So whom do you want to believe? Do you want to believe those who claim, such as Charles Krauthammer, that there is "Islam" and then there is "Islamism" and there is vast and therefore comforting difference between the two - though that difference is never really adequately discussed in detail - and we must never forget it?
What do others, aside from Charles Krauthammer, have to say about Islam and "Islamism"?
Ibn Warraq has repeatedly said that he has no idea what "Islamism" may mean. For Ibn Warraq, the real distinction is between the ideology of Islam and some of those who call themselves Muslims, that is, adherents of the ideology: "There are moderate Muslims. Islam itself is not moderate."
This lapidary formula points to a truth: that the texts of Islam, if not only taken literally -- and they are taken literally, that is the whole point - but also taken to heart, create people who are, to appropriate a line of Shakespeare, toward Infidels (and not infrequently toward each other), "savage, bloody, rude, not to trust."
Wafa Sultan, who has thought long and hard about the matter, says repeatedly that "there is no difference between Islam and Islamism."
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, who has thought long and hard about Islam and Kemalism and everything in-between, angrily says that "there is no difference between Islam and Islamism."
C. Snouck Hurgronje, Joseph Schacht, Antoine Fattal, Henri Lammens, K. S. Lal, Ignaz Goldziher, Sir William Muir, St. Clair Tisdall, Arthur Jeffrey, Samuel Zwemer, Georges Vajda, David Margoliouth, all appear never to have believed in something called "Islamism," because not once, in their tens of thousands of pages of learned works on Islam, do they ever use the word "Islamism." Nor do any of the other great scholars of Islam. Not once in her works on Iran does A. K. S. Lambton ever use the word "Islamism." Not once in his books on Turkey, or in any of his other works, did Bernard Lewis ever use the word, or ever adhere to the phony concept, of "Islamism." And just as S. D. Goitein, after his decades of research and study of the Cairo Geniza contents, became far less sentimental about Islam when he recognized the full weight of the dhimmi status, as one can see in his introductory remarks to "A Mediterranean Society," even Bernard Lewis, as lucid as ever, appears at 93 to have begun to understand what the Jews living in Arab lands endured under Islam. See a recent appearance by him in Israel, which suggests a similar new and deeper understanding, the one which he earlier rejected, when he actively worked, behind the scenes, in Israeli academic circles, against Bat Ye'or.
Marie-Thérèse Urvoy (French Islamologist, Director of Studia-Arabica.net) says: "There is no Islam and Islamism. There is the Texts [Radical] and People [Radical or Moderate]."
So whom shall we trust? Shall we trust Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Magdi Allam, Nonie Darwish? Shall we have faith in the understanding of Islam by such scholars as C. Snouck Hurgronje, Joseph Schacht, Arthur Jeffrey, Henri Lammens, and all the others who never ever felt there was such a thing as "Islamism" and never once used the term?
Or shall we put our trust in Charles Krauthammer, and those in whom he apparently puts his trust on such matters?
Those in the West who use this formulation betray their own insufficiencies of mind, and their own grasping at straws of their own mental construction.
The point is this: Islam really is a dangerous ideology. So why aren't all Muslims dangerous? What needs an explanation is not, as all our experts appear to think, why there are these "violent extremists" and what it is that makes them so, when Islam itself is so full of tolerance and peace and so on? Bush was bad on this, full of messianic sentimentalism. Obama is not full of messianic sentimentalism but is far far worse in his identification with, sympathy for, and defense of, those who fit, in his mental grid, into the category of the "Non-Western Victim." This is a deep worldview that some of us did not recognize in time, and did not understand. But everything he does that touches upon Islam, including the continuing cruel mistreatment, even tormenting, by the Obama Administration, of the government and people of Israel, is based on a complete acceptance of the Arab narrative about "the Palestinian people" that ignores completely the Jihad without end against the Infidel nation-state of Israel.
What needs to be understood are the various reasons that this or that group of Muslims, or this or that individual Muslim, does not apparently take the texts and tenets of Islam to heart. There are many explanations for why this or that Muslim chooses not to take Islam to heart. None of them should provide comfort to intelligent and wary Infidels.
Here are just three:
1) Ignorance of what is in those texts. If you are an illiterate villager living in a remote part of Afghanistan, you may not know these texts. But the question is: what happens to you once you learn, through the radios and televisions and even computers made available by generous infusions of Western aid - perhaps even supplied directly by those Western Infidels - and you are subject to the full texts of Islam, presented to you by those who do not mince words?
What is your reaction? Do you recoil in horror? Do you say: that's it, I had no idea, I'm out of Islam forever? That is not what has been happening. The "radicalization" of which people in the West speak is nothing more than Muslims, formerly not fully apprised of what the texts of Islam say, becoming more aware of them. And in doing so, because they are already keenly aware that they are "Muslims" (that's the side of humanity, that's the team they are on), they can do no other but do what Muslims are taught to do, think what Muslims are taught to think - even if, personally, they would wish those texts and tenets were otherwise.
2) A "moderate" Islam that is "moderate" because the Muslim group or individual in question possesses another identity that works against his Islam. For example, if you are a Kurd, and keenly aware of the mass-murdering of Kurds by Arabs in Iraq, you may be more incensed about your treatment by fellow Muslims, and the Muslims par excellence, the originators and "guardians" not only of the Two Noble Sanctuaries but the "guardians" of Islam itself, the Arabs. If you are a Berber, and you live in the Kabyle region of Algeria, or in Morocco, or even in France, you might resent the Arabs, with their cultural and linguistic imperialism, their attempts to squash the use of Tamizight, their attempts to snuff out Berber culture, and even their attempts to arabize - they did it before the French arrived, and they've done it with a vengeance since the French left - what remains of the Berber population. And that awareness may make you a less enthusiastic, i.e., more "moderate," Muslim than you might otherwise be. And the same is true for other non-Arab Muslims, that is, those who most keenly have felt, or feel, the Arab yoke, and gradually come to understand all the ways that Islam is, has been, and will be a vehicle of Arab supremacism.
3) You may live in the Western world, and enjoy its peace, its mental and other freedoms, its prosperity, its art and its science, its (compared to Muslim states) well-ordered societies where people are citizens, and possess rights that cannot be ignored -- in short, all the blessings of an advanced and necessarily non-Muslim civilization. But if you remain a Muslim, for whatever reason - conviction, filial piety, fear of what other Muslims will think or do - you are a permanent threat to the non-Muslims whose generosity and way of life you have benefited from so much. You do not recognize the reasons for that advanced civilization, as Nonie Darwish points out in Now They Call Me Infidel, and far from being grateful for the tremendous privilege of living, and even acquiring citizenship, in one of the advanced Western countries, you wish to undo them, to lay claim to them for Islam, even though that will simply reduce the place you now enjoy to what you fled from. Unlike refugees from the Nazis, who did what they could to alert the countries that gave them refuge to the dangers and evils of Nazism, unlike refugees from the Communists, who felt they had a duty to warn the West in which they found refuge of the dangers and evils of Communism, those who come from the various wretched Muslim lands, made wretched politically, economically, socially, intellectually, and morally, by Islam itself, almost all of those who arrive come with Islam, undeclared, in their mental baggage, and become Defenders And Spreaders of the Faith. The only ones who do not do so, who behave as did the refugees from the Nazis and the Communists, are those who, having been born into, and raised within, societies suffused with Islam, nonetheless manage to take advantage of the mental and other kinds of freedom the West makes possible, and in exercising that freedom, and in pondering the nature of Islam, come to conclusions about it that lead them, just like refugees from the Nazis and from the Communists, to start to warn us, as best they can, about the evils and dangers of Islam and a rising Muslim population. The list of such people is growing and growing. There is Ibn Warraq, with Why I Am Not A Muslim. There is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with
Infidel. There is Nonie Darwish with Now They Call Me Infidel. There is Wafa Sultan, with A God Who Hates. There is Magdi Allam, with Vincere La Paura and Kamikaze Made In Europe and Diario all'Islam and, with Roberto Gritti, Islam, Italia - Chi sono e che pensano Ii musulmani chi vivono tra noi. There is Ali Sina, there is the late Anwar Sheikh, a Pakistani who lived in Wales and wrote the important Islam: The Arab National Religion.
