Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald once again assesses the vexed question of Muslim moderates:
Islamic moderates remain elusive. Despite protestations and ostentatious displays, there is still no large-scale effort on the part of such people to distinguish themselves from "Islamist extremists." Meanwhile the moderates cause a great deal of confusion. Look at My Weekly Standard, with its stout support for the "moderate Muslim" (at least one of whom appears in its pages), especially the wonderful Shi'a of wonderful Iraq, and the inability of many on that magazine to grasp what is wrong with the whole Iraq tarbaby. That failure comes from an uncritical cheering of the Administration, and a refusal by its writers to study Islam or to consult with "moderates" who are occasional contributors, but the defectors from Islam.There is no clearly identifiable group of moderates for all sorts of reasons. There have been many documented instances (most famously Mike Hawash) of people who feign "moderate" attitudes, or for that matter may even, for a time, hold certain "moderate" attitudes. But then, in response to any one or more of a whole panoply of provocations large and small (including emotional desarroi, perceived loss in status, any number of things), the feigning stops, or those who had perhaps thought of themselves as one kind of Muslim, the "moderate" kind, found that their true beliefs were now, or perhaps always had been, more deep, and thus more "extreme" and less "moderate" than even they had once understood.
The very notion of a "moderate Muslim" must be examined carefully, and always one objective criterion kept in mind: does this person, in his (or her) being, contribute to a truthful understanding of what the tenets of Islam teach, and what the vast majority of Believers believe, about jihad and the ultimate necessity to establish the supremacy of Islam and the Shari’a? Or does this person lead the unwary astray, whether out of embarrassment at what Islam really teaches, or filial piety (perhaps toward pious ancestors, or simply toward one's own cultural heritage, at times leading some to become Defenders of a Faith they do not really support or accept, but cannot bear to allow it to be criticized). The bar should not be set too low.
There is altogether too much solicitousness about those "moderate" Muslims and what they may or may not feel, or how they will react to various anti-terror measures. The Shari'a initiative almost succeeded in Canada, and that whole story does not lead one to draw the comforting moral that, in the end, those "moderate Muslims" will come to aid of the Infidel society in which they live. Sometimes they will, sometimes they won't. In this case, since the imposition of the Shari'a was to immediately affect the well-being of Muslim women, some Muslim women -- of the refugee from Islamic Republic of Iran variety -- entered the fray. But what if the measure in question were, say, a law to monitor all the sermons -- khutbas -- in the mosques of Canada? This could possibly be done by employing government agents to tape-record, or otherwise, openly or surreptitiously, insure that what goes on in mosques has nothing which might tend to inflame people to hostility toward Infidels, their laws, customs, manners, and understandings. What, then, would be the attitude of those "moderate" Muslims? And what would be their attitude if Infidels began to discuss or suggest that perhaps they had no duty to permanently welcome into their midst those who chose to call themselves the adherents of a belief-system that, right down the line, in every jot and tittle, divides the world between Believer and Infidel, and encourages the former to spread his belief-system at the expense of the latter, because "Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated"?There is much more one could say, but all over the Western world there has been entirely too much holding-back in order to win the favor and support of so-called moderate Muslims. I see no great effort to resist the global jihad by those largely-imaginary, or quite ineffective and inarticulate, "moderate" Muslims. No mass marches, no rallies, no expression of horror at much of what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. Instead, there is a continuing effort to distract or soothe Infidels, and to prevent them from learning about what is contained in those immutable texts, and making sense of them, and understanding what they mean.
That kind of thing has gone on too long. Infidels are losing patience pari passu with the level of their knowledge, and their comprehension, of Islam. And since more and more are learning about it, and trying to improve their understanding every day -- not in the way, I'm afraid, that CAIR and other Muslim groups had in mind when they began their own propagandistic outreach efforts -- the more Infidels will not be willing to tolerate those who do not speak truthfully about Islam, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics. Infidels are learning about the history of Muslim conquest of Infidel lands, and the subjugation of non-Muslim peoples.
That particular cat, despite the best efforts of Muslim “moderates,” can't be kept from getting out of its bag.
Here's an easy-to-use formula to weed out immoderate Moslems:
Koran = extreme + [Hadiths + Sirat (Sunnah) = extreme] ergo belief in Islam = extremist
After applying this test, you will be left with sun dappled fields alive with bounding Unicorns. The Moslems? They'll be down at the mosque chanting murder prayers and thirsting for human blood.
And the very notion of Islam being antipodale to Western values and unreformable must be examined carefully, and always with one objective criterion kept in mind: can this notion, regardless of its authenticity, contribute to a social awakening needed to quell the problem of islamic extremism? Because, in my humble opinion, this notion of Islam being incompatible with Western liberalism actualy goes against those liberal values, and that is the root of the problem. The sweeping generalization needed to picture Islam as impossible to reform, the fact that this notion would condemn millions of people as incompatible with the West, goes against the kantian ethics at the base of social liberalism AND it would also go against the universal pretention of Western culture. Last time we had to rethink ourselves, it was because of the Holocaust. It took a real proof, not just generalizations and suppositions. Because in the mind of the liberal West, there can be no clash of civilisations, because there are no civilisations, only individuals capable of a liberal attitude. Nationalism and patriotism? A cultur worth fighting and dying for? Its pretty rare these days, because people think at the individual level. Thats the result of liberalism.
