words were: “These books contain everything you need to live your life”, placing his hand on his two volume of the Quran. It is a book of inviolable rules, down to the minutia of daily routine. It is based on unquestioning obedience: the child obeys the mother – the mother obeys the father, the father obeys the imam, the servant or the infidel obeys any Muslim.
There are no variations on the Quran. It is the same for the Shia and the S;unni. There are no interpretations of the Word of Allah, no revised versions, no modern editions for easier reading. “and there never will be!’, he proclaimed. It makes no concession to any laws, to any Constitution.
All believers in Islam, jihadist or moderate, believes in the Quran and that his or her life will be measured by any deviations, on the Great Day of Judgement. The imam will be judged, not only by his adherence, but by that of the members of his congregation. Those who commit acts of terror in demonstration of their faith are martyrs, and to criticize them are committing a sin. Don’t look for condemnation.
Islam is a primitive, rigid theocratic system of rule. Its basic principle of obedience to its rules, dictated by God to Muhamad, admit to no superior authority. Faithfulness will always come before loyalty. Sharia will always come before common law.
For a believer in Islam there can never be a division between church and state. The mosque IS the state. To swear allegiance to a nation is a heresy. How can a reasoning man cite our founding documents to defend a religion that denies them?
The discussion of the placement of the mosque is seriously important to the future of our Republic, not just an argument about a local place of worship. Yours is a great and praiseworthy introduction to those seeking intelli gent dialog. I would hope that those who believe in the the two great documents in the history of our system, that freed us of the domination of autocrats and priests, the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence, would not dither about the rights of the ideologically intolerant, but would speak forthrightly against a treacherous primitive imperialist theocracy that employs mindless maniacal massacre as its primary offense.
Well said, Mr. Williamson. With all due respect to Mr. Radosh, who has had many great things to say about communism, he seems to act as if the ideology of Islam is not believed by a huge number of its adherents. He also writes as if he doesn’t realize that the Koran, the holy book of Islam, was dictated directly by Allah and therefore not open to reformation. This is a tremendous conundrum for us in the West and certainly part of the reason Islam has never significantly modernized, unlike other religions. It also helps explain the terrifying recent expansion into Europe with some astonishing percentage of French youth being Islamic. The implications of this are frightening, if it continues. Also, to say that it could never happen here is ludicrous. Who would have believed ten or even five years ago there would be Sharia law at the Harvard gym? Radosh, who wrote so well on communism, is in danger of being a “useful idiot” on the subject of Islam.
I think that people raised in the West just don’t get it. You’re too ”inside” your own culture to understand Islam. And, you constantly mix up Muslims with the ideology itself, looking for ”moderates” which has nothing at all to do with Islam the ideology.
I lived almost all my life in a Muslim country. So, of course, I know Muslims as real people, not some Western/intellectual abstraction. Many Muslims are fine, decent people. Everyone is not a fanatic, many people are moderate because they don’t practice their religion. Many practice a ”folk religion” – they celebrate holidays, etc. & don’t know much about Islamic ideology. Many people are basically good people DESPITE Islamic teaching, I mean, you can’t brainwash EVERYONE.
But, this has nothing to do with Islam the ideology.
And, the ideology is exactly what Geert Wilders says, ”there are moderate Muslims but no moderate Islam.” Robert Spencer is absolutely correct as well.
Take the example of Nazi Germany. Were all Germans Nazis? Of course not. In the final analysis, did that matter?
Take the example of the Soviet Union. Were all it’s inhabitants dedicated Marxist-Leninists, devotees of Stalin? Of course not. In the final analysis, did that matter?
Islam cannot be reformed, this is Western-style wishful thinking.
Muslims become moderate only in the sense that they reject Islamic ideology.
You said it better than me, Terry.
And WTF happened to Ron? Did someone slip him a mickey?
And by the way, very few people are demonizing all Muslims, that is just not the case. Many are demonizing Islam (rightfully so).
Muslims are as much the victims of Islam, if not more so, than we are – at least for the moment. We are the future victims, Muslims are the current victims & have been for centuries.
Trying to figure out who is a moderate is a waste of time & effort. Start with the bearers of Islamic ideology, the mosques, the Imams, the members of Muslim organizations like CAIR, etc. & deport them. Same goes for members of Muslim student groups on our campuses, anything that promotes Islam, shut it down. And, at least for the near future, limit immigration from Muslim countries.
And, the most important, put pressure on your elected officials, don’t vote for liberal dhimmis.
The time for nuance has passed. The enemy is at the gate. And you should thank Pam Geller; she sniffed this out this pro-terrorist imam immediately.
The only moderates in Islam are those who identify as Muslims but don’t practice the Koran nor follow Mohammed. Islam tells us right out front it wants to destroy every institution and ideology outside of Islam, and that non Muslims must convert or submit to Islamic dominance. Pardon my Islamophobia.
Andy McCarthey’s NRO article this weekend takes us a bit deeper into the minds of the moderate Muslims.Unless we understand something of the dynamics within Muslim communities in the West, the moderates will remain silent. Everytime we recognize a sweet-talking radical as their spokesman, we lose their trust.
Were I to hear such an open discussion on Al-Jazeera as Mr. Rodosh presents here, I might find it easier to find reassurance and give the mosque advocates the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, finding clear and convincing examples of moderate Islam requires a good bit of digging to unearth. As a thought experiment: Suppose an American were to “execute” a Muslim on an internet video in the name of the Christian or Jewish God. I would wager all I had that there would follow a stampede of religious leaders to microphones everywhere to condemn the act. Period. No nuance, no carefully chosen words. No spin. Actual, unmistakable disgust. It would be described as an act of unmitigated evil. Compare that to the words of Feisal Abdul Rauf.