But though you do what you can to protect Islam, to misrepresent it as smilingly as you can - and all the meretricious arts of Taqiyya and Tu Quoque are employed, as if by second nature - you also do not wish to endanger your own position in an Infidel society where Muslims still represent only a handful, about 1% of the population (though if CAIR and other groups can act as aggressively as they do with such a small Muslim population, imagine how they will behave if the Muslim share of the population, and its power, increases). You don't want to have your employment prospects, or your business, suffer, you don't want to rock too many boats. So that is why you choose to work to promote Islam, work to undo the Infidel society in which you live, without attention-getting violence. You regret, deeply, Osama Bin Laden, not because you are in any disagreement with his goals - you share those goals, you share his views, you share his attitudes, you wish him not to be captured - but because you think there are far better ways to promote the same goals, to achieve, ultimately, the same ends. You think that Tariq Ramadan, not Osama Bin Laden, is the role model for clever Muslims. Indeed, the cleverest will be those who appear, mainly because of their youth and outward appearance and mastery of the local Infidel language, and perhaps with the right degrees, to be the perfect "moderate Muslim." Indeed, had Tariq Ramadan not in the end left such a large amount of written and spoken evidence of his meretriciousness and his real views, which were then analyzed by highly-intelligent French people (see, for example, Caroline Fourest's Brother Tariq, which is now in English), he - Tariq Ramadan - would still be in Switzerland or France, but now he has had the Arab countries buy him a chair at Oxford, so he can attempt to work his sinister magic in the English-speaking world. And his eye is on, it's always on, the United States of America.
The Jihad can be pursued with many instruments. Those who choose violence, and especially those who choose not ordinary qitaal - combat - but rather terrorism, are the ones in the West we describe as those "violent extremists."
But those who are not "violent extremists" require even more vigilance, as they pursue the same goals, or out of reasons of self-interest perhaps, prudently set them aside for now. But we don't know for how long they will set them aside. That depends on all kinds of factors, including an absence of personal setbacks that might set someone off and turn a "moderate" into an "extremist" - i.e., into someone who not only takes Islam seriously, but is prepared to act on what it commands against the Infidels.
There are also reasons why those, including some of those who one would have thought would have seen things more clearly, cleave to this construct which misleads -- of "Islam and 'Islamism.'"
Here is a piece published at the website run by Daniel Pipes, of a summary (by Aymenn Jawad) of a debate that Pipes had with Wafa Sultan on December 1, 2009. I have put the key sentence, that explains why Pipes has been so fervent in his spreading of this "Islam and Islamism" notion, one picked up by those who, like Charles Krauthammer, assume that Daniel Pipes couldn't possibly be steering them wrong:
Mr. Pipes began by emphasizing that he and Ms. Sultan are allies, fighting the same opponents, namely, the Islamists. They agree on the past and present of Islam but disagree about the future. Ms. Sultan argues it cannot change while he believes it can. The idea that Islam cannot change is an essentialist view that ignores how much Islam has changed over history, an aspect that he, as a student of Islamic history for forty years, appreciates. He stressed that many of the requirements of the Shari'a, or Muslim sacred law, are impractical to implement, resulting in what Mr. Pipes has coined as the "medieval synthesis," whereby loopholes are devised to get around impractical tenets, such as the prohibition against usury.In the 1800s, with the onslaught of Western influence, the medieval synthesis collapsed, replaced by secular, reformist, and fundamentalist strains. The last of these is the totalitarian mentality that Mr. Pipes describes as "Islamism," which transformed the religion into a political movement. And while Islamism dominates today, there are even at this bleak moment signs that Islam itself can change. For example, jurists in Turkey recently ruled that women can pray next to men in mosques, a small but important step for women's rights.
Ms. Sultan began her argument by quoting Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who says that there is no "moderate or immoderate Islam. There is Islam; that is it." She contends that terms like "radical Islam" conceal the true nature of Islam itself--a political ideology. She adds that the aim of Islam is to subdue the entire world under Shari'a. To prove her position, she quoted from the Qur'an; she also argued that the true nature of Islam can be seen in the Sira, or biography, of Muhammad, which, she says, has come to define Islam itself. For instance, Ms. Sultan claims that Muhammad's actions--such as marrying a 9-year-old and taking many women as concubines --means that there can be no equality for women under Shari'a.
During the question and answer session, Mr. Pipes pointed out that those who argue that Islam itself is the problem leave the West with no solutions, adding that, to truly reform Islam, Western governments must begin to empower genuine moderates. Asked what policies she would adopt toward the Muslim world, Ms. Sultan asserted that Islam can be reformed, and recommended Western pressure on the Saudi king as the surest way.
Mr. Pipes and Ms. Sultan agreed on some specifics, for instance, that Western governments must not welcome non-violent Islamism and should monitor the hate being taught in Muslim schools in the West. Overall, however, Mr. Pipes, while not denying what Islam has been or is, insists that Islam, like other religions, can and will change, whereas Ms. Sultan was more pessimistic.
So now we understand. Pipes does not see how the West can deal with the meaning, and menace, of Islam. He doesn't know what the West could do if it were filled with people who refused to accept his "Islam and Islamism" distinction, because, he said (according to what was put up at his own website, so must surely reflect accurately what he said - the tape can be listened to online), "those who argue that Islam itself is the problem leave the West with no solutions."
"No solutions."
Again and again I have pointed out here that there is no "solution" to the menace of Islam but the threat can be reduced, the problem not solved but ameliorated, and I have noted, usually when discussing Israel and that idiotic question-begging phrase "the two-state solution" or even "the one-state solution," as I have tried to make clear there is no "solution" to the Jihad against Israel, but that if Israel is not cruelly pressured into making yet more concessions, it will be able to handle the situation and the Arab rulers able to invoke "Darura" (necessity) for their refusal to go to war.
Americans, with their Yankee can-do rolling-up-their-sleeves spirit, seem to assume that everything in the world can be thought of as a "problem" to be "solved." It isn't true. It sometimes is an admirable spirit, and sometimes is frightening in its naivete and in what it betrays of a misunderstanding of so much of what life, including political life, present. There is no "solution" to poverty, but one can ameliorate it. There is no "solution" to certain kinds of human inequality, the result of not Man but Nature, but one can ameliorate conditions for those who suffer from that inequality. There is no solution to anthropogenic global warming - it cannot be stopped at this point - but there are ways to ameliorate the problem.