I understand that from what I just said, I am guilty of a couple of gross generalizations myself, but I think it might explain why the opinions held by this site aren't more popular. I'm not disputing the authenticity of the islamic problem, I'm arguing that social liberalism can't see it, it isn't compatible with its system of thoughts, just like we humans can't see radioactivity despite it very real effects.
For exemple, a liberal might think, so what if the Koran says this or that? just try to prove that every muslims lives by the book, since nobody is forced to, especialy in Europe or North America. It isn't that simple. Especialy since the average westerner is oblivious of the teaching of the Koran anyway.
So, how can someone build a convincing argument showing the threat of Islam over our societies? How did humans learn the effect of radioactivity despite its invisibile state? Why, by noticing the first deleterious and unhealthy effects on themselves, thats how. Sure we already have the Balkans as an exemple, or Thailand, or Darfure, or the North Caucasus, or Lybia, or northen Cyprus or Indonesia. But those countries are "not like us". What happened there cannot happen here, because, a liberal as every right to believe, our muslims are different from theirs. Ours are liberalized. How is the West is going to awaken? probably after the first nation-State, like France or parts of the United-States, will adopte the Sharia, or after it balkanize itself into a civil war. And even after that, it will take intellectuals like Mr. Spencer or Huge to point out the problem, in due time.
If this was a game, I'd bet my money in our ability to raise again after the strom, not in our ability to dodge it.
Look at what is happening in France, where all concerned are all engaged, A la recherche de l'Islam modere: "They seek it here/They seek it there/Those Frenchies seek it everywhere."
That "moderate Islam" willing to integrate into the laic Republic of France turns out to be even harder to find than was, in that movie, that "demmed elusive Pimpernel."
Leslie Howard would have understood. Alexander Korda too. Baroness Orczy -- I'm not so sure.
No indication, not a shred, not a jot nor a tittle, in Hugh's post about how the West powerfully enables this perpetuation of the myth of the "moderate Muslim". (Well, there is a tittle or two -- I see upon rereading with my OED magnifying glass in one hand and my favorite recondite sherry in the other --, but that's hardly commensurate with the formidable proportions of the problem he is purporting to be addressing.)
Without the West's witless collusion -- born of PC (itself born of Leftism but expanded culturally & amorphously far beyond its party lines) -- this myth of the "moderate Muslim" would not be as extraordinarly and exasperatingly difficult to reject as it is. In fact, it would be appropriately easy.
My knowledge of biology has has led me to begin to think of the Ummah metaphorically as an amoeba (a type of "phagocyte"): that is, a single celled organism with specialized parts for feeding (and other functions). A phagocyte feeds by generating and extending pseudopodia, or arms, that engulf its prey and draw it into the body of the cell where it is digested. In the same fashion, the Ummah sends out the Jihadis who relieve the others of their responsibility to do Jihad. It is a situational distinction, not a question of differing sects. In the case of those Muslims who are relieved of the Jihad requirement, they are the beneficiaries of the Jihadis' work, and they can't repudiate the "extremists", as they are all part of a single integrated organism. See this link for a simple animated graphic depiction:
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/bio4fv/page/phago.htm
Movie quote time (edited):
Alright, now see this? This is a four-way road,
OK? And dead in the center is a crisp, new,
hundred dollar bill. Now, at the end of each of
these streets are four people, OK? Are you
following? Good. Over here, we have an infidel
affectionate, easy to get along with, non dawa,
Koran knowledgeable and practicing, moderate
muslim. Down here, we have an infidel hating,
smiling when he's weak but murderous when strong,
angry as !@#$, agenda of rage, bitter jihadist
muslim. Over here, we got Santa Claus, and up
here the Easter Bunny. Which one is going to get
to the hundred dollar bill first?
Hugh,
You ask why we see no expression of horror at much of what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira from "moderate Muslims".
I also have skepticism about so-called "moderate" Muslims. There is always a "but" in everything they say, as in "of course we are against terrorism but (what about Israel / what about the backlash against innocent Muslims)" etc.
However if expressing horror at what is contained in their canonical texts is the test of a "moderate" then there are no moderate Christians or Jews. Religious communities do not repudiate scriptures and creeds, they reinterpret them. Usually the public reinterpretation surfaces long after most people have stopped believing and/or obeying a particular tenet.
Presbyterians used to be hard-core Calvinists, double predestination and all that. Now, at least the PCUSA hierarchy, is one of the most "liberal" denominations. They never repudiated the Westminister Catechism. They simply allowed people to affirm it "as they understood it". They of course never repudiated any of the Bible.
In Islam there is no hierarchy with teaching authority to be penetrated by reformers. They also view the Qur'an as eternal and divine. Here is how I would line up Christian and Islamic concepts/persons.