Several other facts make that benefit of the doubt problematic. First, the name of the project: Cordoba. One need not have earned a Ph.D. in history to discern the meaning the name conveys, particularly given the location at ground zero. In addition, the planned dedication of the project is set for 9/11/11. Is this merely a coincidence without symbolism? Will it be portrayed as a sign of Western tolerance? How will that play on Al-Jazeera? Will it stand as a show of tolerance on the part of Islam, or a victory over the infidel??
In my life, I take individuals at face value. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt, absent evidence that I ought to stay clear. I am tolerant, in other words – largely because I grew up in this culture. I would like to inhabit a world where that was reciprocal and risk-free. I would like to have no doubts about my Muslim friends. That is frankly difficult, given the text of the Quran and the Suras, which require submission to those commands. That is the soil in which Muslims take root. That is their confession. They submit to it as an article of faith. Much of it is fundamentally inimical to liberal democracy, and to that extent, Islam is a politics more than a religion, and yet it receives none of the not-so-kind scrutiny and criticism which Christianity undergoes daily.
I hypothesize that human beings are ‘hard-wired’ in tribal mode. That is, instinctually, we probably only recognize as ‘like me’ (as opposed to ‘other’) a few hundred individuals. Our ancestors – the ones who by definition survived to reproduce – had to quickly recognize friend from foe. Today, in the West (and some other places), we have new tolerance software, so to speak. It had become less critical to immediately recognize a potentially-lethal adversary. In a world where WMD’s empower a handful of hate-filled individuals to kill millions, however, this capacity again becomes germane. I cannot tell my adversaries by their scent or appearance. I have a choice. I may submit or deny their existence at peril to myself, my family, or my community. Alternatively, I may listen to words and deeds and make difficult judgments. There is no doubt, and much historical precedent, that tyrants and mass murderers of all sorts have revealed their intentions well in advance, albeit with some protective coloration at times. I minimize or ignore these warnings at my peril.
As much as I prize tolerance, it, too must yield to some degree to self-preservation. I need not viscerally hate an adversary in order to defend my life, family and community. I cannot help but conclude that the threat from radical Islam is existential, based upon repeated threats from various quarters, including Iran’s president. I see and hear little in vigorous opposition to it from moderate Muslims. Numerous Islamic commentators over the years describe tactics such as misleading the enemy and false truces. In this historical context I see the ground zero mosque for what it is: a symbol of our failure to protect the innocents who died at ground zero, and a beacon for those who will follow suit. I wish this were not so.
1. The question as posed is unnecessarily provactive and effectively skews the argument in favor of your (Radosh’s) personal position. Islam need not be an enemy per se in order to to be a serious competitor or an antogonist. In this vein it seems impossible to ingnore the debate of Huntington vs. Fukuyama. The point is that it may not be necessarty or even desribale to to treat Islam as an enemy which needs be defeated. But it might be necessary to stand-up to it, and with “vim & vigor” if necessary.
2. The potential dark side to your moderate Muslim thesis is that it is too monolythic. All “moderates” may not be equal in their outlook. Some may seem to be “moderates” but gladly bask in the benefit of other Muslims who specialize in jihad, while maintaining plausible denial to the infidels. Islam has 1.57 billion adherents, making up 23% of the world population. If just 10% of such adherents are moderates as I describe, that’s 157 million “moderate” Muslims who quietly support jihad. Not a pretty picture, no matter how many “true” moderates there are. The point is that you seem far to quick to appease, from a purely practical point of view.
Ronnie: the conlcusions of your article are right on! I also
applaud your last sentitments for a plea for historical context.
In that light. I think references to Cordoba, Castile (before the
reconquest, before 1492), and the life of old Fostat (present day
Cairo) serve as a model for genuine ecumenism. Jews–notwithstainding
the nuisance quality of the dhimmi status–were in very important
government positions etc.
Also, it is instructive to remember that In Ishahan from the 17th
century on, the Jewish and Armenian (Christian) communities
thrived. While this all does not totally erradicate the concept
the “House of Islam” and the ” House of War” dichotomy, it shows
that in political reality, conditions on the ground, trump
ideology. Would that some neo-cons were aware of that.
A few questions for the other commentators here:
If Islam is evil, doesn’t that mean that the only moderate Muslims are bad Muslims, people who are only Muslim in the way that Nancy Pelosi or the Kennedy family are Catholic?
That seems like a losing proposition. Unless there is an Islamic belief system that is moderate, the people who are most looking for meaning in life or salvation in Islam will invariably turn to the radical, anti-Western wing. The only people left to reform Islam will be fighting against the whole of Muslim belief, with a basis in faith no greater than Liberation Theology or other secular reform movements.
I’d also like to ask why Islam is a threat now, and prior generations of the West did not fear Islam in the way we do. I think we need to focus on cultural relativism as the enemy, rather than Islam. Honor killing, terrorism, enslavement of women, and theocratic tyranny are evil, and we should denounce them as such and harshly punish them, regardless of source. Honor killer families should be denounced and deported in addition to sentencing the perpetrators. Ban the burqah, kill terrorists, and let Muslims decide if they want to be at war with the West or stand beside us.
!9/11!
‘Shoe bomber’ and other terrorist attempts in the name of “allah”
Honor killings in the US
I don’t want Sharia coming anywhere near US soil.