In the case of Islam (and not "Islamism," which as a term ought to be ignored or mocked, as you choose), we can manage the situation if we do nothing to prevent Muslims from arriving at certain conclusions, but ideally they will do this on their own. However, we in the non-Muslim world can discuss, among ourselves, all the ways that Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism, beginning but not limited to the cultural and linguistic spheres. And we will be overheard, overheard among some of the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arab, and not all of whom are delighted with the ways that they are encouraged to sedulously ape the manners and customs, and even adopt the names, of seventh-century Arabs, forgetting their own quite different histories, cultures, traditions, even languages.
And we can talk amongst ourselves, about what political theory, and view of Man, in Islam, discourages true democracy and encourages despotism - and despotism is the rule, not the exception, in Muslim states. We can talk about how the hatred of bid'a, innovation, discourages novel forms of economic activity, discourages entrepreneurial activity and invention, and we can discuss how inshallah-fatalism works against the concept of hard work. We can talk about the mistreatment in Islam of all non-Muslims and of women, and what that does to a society. We can talk, truthfully, about why science developed in the West and not in the lands of Islam, and we can in detail go through the claims made for the greatness of high classical Islamic civilization and see how many of those who did the translations from the Greek were Muslims, and how many Christians and Jews, and from where the Arabs borrowed paper-making, and the concept of zero, and algebra. And we can analyze, in prosopographic studies (shades of Sir Lewis Namier), name by name, the handful of famous people in Islam, and which ones, such as Rhazes, who were freethinkers, and those who were highly unorthodox Muslims, their work finding acceptance only in the West, but their Western fame has now made Muslims re-claim them as part of Islam's past greatness.
We can also investigate those famous names of people who, while they bore Arabic names, and used the Arabic language, and are called Muslims, may in fact have been formed mentally in a different sectarian milieu. For the days of civilisational greatness for Islam lasted only a few centuries, that is, while there were still a large number of unconverted Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians, and those who were only a generation or two away from being Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. Perhaps the secret that no one has been able to solve, as to why there was this sudden extinguishing of Islamic cultural achievement, has to do with the fact that at a certain point, there were enough semi-forced conversions to the faith of the conquerors, that is Islam, and the Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians lost their fructifying influence.
These are among the things we can do, and that those who cling desperately to the "Islam vs. Islamism" distinction, that is false an dangerous, apparently have been unable to think of on their own. And there are many other things that can reduce the "problem" to manageable proportions, and not force the West to spend much of its time, and a great deal of its money, on this matter when there are so many other things that press upon us. But that is very different from either finding a permanent "solution" or in formulating falsehoods because one thinks only in terms of "solutions" and believes that in order to find that "solution" we must fool ourselves, and fool others, about the nature of Islam.
No, we must not do that.
And there are those quite capable of coming up with ideas -- I've given dozens and dozens at this site, and so, no doubt, have many of you, in your postings here, or in your private musings.
Thank you for your insightful post. It is right on the money.
Brilliant post. Couldn't say it better myself.
The three points is especially useful to present to those non-Muslims trapped in the idea that Islam can't be that bad because there are only a 'handful' of violent Muslims.
As Hugh said: "But those who are not "violent extremists" require even more vigilance, as they pursue the same goals, or out of reasons of self-interest perhaps, prudently set them aside for now." I agree. Those Muslims are really the infiltrators of the army of Islam, going wherever they can in the West to deceive the infidels and threaten those who dare raise the alarm about the evils of Islam.
Such is the evolution in our thinking and knowledge that once upon a time, maybe 5 years ago, I made such a rote distinction myself. One hopes Krauthammer's intelligence will accelerate his learning curve...and that the mini-firestorm in conservative circles surrounding his statement will become - for him - a pause for reflection and further investigation.
I feel a song coming along. The song of Taqqiya.
Trust in me, just in me
Shut your eyes and trust in me
You can sleep safe and sound
Knowing I am around
Slip into silent slumber
Sail on a silver mist
Slowly and surely your senses
Will cease to resist
Trust in me, just in me
Shut your eyes and trust in me.
DP111,
Reminds me of Richard Pryor's line when his wife caught him in bed with another women:
"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
The American public is harder to gauge, but it is very evident that the media, academics and - most disheartening - our public officials sworn to support and defend the Constitution, indeed are not just inclined but are ever-so-eager to "believe their lying eyes."
One wonders if there has ever been in the annals of human history a more telling example of a willful cultural whitewash?
"Reminds me of Richard Pryor's line when his wife caught him in bed with another women:
"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
-- from a posting just above
Long before there was Richard Pryor, there was Groucho Marx.
And if Memory serves ("I do," says Mnemosyne, in her soothing come-hither voice), that very line appeared at this site some time ago, in that four-part article, "Islam For Infidels."
Groucho was magnificent...but I guess I'm - due probably to my age - more partial to the comics who came of age in the sixties and seventies...particularly Pryor and George Carlin. These days, I enjoy George Lopez (not so much his nightly show, but his theater performances on DVD). He may be a Chicano-supremacist, but he is hilarious, and I find it telling that as he spins his subversive ethnic yarn, he does so in the English language.
Stand-up is a beautiful medium for self-expression. I love it so much I even once worked out a 10-minute bit of my own, all about the highs and lows of matrimony...including the complete and utter naivety of the young, male newlywed who assumes that now that he's married, his days of masturbation are over. I fully intended to try the bit out on an open-mic audience...but when I previewed it to my wife, she didn't laugh.
Guess I'll stick to music.
The way I see it, it's not that there are no real distinctions to be made between "moderate" and "extremist" Muslims, it's just that the differences are largely irrelevant to us in the West pursuant to the wider conflict. In Germany in during the late 30's and 40's, you could make an honest distinction between the fervent Nazi party "true believers" and the average German citizen. However, when push came to shove, the average German citizens supported the Nazis politically, culturally, financially and militarily---and the number of average Germans who actively sided with the West against the Nazis was infinitesimal. I think our situation with Islam is analogous.
Link to audio & video of debate between Daniel Pipes and Wafa Sultan:
Moderate Islam: Western Ally or Western Myth?
We've just had a bit of a controversy in Canada over the debate that was held recently between Daniel Pipes and Wafa Sultan in Toronto.
Famous "moderate Muslim" Tarek Fatah wrote about his reaction to the debate: oh, the poor man was "traumatized".
The National Post published a rebuttal, in response to which he left a long comment. I'll have to go back and count the number of times he used the words "hate" or "hatred", an emotion which, as we all know, has been effectively outlawed in Canada.
Tarek Fatah was a guest on the Michael Coren Show last night. They discussed Fatah's reaction to the debate and the issue of Islam without mentioning any criticism or disagreement Fatah might have received in response to his editorial. Someone has posted video of that segment.
After this episode with Tarek Fatah, I've come to the conclusion that the term "moderate Muslim" is meaningless to me.
Someone is a moderate Muslim? Who cares? His level of Muslim-ness is between him and his Allah. I only care about his level of Western-ness.
Here is the article, by Joanne Hill, mentioned in a posting above, that answers Tarek Fatah for his wild attack on Wafa Sultan:
In defence of Wafa Sultan
March 12, 2010
Joanne Hill
Tarek Fatah has used the National Post to present a one-sided, inaccurate and potentially dangerous editorial about statements made by Dr. Wafa Sultan during her March 3rd debate in Toronto with Dr. Daniel Pipes.
Mr. Fatah's article is not an unbiased report: it is an opinion piece full of loaded terms such as slur, attack, hateful, anguish, Islam haters and vitriol. He misquotes Dr. Sultan and presents as fact a conclusion that is not supported by any of her statements: a conclusion that I believe puts her life in danger.