Jesus (divine Word) = Qur'an (Given by God to save mankind)
Mary/Jesus(human) = Mohammed (Bringer of the divine Word)
Gospels = Haditha (Deeds of the Word bringer and what we should do)
No Christian group has ever repudiated Jesus or any part of the Gospels. I don't think it is reasonable to expect Muslims to do so. It is reasonable to ask them to explain their "moderation" in the context of the Qur'an/Hadith (all of it).
I will believe in "moderate" Muslims when they start turning in jihadists to the authorities.
I am sure that there are Muslims who shrug off certain aspects of their religion, just as there are plenty of Catholics who use birth control, Baptists who drink, and so on. That’s human nature. What is so disturbing about Islam is that we are continually told that it is not what we see so it so clearly is. (“Who are you going to believe? Me or your own lyin’ eyes?”)
I am not completely pessimistic on moderate Islam, but as far as I know it has not happened yet. American Muslims could take their cue from the Reform Jews. At the 1885 Pittsburgh Conference a group of rabbis jettisoned a great deal of Jewish practice including dietary laws saying, "We recognize in the Mosaic legislation a system of training the Jewish people for its mission during its national life in Palestine, and today we accept as binding only its moral laws, and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject al such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization." I would be much more sanguine if some group of Muslims did something like that concerning Jihad and Sharia, clearly separating Islam from its political component. I know that there are some small groups who have tried it and been persecuted by mainstream Muslims.
Without a clear conscious framework for their beliefs, “moderate” Muslims cannot answer insinuations from their more radical brethren that moderates are really just not very good Muslims.
AnneCrockett,
What I find very odd in your analogy is that
I know plenty of Jews, some who are Orthodox, and
as far as I can tell strictly practicing, and I
don't find them threatening. If anything, I find
knee jerk multiculturalism and far left pandering
to be associated with Reform or atheist Jews.
American Muslims could start by accepting the
fact that terrorists operate in their community
and helping out law enforcement, but they don't.
British Muslims don't help out the Hamas flag wearing UK cops either. Anyone surprised by this?
There is just something wrong with Islam, such
that if one does as you say, and makes the
modifications, you are a bad Muslim. The same
problem just doesn't exist (except probably in
some less threatening form) with Jews, Christians,
Hindus, Buddhists, Baha'i, pagans, wiccans,
animists, and others. Not that I've noticed. Yes,
there are nutcases, but in the case of islam, it appears that the 97% of nutcases give the 3% of
moderate muslims a bad rap.
We've waited long enough for these mythical
muslim "good neighboors". They are, were, and always will be, a figment of our imagination.
... a liberal might think, so what if the Koran says this or that? just try to prove that every muslims lives by the book
If they state belief in the book, that makes them members of an organized crime enterprise.
They do, and so they are.
KILL KILL MURDER HATE KILL MURDER ALLAHU AKBAR MURDER BLOODY ISLAM!
The putative Moderate Moslem by self-definition must be an apostate, much as the elusive Unicorn must be part horsie and part magic.
"No Christian group has ever repudiated Jesus or any part of the Gospels. I don't think it is reasonable to expect Muslims to do so. It is reasonable to ask them to explain their "moderation" in the context of the Qur'an/Hadith (all of it)."
-posted by Malta 1565
I agree with the first part of your statement but I disagree with the second part. Time and time again, asking the moderates to explain the context of the QHS has always led to obfuscation and dishonest argumentation.
I have never seen ANY moderate Muslim discuss the signficance of the massacre of the Banu Qurayza, Asma bint Marwan, or Aisha honestly. If they don't deny it altogether, they twist themsevles into pretzels trying to justify these horrific deeds. When they are caught lying, they try to contextualize them and say that they were only proper for that time. That is dishonest. The only thing Muhammad did that was proper for his time was breaking the limit on how many wives he could take and the QHS makes it clear that only the Prophet can do this. Everything else he did is proper for all time. And these three figures (Banu Qurayza, Asma, and Aisha) are the justification for Muslim theology and law. The Banu Qurayza is "proof" that the Jews are treacherous and Islam's worst enemies (far worse than the Christians and Zoroastrians), the case of Asma bint Marwan demonstrates that the punishment for mocking the Prophet by an infidel should be death, and the example of Aisha legitimizes the age of consent (9 years old).
They cannot ignore these events and dismiss them as aberrations for there can be no aberration in the QHS lest it fall into disrepute. What it would take for a moderate to be honest with the infidels is to admit that Muhammad is not the perfect man and to be emulated for all time and suddenly, our moderate Muslim becomes an apostate Muslim.
Omvi: La Chupacabra does exist, and wears capri pants. I should know-- she's my landlord. ;)
The problem with moderation is that everyone has their own definition, and it's generally rooted in considering themselves as the definition of the center, or of what's "normal."
There are those who run red lights consider themselves "good drivers." There are frat kids at a kegger who consider themselves "moderate drinkers." And there are Muslims who give to shady charities, or don't speak out against that "tiny minority of extremists" among them, and think they're moderate because they're not putting on the bomb belt themselves.