Sorry, Pal but, no thanks. They can take their B.S. and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
OmegaPaladin you ask:
“If Islam is evil, doesn’t that mean that the only moderate Muslims are bad Muslims, people who are only Muslim in the way that Nancy Pelosi or the Kennedy family are Catholic?
That seems like a losing proposition. Unless there is an Islamic belief system that is moderate, the people who are most looking for meaning in life or salvation in Islam will invariably turn to the radical, anti-Western wing. The only people left to reform Islam will be fighting against the whole of Muslim belief, with a basis in faith no greater than Liberation Theology or other secular reform movements.”
I think your question makes a good point. It is the problem I struggle with in looking to those who wish to reform Muslim. Is Islam reformable? It’s my opinion that many Muslims look to their faith as a real part of their identity and wish to practice only the spiritual aspects of their faith. They are not so much interested in the political and universalist side of it. Can one just practice the religious part of Islam and not be an apostate? I don’t know. In my opinion it is very difficult (impossible?) for Sharia compliant Muslims to live harmoniously with the western culture of liberty and freedom of conscientous.
Look at the guest list for the President’s Iftar dinner last week. Were there any reform minded Muslims invited? Who does our government bring in to advise them on sensitivity to Muslims? Who does the State Department send overseas to do Muslim outreach? Our past and present administrations have consistently looked to the numerous Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, i.e. CAIR, etc. as being the spokespeople for Islam in the US. This is a big part of the problem. It just makes the reform-minded Muslim’s job that much harder. Not only must he risk sticking his neck out in his own community, he does not even merit the respect of our government. I only hope our next President will have a more well rounded understanding of the Islamists that make up a small, but influential minority, of Islam. We can’t just criticize the Muslims who wish us ill – our government must promote the good guys. We as citizens must demand it.
After reading Ron Radosh’s lengthy and heartfelt appeal early this morning, we are to be chastised for thinking anything so base as the idea that Islam itself has tenets at its core which promotes Muslim terrorism, Islamic supremacism, and genocidal hatred towards “infidels”. Never mind the fact that the entire Islamic world is retrograde and tyrannical, that it now produces wave after wave of murderers and terrorists, or that it is seeped in horrific corruption, horrific oppression. and has steadily annihilated once great cultures and civilizations it now bestrides.
We are lectured that there are plenty of moderate Muslims, contrary to our malevolent bigotry, that many moderates are now fighting the good fight, that elusive war between the Islamic extremists and moderate Islam. Sadly, very few of the authorities that Radosh mentions are even Muslim!
To support his thesis, Radosh cites the likes of Maureen Dowd(!), Peter Beinart(!), “Briam” Palmer (NYT?), Peter Wehner, Cathy Young(!), William Lee Miller, Lee Smith, Daniel Luban, and a few more infidels, all of whom assert that Islam is not the problem. He mentions a few “moderate Muslims, such as Irshad Manji and Steven “Sulieman” Schwartz, more on them in a bit. This list of infidel specimens can often be found arguing that those in the West who reject the premise of moderate Islam are as bad as any bin Laden.
Even Radosh delivers this straw man argument himself against those of us who assert that Islam’s immutable core is terroristic and genocidal :
“If they are [correct], I fear it means supporting an unwinnable proposition, that in effect, says that the interpretation of the Quran by Bin Laden and others is correct- that they truly represent the only real Islam, and those claiming to be moderates are heretics who also must be destroyed.” !
That is one nasty distortion. It’s also a ludicrous straw man argument. Robert Spencer convincingly argues that there may be Muslims who don’t subscribe to the myriad genocidal and hateful passages in the Koran, or otherwise ignore them, but the same Koran asserts that its words are the immutable unchanging diktats of Allah, and that anyone daring to ignore or alter them is guilty of apostasy, and condemned to death.
In short, the “extremists” have the support of the Koran and more than a thousand years of Muslim legal imprudence on their side, while the “moderates” don’t have much of a leg to stand on. So the extremists have both history and the Koran itself to justify their appetite for the lopping of heads, hands, and feet and hands from the opposite side, (Pun intended: see Sharia), the “moderates” are reduced to suggesting that “infidel” ignorance is dueling the extremism while leaching their gaping doctrinal deficiencies unaddressed. This echoes nicely the drivel by the list of infidels Radosh cites above.
It is revolting to read Radosh assert that we in the West who believe that bin Laden has Islamic scripture solidly on his side therefore support the idea that “moderates are heretics who also must be destroyed.”. It is a most heinous conflation to drag the innocent Westerners who staunchly oppose Islam into the Satanic catch-22 which “moderates” face from their viscous literal brethren. It is tragic that they are born in the maw of the Islamic beast – but don’t make those of us who reject the beast into the jaws of the beast. We are simply pointing out the deeply sinister basis of the evil that is Islam. Stop blaming the messenger, it’s not our fault that the moderates will always lose the argument because Islamic scripture doesn’t support them!
This brings me to the scant list of supposed Muslim moderates Radosh cites to support his view. Isn’t it time we stop clinging to this preposterous straw? “Sulieman” Schwartz is the most peculiar practitioner of Islam who has a snowball’s chance in hell of convincing Muslims. If we’re reduced in the West to relying on the syncretistic inerpretations of Islam put forward by a bizarre Jewish convert who refuses to use his Muslim name when addressing “infidels”, and an open Lesbian Muslim (Irshad Manji) who cannot even convince her mother that her singular interpretation of Islam is correct, then we are in deep DEEP trouble.