I am a freelance reporter; I covered the debate between Dr. Pipes and Dr. Sultan for the Jewish Tribune. I have an audio recording of the entire event, including the Question and Answer period, so I can state with complete accuracy what was and was not said by Dr. Sultan.
Mr. Fatah assumes the authority of a mind-reader to reveal what he claims is Dr. Sultan's hidden intention. Given his first-hand experience of the eagerness of some Muslims (or "Islamists" if he would prefer) to issue death threats against anyone who is perceived as threatening Muslims, there are three reasons why I find it disturbing that he would attribute to Dr. Sultan this motivation: "Perhaps the answer she had in mind was too outrageous even by her own standards: Force Muslims to convert or die."
This is disturbing, first of all, because Dr. Sultan said nothing that would lead the listener to come to this conclusion. When asked during the Q&A, "How do you get Muslims to reform? Do you expect them to convert to another religion?" Dr. Sultan replied:
"Give them the freedom to choose: that's all I'm asking for. Give them the freedom to search, to ask, to be exposed to different sides, different values, different lifestyles. I can tell you from my very own experience, what has helped me to reform myself is being exposed to Western values and being free to express my conclusion. I always compare between my life under Islamic Sharia and my life as a free woman in America and I write about that on my website in Arabic. So when you expose people to different [sic], and you give them the freedom to choose, that's all we need in the Islamic world. I'm not asking [them] to convert to a different religion; I'm asking to grant them the freedom to choose, the freedom to be, to follow whatever path they want to follow. That's all."
Second, this is what Dr. Sultan said at the conclusion of the Q & A:
"I'm not speaking up against Islam to please anyone but my conscience. We suffer a lot under Islamic Sharia. It is not fair. Enough is enough. We need to live our lives as human beings. I want you to know I'm not here to incite anyone against Muslims. Muslims are my family: my Mom, my brother, my sister. You know, I cannot peel off my own skin. I feel sorry for them because they are victims of a very hateful ideology. Really, if you take a look at any Islamic country, what do you see? Nothing but miserable situations, especially women who are living in this society. So I am speaking up to save them, looking for a better future for them. And believe it or not, when it comes to my readers in the Arab world, I feel it is easier for me to address my thoughts than to penetrate the Western mind. People in the West live by the Western ethical code which doesn't allow them to judge people based on their religion - and there's nothing wrong with that-but they need to know that Islam is not merely a religion: it is also a political ideology and that's what I am fighting. That's what I am speaking up against. And I hope one day, the future for our generation in the Muslim world will be much better than the life I lived under Islamic Sharia in Syria."
And third, the terrible, secret motivation which Mr. Fatah attributes to Dr. Sultan is in fact a commandment made by Mohammed to his followers regarding non-Muslims:
"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." (Source: Sahih Muslim Book 19, Hadith #4294.)
There is more.
Contrary to what Mr. Fatah writes, Dr. Sultan did not say: "Muhammed was a child rapist."
Rather, she said: "As a married man, Mohammed raped Aisha when she was nine; he was 54."
If Mr. Fatah is hurt by this statement, perhaps he should consider the source: Islamic doctrine. I challenge Mr. Fatah to deny this.
When she said, "There is no moderate Islam," Dr. Sultan stated quite clearly, more than once, that she was quoting the Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, who said in 2007 in response to the term "moderate Islam": "These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it."
Again, perhaps Mr. Fatah should take umbrage with Mr. Erdogan unless he, like the people who took Macleans Magazine to the "human rights" courts, would suggest that it is no longer permissible in Canada to quote Muslims when they have said something unpleasant about Islam.
I was paying close attention throughout the debate and at no time did I see Dr. Sultan sneer. She did not say, per Mr. Fatah, "I am 'clean' of Islam."
Dr. Sultan was speaking of the long, difficult process of breaking free from a religious upbringing that has been embedded in one's psyche from childhood. She said, "It is not an easy process: it is very tough. I still behave, in many ways, as a Muslim. I debate in a way [that] I am right and everybody else is wrong." This drew laughter and applause from the audience. Dr. Sultan continued, "So it's under my skin. I don't follow a specific religion. Of course I believe in God and I am empowered by Him."
Mr. Fatah writes that he was "traumatized" by Dr. Sultan's words. If this is truly the case, I would suggest that Mr. Fatah's sensitive feelings render him too delicate for this Western society in which he has chosen to live, because we in the free world are not required to continually couch our statements in qualifiers or cushion our strong words. Dr. Sultan spoke plainly and strongly about her personal experience as a woman raised in an Islamic country under Sharia law. Contrary to Mr. Fatah's characterization, she was funny, down-to-earth and as far from hateful as one can get.
Besides, even if Dr. Sultan does hate Islam, what business is that of Mr. Fatah's? Is she not entitled to her express own opinion? As a Christian, I was irked when Dr. Pipes said that Christianity "started on a much lower base" than Islam. But so what? Only a fool would deny the history of crimes committed by Christians against Jews.
Why was Avi Benlolo required to spend at least 20 minutes after the debate placating the hurt feelings and smoothing the ruffled feathers of a self-described "hardened secular Muslim" who is supposed to be on the side of freedom of religion and freedom of speech?
I see at the bottom of Mr. Fatah's article that his upcoming book is entitled, Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti- Semitism. On the night of the debate, Mr. Fatah informed Avi Benlolo (in my presence) without a trace of irony that his new book was going to be called, Why We Hate Jews.
Unlike Mr. Fatah, I will not presume to know his motivation in saying that to Mr. Benlolo or in writing his misleading editorial about Dr. Sultan. I will say, however, that I believe he owes Dr. Sultan, this newspaper and its readers an apology and a retraction.
National Post
That's the one, Hugh.
And last night on Michael Coren's TV program, Tarek Fatah called Aisha a woman and said she was, at the youngest, 14 when she married Mohammed and more likely 18-21 years old.
I hate to quote Jessie Jackson, but this is an appropriate time. Jackson once remarked that "without capital, capitalism is just another -ism".
Without Islam, Islamism is just another -ism.
On the night of the debate, Mr. Fatah informed Avi Benlolo (in my presence) without a trace of irony that his new book was going to be called, Why We Hate Jews.
===================
islam is a disease that feeds off hatred
Hugh, most of the JWers agree with you and I tend to agree with most of what you say. But I like a debate, a discussion, not a lecture. Why do "Islam" and "Islamism" have to be presented as an either/or choice? Why do they have to refer to distinct things? Surely this is fallacious. "Islamism" is a term which explicitly refers to the revived political dimension of traditional Islam, whereas "Islam" refers to the entire spectrum not just of doctrine (which is undeniably separatist, supremacist, and political) but of practice too. Hugh, you would grant that Islamic orthodoxy is inherently political and supremacist, but how has this historically come about? It has done so by the constant crushing of alternative, non-literalist traditions. These traditions have never consolidated a doctrine that can rival the doctrines of jihad, irredentism, takfirism and supremacism, so they of course remain confined to practices. These may arguably not deserve to be described as "traditions" since they have not produced a political alternative to orthodox Islam's supremacism, but then this would imply that nothing short of political Islam can be defined as Islamic, which really begs the question as what Islam is. Surely Islam is more than political Islam, since not all Muslims practice Islam politically. If you cannot grant Muslims the non-political practice of Islam then you are implying that only religious practice with a doctrine - and in this case one that can withstand violence and the threat of violence - can be considered as Islamic. The heretics of the Ahmadiyya and others such as the Mu'tazilites which have managed to form sects that do not adhere to your description of Islam are in your view not practicing Islam but they might be called Muslims. I disagree with this since I do grant that Islam can possibly be more than a political doctrine, though I do agree that traditionally Islam has been and continues to be dominated by political supremacism.