Why? Because they're not standing out from the people they associate with, and moreover, whatever your sin of excess is, it's a fact of life that you can almost always point to someone who's worse about it than you. In the absence of principles over and above "moderation," relativism takes over.
And there are apparently no longer enough grade school teachers to get it through people's heads early on that it's still no excuse.
Because, in my humble opinion, this notion of Islam being incompatible with Western liberalism actualy goes against those liberal values, and that is the root of the problem. The sweeping generalization needed to picture Islam as impossible to reform, the fact that this notion would condemn millions of people as incompatible with the West, goes against the kantian ethics at the base of social liberalism AND it would also go against the universal pretention of Western culture. Posted by Elliott
I disagree that the "notion of Islam being incompatible with Western liberalism actually goes against those liberal values." Why is that? I can think of several ideologies that have been officially deemed "incompatible" with Western liberalism like fascism, communism, and emperor worship (Shintoism). Islam is as much a political system as it is a religion, if not more so.
One of the biggest obstacles to addressing and dealing with the Islamic invasion of the West and the many threats it poses is that people have been inculcated with the ridiculous idea that the West is a free for all,open to everybody, even its enemies. This type of thought is SUICIDAL. I believe that those who truly embrace Western liberalism and appreciate its many virtues and advantages should protect it from predators that seek to destroy it. As the old cliche goes: "Freedom is not free."
Why would millions be "condemned" if the West accepted the indisputable fact that Islam is unreformable and therefore incompatible with Western liberalism and democracy? What would they be condemned to, lives of misery and frustration because the West denied them their cherished goal of destroying what billions of others appreciate and wish to preserve? They would be condemned to nothing but what they desire---to live their lives as dictated by their religion, with all its asinine restraints, inhibitions, and self-imposed misery. They don't come to the West to assimilate, they come here to exploit. They wouldn't have to exploit the many opportunities the West has to offer but are absent in Islamic countries if they were forced to acknowledge that Islam is responsible for the miserable conditions in every Islamic country on earth. Maybe then they would quit blaming the West for their pathetic plight and acknowledge the true culprit---their archaic, retrograde religion.
To say that there is a universal "pretension" of Western culture is ridiculous in my opinion. First of all, there are plenty of people who neither want nor practice Western culture. Secondly, Western culture is only a "right" to those who respect and want it, and muslims do not. Or maybe you are suggesting that Western culture is merely a big sham and in reality, it is a polyglot of disparite cultures. If so, I would disagree. Islamic immigration to the West is relatively recent. For centuries, muslims were quite content to live in their putatively "enlightened" lands, most of which were forcibly conquered and the indigenous cultures destroyed, isolated from the filthy kafirs and infidels and their immoral culture. Colonization and modern technology opened a new world to these people, and the riches bestowed on certain Islamic countries with oil empowered them to take advantage of the bounties of the West, while maintaining their contradictory and hypocritical insistence that Islam is superior to all other belief systems. Obviously it is not, not culturally, politically, or economically so they EXPLOIT what they cannot create. They've been doing it for almost 1400 years and despite what you seem to believe, we are not obligated by Kantian ethics or anything else to allow them to destroy our civilization.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4647362.stm
Hamza denies urging crowd to kill
Mr Abu Hamza admitted the crowd was angry
Muslim preacher Abu Hamza al-Masri has denied urging a "tinderbox" congregation to go out and murder.
Prosecutor David Perry told the cleric's Old Bailey trial he urged congregation members to kill, ambush or poison for the Palestinian uprising.
Mr Abu Hamza said there was anger at north London's Finsbury Park mosque but denied trying to "ignite" listeners.
Mr Abu Hamza, 47, from west London, denies 15 charges, including soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred.
Mr Perry told the jury the cleric had urged listeners to do anything within their power to help the Intifada (Palestinian uprising).
When you tell them to kill, what do you think they are intending to do?
He quoted Mr Abu Hamza as saying: "If it's killing, do it, if it's paying, pay, if it's ambushing, ambush.
"If it's anything, poisoning, poison, you help your brothers, you help Islam in any way you like it, anywhere you like.
"They are a Kafir [infidel] and they are all fighting us as one body and we should give them back as one body."
Mr Perry described Mr Abu Hamza's performance as "powerful words spoken by a preacher to a tinderbox congregation who were angry".
Mr Abu Hamza, on his fourth day of giving evidence to the trial, agreed the listeners were angry.
"When you tell them to kill, what do you think they are intending to do?" Mr Perry asked.
"I am not saying murder, I am saying go and resist," Mr Abu Hamza replied.
"The job of a preacher is not to ignite people's anger, but direct it, but now I am being punished for it."
Supply claim
The cleric faces nine charges under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which allege that he solicited others at public meetings to murder Jews and other non-Muslims.
He faces four other charges under the Public Order Act 1986 of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred".
A further charge claims the defendant was in possession of video and audio recordings which he intended to distribute to stir up racial hatred.