If the Radoshes of the world find this an “unwinnable proposition”, then it’s high time to stop blaming the messenger and set about figuring out a way to win that doesn’t require sparkle-pony fantasies about the enemy doctrine of Islam which has us in it’s sights. Muslims are here in their millions, not least because intellectuals like Radosh prefer to dithering and obfuscate while the Muslim Jihad against us continues to gain momentum and weaponry. One of the weapons they exploit is the fog of war exacerbated by the misguided bleeding hearts like Mr. Ron Radosh, et al.
I felt like tearing my hair out reading this on a lovely Saturday morn!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
I’m going out and getting some fresh air and sunshine. I suggest everyone else do the same. This insanity is making ME feel INSANE.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Oops. And, great rant, Mort.
*sigh*
For anyone who hasn’t noticed, Ron Radosh added the following to the end of his column:
“Addendum: 8/21/2010 3 pm EST
“I find that I agree with Andrew McCarthy’s latest piece on this issue. You can read it here [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244349/which-islam-will-prevail-america-andrew-c-mccarthy] He makes good distinctions, and is a nuanced artile”
I agree, McCarthy’s is a very interesting column.
There is also a very interesting interview (audio, from earlier in the week) by Mark Levin of Zuhdi Jasser here: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/17/audio-mark-levin-interviews-zuhdi-jasser-on-the-ground-zero-mosque/
The answer is yes. It is not only our enemy, but the enemy of the Chinese, Indian Hindus, African animists and Christians, Israeli Jews, and European Christians and anybody that loves liberty and freedom….or is just not a Muslim.
The answer is no.
The same silly arguments could be used to portray Christianity as a fascist movement, which assassinates and punishes its enemies without mercy.
I recall vividly, the spectacle of the Christian pastors and priests who blessed American weapons in Vietnam. I watched as they walked through seemingly endless ranks of soldiers blessing their brave and courageous fight against “godless communism”.
What utter garbage.
So don’t give me the worn out mantra that Islam as a religion has any part to play in the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Don’t give me the crapola argument that Jesus Christ’s philosophy was somehow responsible for the excesses of the Crusades.
Don’t preach to me that Jewish forgiveness is somehow wrong.
Don’t pontificate to me that Buddhism has some sort of handle on tolerance, compassion and understanding, when I see the opposite happening in Sri Lanka.
Recognize that the enemy lies within ourselves.
So called Moderate Muslims arent your friends and allies Ron.
The Brits for example tried to cozy up to the so called Moderate Muslims….which consisted of Islamists in the main. These folks are just running the stealth Jihad. Empowering them to make policy only advances the goals of the violent Jihadists. So you didnt win the war against violent Jihadists, you merely capitulated to their interests and advanced their political goals. You basically are helping creeping Shariah and Islamification…accepting and facilitating Shariah and Islamization….so that they wont blow up the tube and buses. But Muslim no go areas continue to expand and hostility and low level violence against non Muslims continue on the streets.
You can make a case that LIBERAL Muslims are your allies. But then you must concede that they are a tiny minority, perhaps 10 to 15% among Muslims in the West. I do agree that it makes sense to empower these people to help formulate policy with regards to Muslims and Islam. However you are going to alienate the majority of Muslims by doing so….drawing a line in the sand on which these so called Moderates are on the other side. Yes you will attract some Moderates to adopt Liberal Muslim perspectives…as many will not want to be ostracized by society but it wont be the majority.
So it comes down to, where do you want to fight the Islamic Reformation. Knowing how bloody the Christian Reformation was in the past.
I say, you dont want to fight it in Europe and the West and lay ruin to many of our cities, while limits and infringement upon ourselves must be enacted to do so.
The better policy is to end Muslim immigration and encourage repatriation. Deport “bad Muslims” and strip them of their citizenship. Tightly scrutinize Muslim orginations and Mosques.
Then we can focus on fighting the Islamic Reformation in Muslim countries….within “the Muslim World.” Here we can use many of the tactics the Soviets/Communists employed. Funding Feminist, minority group civil rights movements, minority religious equality, human rights, anti Islam criticism, diversity promotion and so on and so forth. Make it very profitable (if dangerous) to be a Muslim Leftwinger. Not only fund organizations and institutions, but also back the resistance with arms if necessary. And of course safe haven if necessary, and lets not forget backing them up with academic ideological propaganda power.
Now this means that we will have to abridge some of our principles and liberties, but they wont be directed against ourselves….shooting ourselves in the foot allowing Islam to advance to uphold our principles. Just as carpet bombing German cities is in direct violation of our values and principles…..it had to be done in order to save our values and principles, our liberty, our rights.
The key is to not expand the public space on this planet for Islam to operate…but to shrink it. Then to wage political and ideological war on Islam from within its already considerable sphere of influence…57 nations, 1/6th of the population and territory on the planet.
Hope you find that of help in analyzing the situation.
Consolidate your territorial power base, and then take the war to the enemy. This foolishness of ceding area to Islam, and then inviting its purveyors to expand into your territory is downright dumb. Balkanized Europe with its cities on fire, doesnt empower the West in its ideological war with Islam, its weakens it.
Think globally and strategically.
How to Win the Clash of Civilizations
By AYAAN HIRSI ALI
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575338471355710184.html
As is usually the case…..liberal Muslims are actually or soon to be ex Muslims…..like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
When Islam Abandoned Reason: A Conversation with Robert R. Reilly
What happened to Islamic civilization? How did we get from Avicenna and Cordoba to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda? In his new book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis, Robert R. Reilly traces the problem back to a thousand-year-old theological debate over reason and the nature of God.