Tarek Fatah can be seen, defending Islam by misrepresenting it -- by presenting the Islam that he, Tarek Fatah, wishes existed -- on the Michael Coren show.
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRYc6kY2Z2A&feature=PlayList&p=19FA696C6D66722F&index=0
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4U2dWcrUCA&feature=PlayList&p=19FA696C6D66722F&index=1&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL
I have so far watched the first, seen how Tarek Fatah completely misrepresents the age of Aisha, does not quote -- nor is faced with quotes -- from the canonical texts of Islam that show, quite clearly, that she was six years old when she was "betrothed" to Muhammad and nine years old -- playing with dolls, and called away while she had been playing on swings.
Michael Coren does well, but he apparently was not armed with the one thing he should have had immediately at hand: the texts (Qur'an, Hadith, Sira) relating to little Aisha, so as to quote appropriately when Tarek Fatan goes into his "she had to have been at least 14" (so apparently it doesn't matter what al-Bukhari and Muslim write, and it doesn't matter that Muslims everywhere know perfectly well that she was nine years old when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated, at least not to Tarek Fatah, with his kind, trustworthy mien, who however simply cannot face the reality of Islam, cannot allow himself to do so, and thus has to misrepresent it.
And had Michael Coren known, he could have asked Tarek Fatah the following question: Is it you, or do many Muslims, do most Muslims, agree that little Aisha (whom when he first refers to, Tarek Fatah calls her a "woman"), was actually at least 14, and possibly "19 or 21" when she was married and had sexual intercourse with Muhammad, then in his fifties? Because, you see, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who married his own wife when she was ten, when he came to power, as one of his first or possibly his first act, changed the law and reduced the marriageable age of Iranian girls to nine years. Now why would he have chosen nine years? And why in Saudi Arabia, or in Afghanistan, or elsewhere, do we have this widespread phenomenon of child-brides? We know, do we not, Mr. Fatah, that for Musliims Muhammad is the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, and that whatever he did is a model for Muslims, for all time, and if Aisha was nine years, then many or almost all Muslims, would believe that a reasonable age to marry a girl. Certainly the Ayatollah Khomeini, a learned Shi'a theologian who had spent his life studying Islam, thought that was the age at which little Aisha was married and had sexual relations with Muhammad.
Why would Muslims now, in the year 2010, decide that Tarek Fatah, who lives in Canada, and wishes to express or represent what appears to be his own idiosyncratic interpretation of Islam, one which appears far less objectionable, and far more benign, than the one that all the Western scholars of Islam (not the espositos and armstrongs, but the real scholars,the ones who wrote before the Age of Inhibition set in), should be listened to by them? Is Tarek Fatah more to be listened to than the Ayatollah Khomeini, than the Sheikh Al-Azhar, then all the Muslim scholars of Islam?
And why should we, in the Western world, despite that trustworthy outward mien of his, not begin to be suspicious of Tarek Fatah when he writes as hysterically as he did write -- see Joanne Hill's rebuttal above -- about Wafa Sultan, a no-holds-barred anguished and noble woman, and a truth-teller -- and when now he is trying to convince us all that Aisha was "at least 14" and perhaps as old as "19 or 21." We are not fools, we are not at the level of this Steve Gilchrist who on the show starts vaporing on about David Koresh, and "extremists" in all religions, the usual tu-quoque that some Infidels like to provide, unprompted, whenever Islam is under any kind of critical scrutiny (Gilchrist was gently but firmly put in his place by a series of intelligent observations by Michael Coren).
Take a good look at Part I above. Then look at Part 2. I will too. And I will report back, somewhere at this site.
I have just looked at Part 2. Do look at it. And try to decide for yourself who is dumber: Joan Croakatt, or Steve Gilchrist. She confuses the Sikhs with the Tamil Tigers, but that is only a sign of a more general confusion. She appears to think -- Coren gently points out that Muslim terrorism is world-wide, but does not stress that there are no Sikh holy books, nothing by Guru Nanak, and nothing in the Hindu literature of the Tamils either, that instructs them to "kill the Unbelievers" as is in the Qur'an, nor is there a duty of Jihad, nor is there the figure of Muhammad as the Perfect Man.
But if she's a dope, look at 5.11-5.20 when Steve Gilchrist says that nowhere in the Qur'an is anyone told to "kill unbelievers" -- thus ignoring practically all of Sura 9, and what's more, ignoring the dozens of Jihad verses (see the Calcutta Qur'an Petition) that one can find in the Qur'an. And of course no one mentions the Hadith, and Tarek Fatah, who could so easily tell the truth, could so easily have corrected the gross error of Steve Gilchrist who was sitting right there beside him, was not about to do any such thing, was not about to say, "Well, Steve, I'm afraid I must admit that in the Qur'an, and in many Hadith deemed by most authoritative muhaddithin, after their study of the isnad-chains, to be the most authentic, and even in important events in Muhammad's life, that message -- Kill the Unbelievers -- if they refuse to convert, or if, for certain Unbelievers, those who are Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book), they refuse to do all the things, such as pay the Jizyah, that would allow them under Muslim rule to at least stay alive, as dhimmis (the word was never used on the program) in a condition of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity is going to set anyone straight on that, or on what the details of the life of Muhammad, as laid out in the Sira, naturally lead Muslims to believe, and too often, to behaviors "not healthy for Infidels and other living things."
Please note that just as Steve Gilchrist makes his remark about there being nowhere in the Qur'an is there a call to kill Unbelievers (where did he get this from? Some Mosque Outreach Night? Where?), which if he were a truth-teller Tarek Fatah would have instantly corrected, Tarek Fatah does something else: he immediately comes in, so as to forestall any further comment by Michael Coren (he has to worry that Coren might do so), and then he deliberately switches the discusion, away from what Gilchrist has said (hoping, Tarek Fatah is, that no one has paid attention, that no one will correct Gilchrist on camera, and that he, Tarek Fatah, will be asked a point-blank question about whether or not, in the Qur'an, not to mention the hadith and Sira, there is any call to "Smite (kill) the Unbeliever wherever you find him." He, Tarek Fatah, wishes to avoid that question, and many dozens of other questions that the well-prepared would ask him, at all costs.
What a very different person from Wafa Sultan, or Magdi Allam, or Ibn Warraq, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But as more and more people -- not "right-wing" people but just intelligent people -- begin to inform themselves about Islam, the harder it will become for the tarek-fatahs of this world to continue their little game, which I suppose is not prompted, on his part, by the kind of sinister motives that the colubrine Tariq Ramadan so clearly possesses, but is prompted more by embarrassment. He can't, he just can't, jettison Islam, so he mis-represents it to the non-Muslims, and hopes they won't notice, because if he represented it as it really is, then the question to him would be: why are you still a Muslim? Living in the mental freedom of Canada, how is it you can still remain in thrall to this ideology? Filial piety? Fond memories of Iftar dinners past? Dislike of the Western world's supposed absence of human warmth? What is it? Tell us.
But he won't tell us. Instead, he will misinform, and misinform, and misinform.