The final charge, under section 58 of the Terrorism Act, accuses him of possessing the Encyclopaedia of the Afghani Jihad, which, it is claimed, contained information "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".
Mr Abu Hamza denies all the charges.
The concept of "Moderate Muslim" is beginning to look as elusive as the concept of "Silent Majority," fabricated back during the 60's in US politics.
The Silent Majority was supposedly this large bloc of reticent but basically virtuous citizens who did not raise their voices, presumably because they were happy and grateful for living in the greatest country on earth and wouldn't be reduced to the same level as the shrill voices plaguing the US nation back then. The Silent Majority canard was worked like a puppet to suit the needs of the politicians of the time. Nobody was ever able to successfully identify the opinions of the Silent Majority, however, because membership was limited to those who kept their opinions to themselves. Hence the word "Silent." Clever, no?
But all great lies are half true. It seems altogether plausible that there may be large groups of people in any great social contest who have not spoken their minds. But how does one read this silence? Is it stoic virtue? Not likely. It can be argued that such silence is as much attributable to the vice of sloth as it may attributable to the virtue of down-home humility. The Moderate Muslims, like the Silent Majority, may simply constitute a class of individual not sufficiently bothered with circumstances to get involved. They are indifferent to events, as they anticipate that they stand to benefit --or at least not be adversely affected-- no matter what the outcome of events. "I'm OK Jack," is their byword.
But can't this class of people be made to understand the need to engage the greater community? Individually, perhaps. Collectively, unlikely. Islam is sufficiently amorphous, and practically leaderless, so that consensus-building within the Ummah towards a new way of interpreting their religion, starting with the immutable Qur'an and working up from there, a way respectful of other religions and compatible with life in the 21st century, is a truly protean effort. The culture is such that they can barely agree on the time of day, so will the community of moderate Muslims have the attention span to see this change through? Certainly not of their own accord. In the best of circumstances they believe themselves to have nothing to lose either way, so why bother? In the worst of circumstances, inaction is truly the least they can do on behalf of jihad.
Telling somebody, or some group, an unpleasant truth about themselves is not necessarily an act of belligerence. It can at times be a profound act of charity. Conversely, failure to forthrightly address truths such these is not necessarily correct in any sense of the word, political or otherwise. It may very well be the depths of Pharisaism.
"I'd like to thank the Silent Majority for staying silent." -- Dick Martin, Laugh In
"I'd like to thank the Silent Majority for staying silent." -- Dick Martin, Laugh In
Ha! Verrry interesting!
"You're running guns! You're selling dope!
What's all this Buddhist shit you keep spouting?"
--Robert Downey Jr to Mel Gibson
"Well, I never said I was a good Buddhist..."
--Mel Gibson in reply.
From "Air America"
I have an ex-Catholic now Buddhist friend who likes that quote.
I suppose it is the same with "moderate" Muslims. Except that it is the "good" Muslims who are running guns and selling dope to support jihad.
American,
I don't mean that Jews are or were a threat. Judaism like Islam has no Popes or Bishops, so I just thought it was a good analogy.
Reform Jews organized, had a platform, and announced that they had a new practice of Judaism adapted to modern life. When Christians break away from one another one side is usually saying that the other has corrupted the faith, so I did not think that analogy was as good.
This is not an endorsement of Reform Judaism.
I do not mean to insult either Jews or Muslims by comparing them to one another.
I am just suggesting that we might at some point see some kind of well defined Moderate Islam, but we haven't seen it yet.
Upon thinking about this, I realized I should add, I am not hopeful of reform in Islam, because generally Muslims insist that their religion does not need to be reformed.
Malta, I know many more liberal Christians, especially scholars, deny the Resurrection of Christ and the Virgin Birth, but I cannot think of any denomination that accepts those ideas. And what about the Gnostics who denied the Crucifixion of Christ? Or were they by defintion not Christians because they denied the Crucifixion in which case... oh, this is all too circular.
Before getting too far along in our discussions of moderate Muslims, we need to have in our hands the results of polls or surveys on large samples of people. We need quantitative and qualitative information, collected from large samples from both Muslim and non-Muslim populations (non-Muslim groups for comparison purposes), from western countries as well as Islamic countries, addressing key issues. Opinions on certain key issues such as apostacy, public criticism of Koran/prophet/Islam, women's rights, the conditions under which violence against non-Muslims is acceptable, and so on, need to be gathered and analysed. (We do have the PEW results, but is there anything more extensive? That study's questions were quite limited and the samples were limited to certain Islamic countries). How about taking opinion polls on students who've just graduated from Islamic schools?
If a moderate Muslim is one who thinks apostacy is acceptable, public criticism of Islam is acceptable and even healthy, and that full equality for women, are good things, and believes jihad and sharia are bad things, then we can get an estimate of the percentages of such Muslims. Until then, much of what we are saying about moderate Muslims, pro or con, contains a high percentage of speculation.
Of course, any time the prospect of a study arises, some readers will say studies are a waste of time and money. It is important for the future of our societies to know exactly what we are dealing with. Public opinion is swayed by the reports of the published results of such studies. Government policies are informed by the results of such studies. Studies are only part of the puzzle, but a part needed nevertheless.