InsideCatholic Editor Brian Saint-Paul spoke to him.
http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/when-islam-abandoned-reason-a-conversation-with-robert-r-reilly.html
Ron:
I found your article (blog) to be a much needed look at this situation, balanced, fair, and passionate.
To those of your emailers who say that Islam is nothing but, or basically, a terrorist religion, I wonder what they would have said about Christianity during the Inquisition, or at the many other times in our sad history when Jews were victimized by the Christian establishment and lay Christians.
Obviously, Christianity evolved to where it is now today and, indeed, is still evolving in its attitude toward Judaism and other religions.
Or we could go further back and retell the Hebrew Scripture tales of God saying about an enemy nation – destroy every man, woman and child; or King David or Saul ordering the circumcision of all the enemy.
More obviously, Judaism has evolved, altho we still have our madmen – Goldstein in Hebron, Meir Kahane and his followers, and the man who assassinated the Israeli General and leader (whose name escapes me for the moment).
I think the big and very important difference is that Islam, although it may have gone through changes over the centuries, has not gone through the most important change of all, to realize it is not the only true way to God, and that all religions have value and can be learned from.
And also, the Islamic terrorists have a great deal more influence on the whole religion through their schools and mosques, then do similar destroyers in Judaism and Christianity.
How that change must happen, as you point out, is very important both for Muslims and for the world. As Iris Manshad has strongly pointed out, there are cruel and destructive points in Islam, and they must be laid aside, explained in any way that makes sense to the believers.
How do Christians deal with the Gospel of John that says that Jews are the children of the devil? How do Jews deal with the order God gave to Abraham to kill his beloved son. A very wise book by Prof. Rev. Bruce Chilton of Bard University on this very subject should be required reading for all Muslims, as well as all Jews and Christians – he shows how a tale of subserviance to God became over the centuries an example and urging for martyrdom in all three Abrahamic religions.
Jews and Christians have much to teach Muslims on this process of religions evolution, as well as much to learn from the ongoing struggles within Islam.
I am glad you quoted from Jeffrey Goldberg’s blog on the leader of the Mosque at Ground Zero. In addition to quoting the Imam and his outreach to the father of Daniel Pearl, a prime Jewish victim of the IslamoFacists, Goldberg said in the same blog that he personally knows the Imam and respects him although he does not him to become a member of the ADL – in other words, pro-Israel.
So can we talk with folks who are very critical of Israel, of the U.S. – but who do not advocate our destruction? How do we do it.
I believe these are uncomfortable questions for many folks who feel comfortable in their rage, in their anger – some of it backed by the facts on the ground – and don’t want to be challenged to look further, to look beyond the ancient horrifics. Orthodox Jews believe that every single word, punctuation point, space, of the Torah is from God – and is absolutely true. Christian fundamentalists feel the same about the Gospels.
These “true believers” are welcome to their passion, but not if they use it to discriminate, to destroy, to kill others.
How do we start – I think that your excellent blog is a beginning. It may not bring blazing headlines, or get you on a yelling match with others, but it should upset the media status-quo of scream the loudest and the most shockingest and you will win.
I don’t know if Islam can be saved from itself, or if the world can be – but our many loving traditions tell us that it has in the past and can be in the future.
Shalom,
CantorBob
Trying to save the world one Jew at a time heres my life preserver for Cantor Bob…
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIt6AP5y6dg&feature=related
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKE3EdZZSvQ&feature=related
“Had the Saracens captured Constantinople in the seventh century rather than the fifteenth, all Europe – and America – might be Muslim today.”
John Julius Norwich – A Short History of Byzantium
=====================================================
Stating that Islam is not the enemy, that it’s only the radical Moslem factions that we have to worry about is like saying that cancer is not the problem since, after all, not all cancers kill.
Mr. Radosh should re-familiarize himself with J. Benda’s “La Trahison des Clercs”, Raymond Aron’s “The Opium of the Intellectuals, Mark Lilla’s “The Reckless Mind” and most recently and most apropos, Paul Berman’s “The Flight of the Intellectuals”.
That’s for starters.
All these describe in one way or the other the persistent and astonishing attraction that totalitarianism, brutality, and terror has had on some of the most brilliant minds of the 20th and now the 21st centuries.
Mr. Radosh appears to have fallen into this trap.
(If he can read Arabic, he should study Taha Hussein’s 1926 “On Pre-Islamic Poetry” في الشعر الجاهلي , a devastating critique of the entire pre- and early Islamic “tradition”, the Sunna – on which the Sharia is based – and the Koran).
For the last couple of years, I have become increasingly aghast at the apparent capitulation, appeasement, acceptance and even adulation that certain Western intellectuals have shown for “Islam”.
They simply don’t know what they’re doing because they don’t really understand or know Islam.
I personally believe that this subservience to the alien religion is based on fear. A fear of the unknown. I don’t see any other justification for this cowardly behavior.
The real danger of Islam is not that it would force us to believe in another “God” or that “head chopping” would become a ho-hum event, bad enough though these practices would be.
The real danger is that it would stifle in one fell swoop all free enquiry. In a phrase, it would spell the end of Western civilization and all it stands for.
Mankind will have become enslaved, pure and simple.
It is a most worrisome development and frankly, I’m not sure who’s listening or who cares. (“They” will care – eventually – but by then, it’ll be too late).
Without a Reformation, Islam is doomed to join Moloch and the Aztecs as one more failed tyrannical theocracy.
But, to Reform, there must be the possibility of peaceful disagreement among Muslims.