Just a semantic note:
C. Snouck Hurgronje, Joseph Schacht, Antoine Fattal, Henri Lammens, K. S. Lal, Ignaz Goldziher, Sir William Muir, St. Clair Tisdall, Arthur Jeffrey, Samuel Zwemer, Georges Vajda, David Margoliouth, all appear never to have believed in something called "Islamism," because not once, in their tens of thousands of pages of learned works on Islam, do they ever use the word "Islamism." Nor do any of the other great scholars of Islam.
Actually, one finds among 19th and early 20th century scholars occasionally the use of the term "Islamism", but from the context it seems to be simply a synonym for "Islam", not some kind of alternative entity with an ideological function, as it has become today.
The ever handy 1923 Webster's unabridged dictionary bears this out: under its entry for Islamism we find this definition:
The faith, doctrines, or religious system, or sway, of the Mohammedans; Mohammedanism; Islam.
Is Daniel Pipes still drawing a distinction, as he did in the past, between Islamism and Islam? Don't know for sure. I think this is important because, unlike Krauthammer who is not well versed in Islam or Arabic, Pipes most certainly is. I have to wonder too what a person like Steve Emerson has to say about this phantom distinction, if indeed he addresses the subject at all.
On Hugh's three reasons that might explain the ostensible moderation of the Moderate Muslim:
1) Ignorance of what is in those texts.
This explanation ignores the cultural fact that most Muslims do not sit down in their armchairs on a Sunday afternoon after church to read holy texts. They hear sermons (and they hear other forms of reinforcement of Islam), and they recite (i.e., regurgitate in order to instill further brainwashing). They rarely "read texts". Most of the Islam instilled in Muslims throughout the world is through the ear, and not the eye except through other non-textual visual stimuli (e.g., spectacles of masses of fellow Believers whipped up in fanaticism, etc.). The madrassa recitation of the Koran -- a crucial part of the brainwashing pedagogy of every Muslim -- is not really reading; there is little comprehension of the contextual meaning of what is being read and recited -- that will come later as the young Muslim listens to sermons which present the tafsirs through which the rest of the Sunnah (including the Hadiths) is transmitted. The recitation in the madrassas is an ancient way of learning, and in many ways the Greek Orthodox church retains this style in their catechism (though of course the content there is infinitely different). This recitation also replicates and recapitulates the original recitation of the angel Jibril to Mohammed of the Koran.
This of course is changing with the Internet; but the Internet for Muslims, as it is for many Infidels, is less of a place to practice erudition and deepen one's reading comprehension than it is a place for sight-byte propagandizing and facile reinforcement of one's existing prejudices. When reporters -- during the aftermath of the tsunami crisis, when Western Infidels were pouring money, materiel and manpower into Indonesia and other affected areas to help the victims -- discovered in a remote Muslim village of Indonesia that the children of the village had on the bottoms of their sandals the cross of David and the Christian cross, they asked them why, and the children answered in so many words: "Because we want to walk on Jews and Christians to show we are better than them." These Muslim children in this remote village in Indonesia weren't "reading texts" which taught them this. So how did this standard mainstream Islamic hatred for the unbelieving Other get transmitted? Roughly the same way it is transmitted to the other 1.2 billion Muslims (none of whom are really "moderate", no matter how they may seem on the outside) -- through parental instillation, word of mouth, sermons, madrassa recitations, demagogic haranguing in the public square; etc.
As for Hugh's second explanation -- that non-Arab Muslims might tend to move from a resentment of Arab imperialism to a moderation of their Islam -- I don't buy it, and would need sufficiently massive evidence before I am persuaded. The evidence suggests that internecine tribalism in Islam paradoxically sustains the overall Umma through a kind of vortex of centrifugal and centripetal energies. Indeed, what keeps the Umma together, despite its wonderful mosaic of mutually hateful and often mutually murderous sub-tribalisms, is the overarching and far greater hatred among all its members for the non-Muslim Other.
Hugh's third explanation is sound.
Ok let's try again. Simple question: does "Islam" have to refer strictly to a religiopolitical doctrine or can it refer more broadly to the Muslim practice of personal articles of the faith without any reference to politics? Why should "Islam" be exhausted by its violently-maintained doctrine of supremacism and not be able to include non-supremacist, non-literal traditions? After all, one does not have to reduce Islam to supremacism in order to point out that the seeds of supremacism and jihad lie within Islamic orthodoxy. Put another way, can "Islam" refer to unorthodox schools of the Muslim faith within Islamic history such as the Mu`tazilites which did not adhere to the literalism of Islamic orthodoxy?
I've just returned and finished watching Part 2 of Tarek Fatah's appearance on Michael Coren's. I can't decide which one is dumber -- Gilchrist or Crockatt -- and because, you see, they are dumb in slightly different ways, it's hard to make a direct comparison.
I expressed myself badly in my above post about Pipes. It comes across not the way I meant it. Should have put "still" in all caps. Continue, though, to wonder about Emerson.
Cornelius wrote:
Such is the evolution in our thinking and knowledge that once upon a time, maybe 5 years ago, I made such a rote distinction myself.
.....................
I've done it myself, Cornelius. It's almost as though we don't even have the vocabulary for dealing with such an alien creed—at least not one with the protected status of "a religion".
Daniel Pipes is doing yeoman's work against Jihad, and tends to be a very clear-eyed critic. And yet, even he comes up short on this one. I agree with Hugh, though—there is unlikely to be any "solution" to Islam—in the form of reformation, at least. Instead, it must be fought and contained.
But then, there wasn't any "solution" to National Socialism, either, which didn't stop us from stopping Hitler.
Here's the always perceptive Mark Steyn on Charles Krauthammer:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDk2ODI2OGEwMjAzOWFlMzQxMzUxNTE3NmVkOWU3M2U=
Someone is a moderate Muslim? Who cares? His level of Muslim-ness is between him and his Allah. I only care about his level of Western-ness.
Unfortunately, as far as we can ever know for sure, any Western-ness of any Muslim is only skin-deep. To assume otherwise is to put our lives in danger at any given moment.
Thus, what follows this latest graduation along the learning curve -- congratulations, you've inched along from "Islamism" to Islam! -- is the next step: All Muslims are dangerous.
There is no tenable way to distinguish among the harmless Muslims and the dangerous Muslims. And this inability to distinguish has lethal consequences -- I mean, if CIA officers can get fooled, and then mass-murdered for the trust they put in a Muslim informant they deemed to be harmless, what chance does anyone have to determine whether any given Muslim -- who seems Westernized and therefore sufficiently de-fanged of his deadly Islam -- is harmless?
I find, however, this final step in the learning curve being resisted by many, if not most, of those in the still inchoate Anti-Islam Movement -- I suspect for reasons psychologically and culturally similar to what keeps the brakes on in the PC MC psyche: a fear, irrational in this case, of one's own prejudice, bigotry, and hatred against an Entire People.
Hugh's article is excellent. Our problem with Islam vs. Islamism is that we are a nation of "softies". I had the occasion to conduct business with a beautiful Islamic woman. She was most likely very "moderate" since she was mostly westernized and wore the traditional headscarf. Along with her beauty, this women was totally charming, friendly, and a very likeable young woman. She was born in the U.S. and her parents were from the Mideast. I must say that it would be extremely difficult for me to think that a person like her would be involved with Islamists in any way.
The problem is the fact that the Muslims are a brotherhood and many moderates as I described above, will support the Islamists due to the brotherhood. It is not all that different from the German Nazis during WWII. The decent Germans supported and worked in the German Army and in effect supported the Nazis the same as the evil ones. However, in WWII, we were not "softies" and we perceived all German citizens, both good and bad, to be our enemy. We set out to subdue Germany and the other members of the Axis. After we subdued them, we then, and only then, offered to bring them into our world. We have done nothing in this direction with the Islamic threat and probably will not do so.