The yougov.com site has had a few interesting polls. http://www.yougov.com
If a moderate Muslim is one who thinks apostacy is acceptable, public criticism of Islam is acceptable and even healthy, and that full equality for women, are good things, and believes jihad and sharia are bad things... - posted by Archimedes
You bring up a good point-- attempting to define "moderation" assumes some variation in practice or belief is possible/acceptable.
The whole premise of Wahhabism is that, no, there isn't. And there's nothing to moderate when there's only one way in the first place.
http://www.iht.com/getina/files/305441.html
Forty-four percent of young Moroccans do not consider Al Qa'ida to be a terrorist organization compared to 18 percent who do, a poll published Tuesday by the Moroccan financial newspaper L'Economiste shows.
The survey, for which 776 Moroccans aged between 16 and 29 were interviewed, was carried out in September last year, a month before two Moroccan diplomats were taken hostage from the Moroccan Embassy in Baghdad by Islamist militants. They have not been released and their whereabouts and wellbeing remain unknown.
"It is unclear whether this kidnapping and the uncertain fate of our countrymen will have changed the opinion of our young people," L'Economiste wrote.
Thirty-eight percent of respondents said they did not know whether Al Qa'ida should be considered a terrorist organization or not. According to a 2004 census, more than 8.5 million Moroccans are aged between 16 and 29 and make up 29 percent of the population. The poll also indicates that young Moroccans from lower income families tend to take a more favorable view of Al Qa'ida than their wealthier counterparts, and that men are more inclined not to consider Osama Bin Laden's network a terrorist group than women.
Just over three quarters of respondents described the US-led war in Iraq as having had a negative impact on the country and the Middle East compared to 6 percent who voiced the opposite opinion.
orginally from
http://www.elpais.es
Small numbers, eh?
Let's see 44% + 38% of 8.5 million gun-toting-aged, mostly guys, in Morocco many of whom would love a chance to get to Europe and let Europeans know how they feel.
What happened to all those moderate Muslims?
well more than one ended up as willing Bin Laden agents on 911. M. Atta in the wealth of material on him was not an Islamist prior to his departure for Germany. In fact, it was 'exile' in the West(Hamburg)where, probably lonely and out of sorts, he found a cause, a faith, a circle of brothers and, finally, off to the Bin Laden camp we go. Who was that nice pilot who everybody loved at Florida flight school. The guy from Lebanon that was so well liked by everybody who met him--with a secular Turkish wife to boot--who also fell from grace. At least 3 of the four 'hit team leaders' on 911 were non-Islamist initially but were 'radicalized' along with so many others in a Hamburg mosque where the German drug addicts and hookers trolled. So at least three went up in smoke as they say.
My point is that there may be something so discomforting in one's persoanl clash with the West in studying, reading or medical training that it may enhance this radicalization. I recall that many Arab interns had strong conflicting emotions about the US. On the one hand, they loved being able to say what they felt, admired our medical knowledge, respected their teachers(often Jewish), BUT hated the scantily dressed woman and, ultimately, formed tighter bonds between one another. Of course, this is not just an Islamic thing. If two people from Kansas ran into one another in Paris, they would meet for dinner and perhaps form a friendship and compare notes . . . while if they met in Wichita, they may never meet again. The difference is that the 'radicalization' of those Kansas farmer's daughters might lead to a lasting friendship, perhaps with a renewed patriotism towards the US or, conversely, appreciation of foreign cultures . . . quite a different thing that could happen if a disgruntled Abdul meets a homesick Mohamed in Kansas. Anybody who has met an American abroad knows what I'm talking about.
So the subject of the moderate Muslim has traction in this day of global travel and education ect... one could argue that Abdul or Mohamed 'might' have been 'ok' had he stayed in Jordan and missed out on Desperate Housewives, but watch out when he's 1. confronted with our hedonistic ways causes him to retract within his culture, but also 2. he's inwardly outraged by our success, our great size of opinions and structures, our sheer dynamism . . . get up and go . . . that we take for granted but the 'moderate moselem visitor' doesn't . . . it smacks him in the face and from a psychiatric standpoint three things could happen . . . a. depression . . . withdrawn sick of everything and b. become an apostate . . . it can and does happen or c. become radicalized to the 'truth' within Islam . . . this thought process says sure Arabia and company are corrupt and yes the West is strong economically but the problem is not Islam but rather the people who call themselves Muslim are not sufficiently pure.
Borg, thanks for those links.
Biorabbi, the point you raise about Atta et al in part becoming more radicalized due to their exposure to the west makes some sense to me...here they are, seeing, at least superficially, confirming evidence of all of the evils of the west which they would have heard about in their countries of origin.
On the other hand, I wonder whether we can say that these guys were ever truly moderate. Outwardly, perhaps, but how does one know until they are put to the test? And what percentage of such men, faced with the prospect of being recruited, turn away? Maybe the ones who turn away from it have a different pre-existing psychological profile than the ones who become "single-minded slaves of Allah."