Before the Nuclear-Chemical-Bacteriological Age, the worst a religiously fanatic people could do to their neighbors was ‘merely’ wipe out a city or two… after years of seige and scorched-earth famine-making and haphazardly-attempted plagues.
The trouble today is that the same “holy” homicidal, medieval fundmentalist lunacy ~that once raged through Christian sects in Europe (See: The Cathars, et al), and, in the Bronze Age, sanctified the depredations of the early Canaanite-exterminating Hebrews,! can now vaporize millions with one warhead, or genetically engineered virus or uniquely toxic chemical.
Islam began as a warlord’s impulse to sybjugate the world to his monomaniacal monotheism, and sanctified The Sword as a propeo religious tool. Christianity, by oits own dogmas, praises peace and condemned war as a method for speading the Good News. After their defeat by the Romans, the diaapora Hebrews also gave up on rheir more brutal commandments and tenets, and stoning of sinners was left behind.
Islam however, never had the pressure ~from either a climax of disgust with internal conflists (a thosuand years of religious strife in Europe finally led to the Reformationa dn Renaissance, which the Hebrews esentially adopted by proximity and pressure) nor from external demands or defeats to re-examine their doctrines.
Som the core violence in the Koran remains, unmodified for a millennium.
With its fundmentalists ready to bring on the purifying Apocalypse, if need be, to satisfy the demands of their “Irrationalistic” Deity, Allah (so declared by the Muslim scholars who won out during the debates withing Islam a thousand years ago).
If they were merely attacking us with muskets and bayonets, the threat would be existentially manageable.
But the same type of Inquisitionmentality that once burned witches and heretics now approaches the weaponry of annihilation.
Islam’s reformers need to act qucikly against ruthless, murderous fanatics, or Islam will plunge into a World War using the instruments that the West has witlessly allowed to fall into the hands of theocratic and unreason-based despots.
Which requires us to speak honestly about the vile suras in the Koran honestly and critically, and to demand that Muslims either purge this sickness from their creed, or face a Civilization confluict that will do it for them.
At the cost of millions of lives on both sides.
(The previous version of this comment somhow “submitted itself” as I was editing it, so please erase it, and this parenthetical note… thanks… it should read as follows:)
Without a Reformation, Islam is doomed to join Moloch and the Aztecs as one more failed tyrannical theocracy.
But, to Reform, there must be the possibility of peaceful disagreement among Muslims.
Before the Nuclear-Chemical-Bacteriological Age, the worst a religiously fanatic people could do to their neighbors was ‘merely’ wipe out a city or two… after years of seige and scorched-earth famine-making and haphazardly-attempted plagues.
The trouble today is that the same “holy” homicidal, medieval fundmentalist lunacy ~that once raged through Christian sects in Europe (See: The Cathars, et al), and, in the Bronze Age, sanctified the depredations of the early Canaanite-exterminating Hebrews,! can now vaporize millions with one warhead, or genetically engineered virus or uniquely toxic chemical.
Islam began as a warlord’s impulse to subjugate the world to his monomaniacal monotheism, and sanctified The Sword as a proper religious tool. Christianity, by its own dogmas, praises peace and condemns war as a method for spreading the Good News. Amd, after their defeat by the Romans, the diaapora Hebrews also gave up on rheir more brutal commandments and tenets, and the stoning of sinners, etc. was left behind.
Islam, however, never had the pressure ~from either a climax of disgust with internal conflicts (a thosuand years of religious strife in Europe finally led to the Reformationa and Renaissance, which the Hebrews essentially adopted by proximity and pressure)- nor from external demands or defeats to re-examine their central doctrines.
So the core violence in the Koran remains, unmodified for a millennium.
With its jihad-making fundmentalists ready to bring about a purifying Apocalypse, if need be, to satisfy the demands of their “Irrationalistic” Deity, Allah (so declared by the Muslim scholars who won out during the debates withing Islam a thousand years ago), Islam has become the existential threat to humanity.
If they were merely attacking us with muskets and bayonets, the danger would be manageable.
But the same type of Inquisitio nmentality that once burned witches and heretics in the West now approaches our species the weaponry of Annihilation.
Islam’s reformers need to act qucikly against their homegrown, ruthless, murderous fanatics, or Islam will plunge us all into a World War, using the instruments that the West has witlessly allowed to fall into the hands of theocratic and unreason-based fatalistic despots.
Which requires us all to speak openly about the vile suras in the Koran, honestly and critically, and to demand that Muslims either purge this sickness from their creed, or face a Civilizational conflict that will purge it for them.
At the cost of millions of lives on both sides.
Is Islam Really our Enemy?
Yes.
Mr. Radosh,
Do you read and understand Arabic? How many of the authors that you quoted in this post can read and understand Arabic? Until you do, and your sources do, you cannot make an intelligent judgement about who is or is not “moderate” – because you are basing your decision on partial evidence. There are many radical Muslims who will say one thing in English to an American/European audience (and sound wonderful)and quite another in Arabic to a Muslim audience.
I suggest you read some of the information put out by Memri:
http://www.thememriblog.org/
http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/more_reports.htm?param=IDTA
What most of us fail to recognize or perhaps make desertation on is the “Islamic Mind Set” . . . just as certainly as we have a “Christian Mind Set”. It is not every individual within the Islamic faith to practice every tenet of the religion . . . at least I would say that if we were always dealing with the rational human mind. But when we deal with the individual human being we are not dealing wiht the “mind set” of that person. We deal with the superficial, the seen, the words, the actions. Just as the Fort Hood situation has shown us, we do not know what is in the “closet” of each and every individual who professes any faith. It is sad to me that the horror of what has happened, that the calamitious actions of the hundreds or even thousands of radical, and perhaps mentally insane, has produced a fear of almost equal insanity in the Western world. Clearly if we invite with open arms a religious cult that has the power to produce not one or two deviant personalities but thousands of such predisposed individuals into our country are we not creating a recipe for disaster. Clearly from our military and humanitarian actions in the Islamic countries of the world, those countries do not want our Western influence internally . . . now we must come to grips with this and if we are viewed as ‘anti-Islamic” then we are what we are, so be it.