So, Cornelius and gravenimage (and others here), will you join me in taking the final step in the learning curve? I refer to the step of the realization that
All Muslims are equally dangerous.
This statement is not an ontological one; it is a pragmatic phenomenological one, dictated by two unavoidable facts:
1) our inability to distinguish dangerous Muslims from harmless Muslims, even if the latter exist
2) the high degree of risk involved in the danger represented by the dangerous Muslims -- a risk of unpredictable mass murders; the use of various types of WMDs in places and at times we cannot always predict; and the unique fanatical resolve of the dangerous Muslims in pursuing their object of killing us.
The realization expressed by the pragmatic, phenomenological statement may not be palatable, but it may not be avoidable, either. The alternative contrary statement that would try to salvage innumerable innocent Muslims (one suspects more out of an anxiety to salvage one's own Western morals as one shudders at the thought of "hating" an Entire People, particularly when most of them are Ethnic People) may be more palatable, but is untenable; and too often we have read news stories about the deadly consequences that happened when Muslims considered "moderate" were trusted.
Graven,
Gotta love Steyn. 'America Alone' became my "bible" for about a year or two after its release.
dlp,
Thanks for some thought-provoking questions. My own take is that...
Regardless of the heresy of their doctrinal interpretations (i.e., the Quran was not the literal word of God), the Mutazilites imposed their doctrine with ferocious violence, no different than the literalists who preceeded and succeeded them. More importantly, their heresy was eventually suppressed en toto and they are now just an historical footnote.
As for the Ahmadi, they are brutally repressed in Pakistan and are not conferred the status of Muslims. Does that mean they aren't? I tend to agree with the Pakistanis, that their belief in a post-Muhammad prophet doctrinally disqualifies them from being Muslims, in the truest sense of the word.
I guess my main point is, of the two traditions you cited, one was completely extinguished by Muslims, the other is not recognized. You'll have to do better than that to both qualify and quantify the distinction between Islam and Islamism.
The concept of Islamism has been invented by Westerners and used by them and reform minded Muslims to distinguish between Muslims who are willing to die for Islamic law and those who are not.
It is useful in the same way the distinctions between Nazi and German, Communist and Russian were useful to opponents of Nazism and Communism.
Why not give Muslims who do not want to die for Islamic law a way to identify themselves?
"Hugh's third explanation is sound."
Oh, thank you, sir. Much obliged.
Hesp,
"All Muslims are equally dangerous."
Absurd...and readily refutable through a million different examples and narratives.
I WOULD agree with this:
"All Muslims are POTENTIALLY dangerous."
dlp,
Thanks for some thought-provoking questions. My own take is that...
Regardless of the heresy of their doctrinal interpretations (i.e., the Quran was not the literal word of God), the Mutazilites imposed their doctrine with ferocious violence, no different than the literalists who preceeded and succeeded them. More importantly, their heresy was eventually suppressed en toto and they are now just an historical footnote.
As for the Ahmadi, they are brutally repressed in Pakistan and are not conferred the status of Muslims. Does that mean they aren't? I tend to agree with the Pakistanis, that their belief in a post-Muhammad prophet doctrinally disqualifies them from being Muslims, in the truest sense of the word.
I guess my main point is, of the two traditions you cited, one was completely extinguished by Muslims, the other is not recognized. You'll have to do better than that to both qualify and quantify the distinction between Islam and Islamism.
Islamic Calculus: Women as Functions of Male Lust. The Koran is uncreated (unlike the bible.) According to Islam, it is the word of Allah -- uncreated. How can any Muslim "reinterpret" or "reform" the word of Allah? It is a crime in Islam to "reinterpret" the Koran. It is the crime of hypocrisy, and like apostasy, is punishable by death. Muslims also believe That abortion murder is not murder - So, it is clear and irrefutable logic that Muslims - even all Islam, can never be reformed or even made slightly "moderate"! That is all there is to say about it! Let us bury this idea that Islam might someday change to something less dangerous - it is impossible, forever impossible! The only thing left to do is destroy the Koran and all of Islam, lock, stock, and barrel - once and for all! Lets do it now!
PS - DLP, It goes without saying that regardless of doctrinal imperatives, the Pakistani repression of Ahmadis is barbaric and completely unjustified.
Let's just frame the "Islam vs. Islamism" debate in this manner -
1. Would you turn your back on a Muslim, no matter how "Western" they appear?
2. Would you trust a Muslim, no matter how "Western" they appear?
Finally, there is an old saying - "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Some excellent points all around, especially Hugh's initial analysis as to some reasons why Muslims may seem "moderate" which then leads to the false distinction between Islam and this whole other entity called "Islamism". The analysis is sound because, quite frankly, the reasons do not matter. They are not reliable and can be worked around with ease. They cannot protect us from the harsh but unavoidable reality that any and every adherent to Islam is potentially dangerous and that reality is strictly due to their status as a self-identified Muslim and not in spite of it.
For "dlp", I say, that yes you can view Islam as(portionally at least), as something other than political supremacism, by I must add...why bother to focus on that? What does a recognition of a future potential, non-literal, innocuous if you will, interpretation of Islam net you? With the official status of ijtihad aside, Islam is designed, from the first of the very big lies, that the Qur'an is divine, immutable and uncreated, and all the way through current mainstream Islamic fiqh, the penalty of death for apostasy from Islam, are all designed, maintained and implemented to ensure that Islam does not now nor ever will chanqe significantly enough to arrive at your desired conclusion. To do so, Islam would essentially cease to exist or be wholly unrecognizeable to its current form.
Although, I disagree with Pipes' distinction in totality, I have understood and can still understand positions that critics of Islam, or in Pipes' case, critics of "Islamism", maintain in order to begin the process of educating people about the threat of Islam. I, like others have noted, have undergone an evolution over time regarding my perception of Islam and by no means, were the writings of Daniel Pipes an obstruction to arriving at my current reality. Although I would side with Robert in his main difference with Daniel Pipes, that there needs to be created a moderate Islam, for none has ever existed, I laud the effort that Pipes has put forth to date. As others have also stated, the all or nothing approach to Islam is a tough sell at the onset, and if one requires dipping a toe in the water first before diving head-first in, then I have no problem with that.
Hugh made some excellent suggestions to ameliorate the threat of Islam, which are many of the things we do here at JW. The foundational education on Islam is still the vital part, and still insufficient in terms of its sphere of influence as dominant thought in the West, but make no mistake...it is indeed Islam and not this patsy known as "Islamism", which is the problem.
I weary and weary of the lies they tell. I weary of the cognitive dissonance. I weary of the waste of human souls in these empty, morally-vacuous people. I weary that they don't want liberty and would condemn those who do.
I will thwart their every effort in every legal way I know how. But I weary of their lies.
Hesperado,
You disregard the millions of Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims.
Someone ought to research this. It would be a large task on a global scale but would be very helpful in assessing the level of threat to the West if we could know how many of that 1.2 bn are likely to be actively jihadist with or without coercion and how many actually believe Islam really means peace and would accordingly support pacifism? My guess, about 0.00027% for the last category.
The next question to ponder would be: how would the figures change if Western governments were to change policy from appeasement to confrontation, perhaps by proscribing Islam along Wilders' lines?