I think the key, though, was the existence of the radical groups themselves, such as the al-Qaeda training camps, and the enclosed meeting groups these men had in Germany.
Despite the many variables at play--anti-west propaganda, cult-like groups, militaristic training and objectives, probable psychological deficiencies, etc.--the one constant is Islamic ideology, which is not moderate.
...though I should add that it is certain elements of the Islamic ideology that contribute to these terrorist attacks against civilians. These elements are found in other ideologies, though not to the same extent.
It is sometimes claimed that the Tamil Tigers, who also use suicide bombing, are "secular" terrorists. This is not exactly correct. They are religious, and have beliefs about the afterlife which may reduce their inhibitions with regard to destroying themselves.
As long as we continue debating the existence of the "moderate" Muslim, Muslims have time to produce such a creature, taqiyya free. When our debate ends, time is up.
Archimedes, you make my point exactly. If such 'moderates' are 'radicalized' by their mundane(occuring daily)encounters with the west then what do these words even mean. If Moderates are only a snub away from non-moderate, then a moderate by any other name would smell as sweet.
Ladies and gentlemen:
Allow me to introduce you to the one and only moderate Muslim, of all the misunderstood misunderstanders of Islam, the indefatigable frere Tariq:
ACLU Sues US on Behalf of Tariq Ramadan
The ACLU apparently believes we don’t have enough spokesmen for radical Islam in the US: ACLU Sues to Let Muslim Scholar Enter US.
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union sued the U.S. government Wednesday for preventing a Muslim scholar from entering the country, arguing that the government was using anti-terrorism laws as “instruments of censorship.”
The lawsuit asks the court to find a provision of the Patriot Act unconstitutional and seeks clearance for Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss intellectual and Muslim scholar, to accept invitations to speak in the United States.
Ramadan was blocked from accepting a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame when his visa was revoked in August 2004 because of a provision of the Patriot Act, said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU staff attorney.
Jaffer said it was part of an effort by the federal government to bar foreign scholars whose political views might be contrary to those of the U.S. government. The provision blocks entry to the country for prominent aliens who used their status to endorse or espouse terrorism or to persuade others to terrorist activity, he said.
“We don’t think there’s any evidence at all that he has endorsed terrorism,” Jaffer said. “In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that he has condemned terrorism.”
Some background on Tariq Ramadan:
* He has praised the brutal Islamist policies of the Sudanese politician Hassan Al-Turabi. Mr. Turabi in turn called Mr. Ramadan the “future of Islam.”
* Mr. Ramadan was banned from entering France in 1996 on suspicion of having links with an Algerian Islamist who had recently initiated a terrorist campaign in Paris.
* Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian indicted for Al-Qaeda activities, had “routine contacts” with Mr. Ramadan, according to a Spanish judge (Baltasar Garzón) in 1999.
* Djamel Beghal, leader of a group accused of planning to attack the American embassy in Paris, stated in his 2001 trial that he had studied with Mr. Ramadan.
* Along with nearly all Islamists, Mr. Ramadan has denied that there is “any certain proof” that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.
* He publicly refers to the Islamist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, and Madrid as “interventions,” minimizing them to the point of near-endorsement.
here are some more stats: Take a look at the "Confidence in Bin Laden as the World Leader" results.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=814
Overall, I don't like the ambiguity of the questions in this survey, but it's still informative. The "How Muslims and Westerners See Each Other" is interesting.
I try and keep the subject of Islamic moderates simple. There is no such thing...because... It is the 'obligation of 'all' muslims to support and participate in jihad. If they refuse, they are no longer muslims, but apostates, who will die hypocrites according to their literature.(Allah hates and punishes hypocrites).
If you are an apostate, you cant be a moderate muslim, and if you are a jihadist, you certainly are not moderate. There is no third choice, so there are no moderate muslims...
Who Would not have supported the ACLU in 1954? And who can possibly support it today? How exactly was it captured, over the past decade or two, by a determined combination of Red Diaper babies and apologists for Islam who have so successfully and so steadily infiltrated its upper ranks?
...roughly 25-30% of Muslims in Muslim countries approve of suicide attacks against civilians in the defence of Islam. We should not conclude that the remainder are moderates.
If the question were to be rephrased as "Do you approve of the killing of non-Muslim civilians in the defense of Islam?" it is likely that the percentage approval would increase. It would likely increase because such killing invloves (a) no suicide of the Muslim, and (b) death of non-Muslims.
"My knowledge of biology has has led me to begin to think of the Ummah metaphorically as an amoeba"
More like a colony of army ants.
"[Presbyterians -- to which could be added most other Christianities] of course never repudiated any of the Bible... No Christian group has ever repudiated Jesus or any part of the Gospels."
It's not a matter of "repudiation". Christendom has gone through an amazing process (with both good and bad aspects) of freeing up the mind. When the Bible and Jesus (among other Christian symbolisms) are subjected to the astonishing diluting processes of historical, literary and anthropological criticism, their untenability with regards theocracy is not a matter of "repudiation", nor even simply of "reinterpretation", but of a major shift of the contextual cultural paradigm or matrix around those symbolisms.