Islam is not just our enemy, but the enemy of all non Muslims. That is why a ring of conflict exists around the 57 states that are majority Muslim. All minority religious groups are ill treated within the Muslim majority nations. And anywhere where Muslims gather numbers outside of Muslim majrority countries, violence and conflict are present.
Figure it out already Ron.
Mr. Radosh wrote that his intention for this post was to, “set off an honest and real debate”. I therefore hope that he will provide responses to the comments which PJM readers took the trouble to make (he hasn’t so far).
I actually am in agreement with many of Mr. Radosh’s points.
I would though, like to see him clarify the following matter. Does he find Robert Spencer to a reliable source of information on Islam? If so, does he have any significant caveats or reservations regarding Spencer’s positions?
Note: I could have picked other writers besides Mr. Spencer but because he is a well known, articulate and persuasive voice on his side of the aisle I think he is a good place to draw a bright line (if one wants to draw bright lines).
We have written a comment on this interesting article.
If you would care to read it – and we hope you will – here’s the link:
http://www.theatheistconservative.com/2010/08/22/can-islam-be-reformed/
Do you understand Islam? What it is and what its teachings are? That is the all important point. It is not about freedom, or conflating Islam and terrorism. You cannot know what the conflation of those two are unless you know exactly what Islam is alone first of all. Know Islam as it is and not as various peple want you to think of it according to their respective wills, know what it is and says for yourself, understand its sources from which it springs, know its texts, its history, most importantly according to its authoritative and primary sources.
Islam is constitutionally set up to be an enemy to Judaism, Christianity and Secularism and as a result to Western Civilization. The constitution of Islam is primarily the Koran, its holy book and secondarily accepted Hadiths, which are traditions of the prophet’s behavior and example and the legal tradtions of the Islamic jurists. Outside of these there is no Islam, in other words there are not two Islams but one. Not a nice one and a nasty one, or a wrong one and a right one, only Islam as defined and passed down from its accepted sources. Therefore Islam makes the case for Islam, Islam defines Islam, not individual nominal or even strictly observant Muslim individuals(“moderate” or “fundamentalist”). To be fair there are moderate people there is no moderate Islam.
Islam is not debateable or changeable as is the case with true Christianity or Judaism. They are all conceieved as coming from direct inspiration of God through prophets who were called to speak the words of God, therefore they are considered by their respective followers to be divine and above human will or opinion. So in some ways we can say that Islam is no different from these other religions that we have all come to know and live with, but there is one defining difference. This difference is what all people should be aware of. It is the application of Islam not the theory. Yes in theory, as many vaintalkers would assert, religions are similar or even the same, all one and equal, but in application different according to their own teachings which flow from belief. They all believe, yes but they all do not express their belief the same for a reason. Islam expresses its belief in God (some beliefs which are similar in theory to Christianity or Judaism), differently than those two.
So we ought not responsibly or honestly lazily lump them together, that is lazy and sloppy scholarship, not worthy of the name or title of expert or scholar.
Lets get straight to the point, the reasons are that violence is accepted as a tool for solutions to problems in Islam, death and corporla punishment is accepted and actually ordered to be carried out by Muslims in their own community , towards their own as punishements for violations and also to those outside of the faith for the same reason. This is a major problem, because whether a person is a strict Muslimsor not, thewse realities and teachings exist, they exist and beckon one to follow them anbd can be called upon or chosen at enemy time without any conflict with their idea of God. Muslims who are under the influence of Western ideas may experience some sort of intial conflict, although we have many undeniable cases where Western born and raised Muslims turn to terrorism, in the end a conflict between Western ideas that come from ” and are therefore the theories and inventions of men cannot compete with the authority of God which allows and calls upon a faithful Muslim as defined by Islam to kill and inflict terror in the form of violent means to an end.
So that I am not misunderstood as slandering Islam let me say right here, that Islam is not evil for this reason, the punishements I speak of allowed and ordered by Islam for violations of its codes is looked upon as a righteous code by Muslims and as just because Gods knows what is best for society and Western D4emocracy is looked upon as the corruption of men, laws made for people to disoeby God and so dishonorable. This is the whole problem with Islam, it is not a problem with terrorism, it is a Islamic problem, where in a Western society people are granted rights according to the ideas of political science and this ia a challenge to the rule of God as defined by Islam. This is not all. As I siad before Islam is built and founded upon the premise that it was created by God as a community to correct Judaism and Christianity, it flatters itself that it is the remedy, the solution, the corrective, the teaching sent by God, held by Muslims and to be anounced to the world and any resistance or protestation by its targets is considered a rebelion against God, worthy of death. Once you understand the nature and constitution of Islam you have no choice but to accept that the enemy is not terrorism but Islam.
An excellent article. Much needed as a corrective to PJM’s relentlessly anti-Islamic blogs. It also got some thoughtful responses and might have gotten more if PJM had seen fit to feature it on their main page. An article they did feature, by Phyllis Chesler, provoked this response:
6. judy, nyc
I truly despise the followers of Islam, and I don’t want any of them from this murderous, treacherous, bizarre cult in my city of new york. and, i do not want them in my country, or in my schools, or universities. i do not even want them to use the toilet facilities, as they will bring in more bacteria than one could expect to find in a toilet.
I found it so repugnant (even for PJM!) that I added a comment calling it “a shameful rant.” It was deleted – my comment, that is. Judy’s shameful rant remains.
Ron, you’re hanging around in a bad neighborhood.
Joey, the problem is, Islam has made no reformation on behalf of Women, Gays, Children and any/all “INFIDELS”.
They think it is a-okay to rape a baby girl to THIS day:
http://www.youtube.com/v/SsExiAbCk1A?fs
Of course, Christianity has a horrible past (key word: PAST).
My response is here:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/08/23/wage-war-on-islam-if-you-care-about-muslims/
Check out “The Islamic Antichrist” by Joel Richardson. He had to write under a pseudonym, because of the material in it, such as demon possession of Mohammed.
Why not ask people like the relatives of Zahra Khazemi, or Anwar Sadat, or people such as Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaard, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
As long as honest answers, to these questions, are withheld by the Sons of Allah, then prudence dictates a flexible posture.
The problem is that PJM et al allows its comments to contain horrific bigotry that even David Duke wouldn’t be caught mouthing. And as for Christianity’s “horrible past” (meaning, for you I suppose, the Crusades, etc.), remember that just in this past century, so-called Christian nations allowed themselves to be the instruments of unprecedented carnage. (Hemingway liked to sport a belt buckle, taken from a Nazi soldier, that read “Gott Ist Mit Uns.”
Mr. Radosh
If you take a look around the world wherever mass Muslim immigration has occurred in the West, instead of assimilating and integrating like other immigrant groups, the vast overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants have banded together to form Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia and in direct contravention to the laws of the states in which they reside. If the vast overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants are so-called “moderates” as some of you want to maintain, then how do you explain the rise of Muslim no-go zones throughout Western Europe ruled by Sharia?
Further, if you take a look inside every Muslim country in the world today without exception you will see systematic persecution and often violent oppression of females and non-Muslims. Since the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the world today live in the Islamic world, why are females and non-Muslims always systematically persecuted and often violently oppressed? In your mind is it normal and moderate behavior for so-called “moderate” Muslims to systematically persecute and often violently oppress females and non-Muslims?
Moreover, it is true that there are also populations of assimilated Westernized Muslims like Stephen Schwartz, Irshad Manji, and Dr. Zudhi Jasser that practice Islam for the most part like adherents of any other faith-based religion, as they reject Islam’s jihad ideology. Those assimilated Westernized Muslims consider themselves to be devout Muslims too. However, the reality is those assimilated Westernized Muslims don’t follow the true Islam that the vast majority of Muslims around the world follow, and they also make up a small minority of Muslims living in the West.
In addition, some of those assimilated Westernized Muslims have also started reform movements in an effort to attempt to reform Islam. However, because the devout Muslims of true Islam see them as apostates from true Islam that should be executed, they have zero followings among followers of true Islam, as it is highly unlikely if not impossible that Islam can ever be reformed, since Islam’s text are immutable because they are considered divine.
I think a lot of the misunderstanding of Islam stems from the fact that people like Ron Radosh and John Guardiano naively assume that Islam is like any other faith-based religion and that Muslims are like adherents of other faith-based religions. However, in stark contrast to faith-based religions, Islam unique in the world is a religion of submission that forbids the freedom of conscience under the pain of death.
For instance, as an adherent of a faith-based religion I can freely pick and choose what it is I will believe and what it is I will reject, and I can even freely choose to leave the religion if I so desire. However, if I were a Muslim, on the other hand, I have no choice in the matter since in effect I’m a slave of Allah. Hence, if I so much as question the texts and tenets of Islam that would constitute blasphemy, and blasphemy is a serious offense in Islam that is punished under the pain of death. Furthermore, as a Muslim I wouldn’t be able to freely leave the religion of Islam if I so desired, as murtaad (apostasy) is a serious offense that under Islam is likewise punished under the pain of death.
Moreover, all Muslims must also submit to the will of Allah. Hence, in Islam you are either a Muslim, i.e., slave of Allah, or you are the infidel, and if you are the latter, then you must be executed. There is no middle ground in Islam or half ass Muslims, as Islam demands total submission.
Finally, Islam and Sharia go hand in hand as you can’t get one without getting the other, since Sharia is intrinsic to Islam. Sharia, i.e., the will of Allah, institutionalizes systematic persecution and often violent oppression of females and non-Muslims and incorporates draconian punishments like lashings, stonings, beheadings, and amputations, while forbidding the freedom of conscience, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of religion, at the same time that it also mandates death for apostates. In addition, Sharia also obligates all Muslims to wage jihad for the spread of Islam as the sixth pillar of Islam.
Hence, when you take Islam in totality for what it really is, a totalitarian theo-political ideology that seeks to subjugate all unbelievers via the imposition of Sharia as its main goal, it couldn’t be clearer that Islam isn’t protected under the free exercise clause of the first amendment of the constitution, and therefore not only should the GZM be stopped, but Islam must also be outlawed in America.
Three things about Islam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w&feature=player_embedded
I completely accept the earlier mentioned poster, he made a lot of valid things, especially the first one. Also Admin, ive tried a subscription to your Feed but I’m getting a blunder? I desire you don’t mind, but My partner and i went forward and linked internet through my personal blog. You dont have to link time for us should you dont desire to. Thanks again for your great submit!