The symbolisms of Christendom have been disturbed and have had to shift away from theocracy (as their context of representativeness) and toward existential individualism. This process of the modern West has been attended by much spiritual, intellectual, social and political upheaval, dislocation and deformation, with often profound consequences (good and bad) for society as well as for individuals; but it also bears us along on a wonderful adventure of the mind and soul, an adventure of freedom which God has intended for his creatures all along. Muslims for the most part are terrified of this adventure of freedom. They are terrified of the mystery of life and of history. That is our gift of terrorism against them.
Islam is a cult founded by one who lived a life of pure evil. How is one who 'moderately' emulates this life that much better than a fanatic? I don't regard those who lie to me or try to deceive me, or take my liberty from me or support others who do these things, as being OK, simply because they don't try to kill me. Islam is immoral and evil, period. It cannot and should not be reformed, any more than nazism should be reformed. It is against God and against nature.
"If the question were to be rephrased as "Do you approve of the killing of non-Muslim civilians in the defense of Islam?" it is likely that the percentage approval would increase."
In order to become truly moderate, Muslims must do two things:
1) deconstruct the Koran, Mohammed, and Allah
2) repudiate and outlaw all language and action of the physical self-defense of Islam (handing over all defense of Islam and Muslims to secular legal authorities, whose job it is to protect all law-abiding individuals and groups (religious and non-religious) under their aegis).
Christendom evolved to a point where it has done both #1 (with respect to the Bible, Jesus and God) and #2, on not only the politico-legal institutional level, but also on the cultural and existential levels.
Islam needs to do these two things. It is non-negotiable. It needs to be fast-tracked.
If it were possible to ask a single question to determine whether or not a Muslim was moderate, I think the single most informative question would simply ask them about their opinions about Jews. If the PEW results (on a closely related question about opinions of which religion is most violent) are any indication, I would guess that the percentage of 'moderate' Muslims (i.e., those who we might expect to have an overall favourable opinion of Jews) to be less than about 10-15%.
Another interesting fact about Britain: The above linked PEW results were from 2005, taken before the 7/7 (and follow-up) attacks. Before 7/7, Britain, out of the major western countries shown, had the most favourable perception of Islam. I'd like to see the results after 7/7, and I'd like to see the results of this 18-month-long pro-Islam propaganda campaign.
Something to consider in our discussions of "moderate" Muslims: What we need are not "moderates," but instead people who actively oppose Islam or at least who are actively working on the kinds of radical changes described by Pepper, above. Whatever "moderates" there are seem to be an inertial mass preventing the quick and clear transition to radical reform or, better still, full repudiation and exposure (a la Ibn Warraq).
Demanding "moderation" in somebody else's religion is likely to be seen as both incoherent and arrogant. For people who actually believe in the existence of God, not just a "symbol", their religion is a seeking the will of God in their lives. How can being asked to be moderate in seeking and obeying the will of God be a good thing? If someone told you that in order to get along with him you need to be moderate in your love of your wife and kids (or else) would you view that as an invitation to a talk or a fight?
"Moderate your religion or suffer the consequences (boycott, persecution, war)!" is a tactic of agitprop. No religion in the history of mankind has complied or ever would comply with such a demand. It generates sympathy for Muslims that they do not deserve. It is also too vague.
What we should be demanding of Muslims is not "moderation" but non-violence. The explicit statement that their religious beliefs do not justify violence of any kind in the modern world and that non-Muslims, apostates, and Muslim women should have equal rights to Muslim men even in a Muslim society. This is something that every other religion is willing to accept.
I have no illusions of the likelihood of a "humane" Islam emerging anytime soon. The problem is not that so many of them are immoderate it is that so many are "inhumane" in what they do and/or support.
Elliot,
The problem here is not with Western values and our systems of governance. There is not the type of contradiction which you imply. If you want to use scientific or mathematical perspectives to prove your point (as you did with radiation), then why not use mathematics, a field in which you clearly define a problem (as Hugh and Robert have done) by asking the proper question(s) to solve it. Any mathematician will tell you that the most important part to solving a problem is asking the right question, which we who are defined as infidels and "the worst of creatures" by another group of people, are trying to do..
You say you recognize the problem with Islam, but do you really? The problem is with Islam and everything associated with it. They may have minor things to offer mankind as whole, but they are VERY minor. The problem is with them labeling us as an immoral culture with an erring belief, with the whole world having erring beliefs, and also willing to take action against what they feel as something wrong, something which God hates..
Muslims think Hindus are doomed to eternal damnation, yet in my opinion, although I am not Hindu, Hindus have one of the best conceptions of God I have ever heard. Deists believe God can be seen in a flower and hold no ridiculous notions of the life-force of the universe, yet this is erring too because they (Deists) assume God does not speak.
World-domination, killing Gays and everything else God hates, forbidding everything...and worst of all, no jokes about God! Gosh, if he has every divine attribute he must have a sense of humor!