Spot on, you describe an encounter with a seeming Moderate Muslim:
I had the occasion to conduct business with a beautiful Islamic woman. She was most likely very "moderate" since she was mostly westernized and wore the traditional headscarf. Along with her beauty, this women was totally charming, friendly, and a very likeable young woman. She was born in the U.S. and her parents were from the Mideast. I must say that it would be extremely difficult for me to think that a person like her would be involved with Islamists in any way.
Let's break this down. This Muslim was
1) beautiful
2) a woman
(for heterosexual female Infidels having similar encounters, simply supply the appropriate gender for #2)
3) mostly Westernized, though she wore a traditional scarf (so it was the Islamic scarf + blue jean outfit,eh)
4) charming, friendly and very likeable
5) born in the U.S.
On the micro level of a one-on-one encounter, one may feel persuaded this this particular Muslim one is chatting with who is so nice, friendly, likeable and Westernized is harmless.
However, on the macro level of protecting our societies from Muslim terrorists who are trying to blend in under the radar, there is not represented in any of the numbered points above the slightest shred of a reason why a Muslim with all the qualities those points describe should be trusted. Indeed, those points tend to construct a false sense of reassurance -- reckless and deadly -- that would have the effect of lowering our guard, which could in turn cost the lives of countless innocent men, women and children at any given time or place in the coming decades.
Why should "Islam" be exhausted by its violently-maintained doctrine of supremacism and not be able to include non-supremacist, non-literal traditions?
It's not about Islam being "exhausted" by the violent tenets. It's about the presence of those tenets in its central nucleus. Take a hypothetical organization that has 5 central tenets, each one a non-negotiable necessity for all members to either perpetrate or to at least support:
1. sodomizing and murdering little children
2. helping little old ladies across the street
3. putting on bake sales to help the homeless
4. sponsoring musical concerts to raise money and awareness about AIDS
5. coordinating donations of computers to under-privileged schools.
Now, we can see that tenet #1, the evil tenet, does not "exhaust" the teachings of this hypothetical organization. Does that save this organization from its perfectly legitimate condemnation, or from the concrete actions we as a society should take against it and its members based on that condemnation? Of course not.
Cornelius,
It seems you read my comment only up to the point where I typed the formulation "All Muslims are equally dangerous" and stopped reading at that point. If you did read beyond that point, your response contained nothing that indicated any comprehension of what I wrote.
StephenA55,
"You disregard the millions of Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims."
I don't disregard them in terms of noting the existence of that putative category. I disregard them in terms of their usefulness for our #1 priority, the safety of our own societies from Islam. The uselessness of this category is based on an unavoidable fact:
We can never with sufficient reliability know whether any given MFIPO is lying now, or if telling the truth now will at some unpredictable point in the future activate into sudden jihad.
"Someone ought to research this. It would be a large task on a global scale but would be very helpful in assessing the level of threat to the West if we could know how many of that 1.2 bn are likely to be actively jihadist with or without coercion and how many actually believe Islam really means peace and would accordingly support pacifism?"
I am deeply skeptical that any kind of "research" would be able to discover the real MFIPOs -- with sufficient reliability, that is, and on a scale sufficient for our safety needs.
Well said, Hugh. Thank you.
Hesp,
I'm with you, partner. During my business encounter with this presumedly "moderate" beautiful gentile Muslim woman, at no time did I forget that she was a Muslim. I neglected to say in my post above that she also had a very innocent "come hither" attitude. I do believe that this illustrates one reason why this is such a difficult subject for the average US citizen. I believe there is no way for us to determine a "moderate" Muslim from a militant Muslim without risking our lives and I further believe that the "moderate" Muslims will support the militants when the chips are down.
Hesp,
I read it in its entirety...and I continue to object to the premise of "EQUAL" threat.
In the abstract, every human being who is not physically infirm is "equally dangerous" because every human being is capable of killing. But as we all know, not every human being is "equally dangerous". A twenty-something male with a violent, criminal past is potentially much more dangerous than a fifty-something female who is has never harmed a fly (although, again, both are theoretically capable of killing).
The same logic applies to Muslims. Many people might object to the sincerity of Irshad Manja, but no one can deny that she is not an equal threat to one's physical well-being as Osama Bin Ladin. One could argue that by maintaining the pretense of her Muslim faith, she is more SOCIOLOGICALLY dangerous than Bin Ladin, because she might confer credibility and legitimacy upon Islam in the eyes of others. But even this argument is weak; Manja gets her death threats from Muslims, not infidels, and for good reason, she is challenging many of the sacred cows upon which Islam rests.
In the final analysis, our disagreement lies not necessarily in our respective perceptions of the MFIPO, it is in how we respectively view "Muslims Against Sharia", "Neither Whores nor Submissives", and like-minded others you apparently view as no different than any other Muslim in terms of the threat matrix, but who I view as nominal allies in the fight against Islam.
The pool for radical recruitment certainly comes from MFIPOs who are suddenly activated by circumstance. But this is much less likely in the case of Muslims who have taken an ideological position against supremacism and Sharia.
I understand the paradigmatic importance of your phraseology; "equally dangerous" is the means with which you derive intellectual and moral justification for your mass expulsion schemes. Believe me, I'm not entirely unsympathetic, but there is something called the Constitution that has to be taken into account...as well as basic right and wrong.
Expelling a hate-preaching Mullah is one thing; expelling a MFIPO for something he MIGHT do in the future, though he has never, ever displayed any inclination - verbal or otherwise - to do so, is more problematic. Expelling (or even just vilifying) Muslims who have explicitly spoken out against Sharia and supremacism simply makes no sense.
I happen to believe a lot of your thinking is dogmatic and excessively rigid, but I'll give you gigantic kudos for at least making the attempt to follow through, to discuss not just ends (defeating the Islamic threat), but the actual means for doing so. It's more than most of us have done...and that includes myself.
Hesp,
Your scepticism of research is not shared by everyone.
See here for instance what it has established for the MOA: Go to-
http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-muslims-of-america-moa-terror.html
From about the two minute mark.
Perhaps many people at JW have already seen this, but it is new to me and came as a bit of a bombshell.
Well, to give the gist, it seems that Hugh's estimate that 1% of the population is Muslim must be wide of the mark.
Here is no less an eminence than the Deputy Director of the 'International Quranic Open University', who is also the Secretary General of the 'Muslims of America'.
After this organization carried out a census, he now announces that he is 100% certain that Muslims are the majority in America.
He continues, "Our Islamic political party has based its manifesto on this fact. We want to declare once and for all that America is our country."
Now please don't offend this gentleman by doubting him or asking for anything so crass as evidence for this claim. To do so would border on racism and Islamophobia.
All you have to do is submit. It's easy.
Seriously, this is a warning of what we might expect in Europe, long before America.
Hugh wrote, citing the article by Joanne Hill:
...she said: "As a married man, Mohammed raped Aisha when she was nine; he was 54."
If Mr. Fatah is hurt by this statement, perhaps he should consider the source: Islamic doctrine. I challenge Mr. Fatah to deny this.
..................
There's more from Tarek Fateh:
Dr. Sultan wasted no time in lashing out at her former faith. Catering to the fears of her predominantly Jewish audience, she said, “Muhammad was a Jew killer.” To further inflame the crowd, Wafa Sultan delivered an astonishing account of how the Prophet had slaughtered Jews and then raped the wife of the defeated Jewish tribe.
..................
Please note: Mr. Fatah does not deny the truth of this statement, either—it is in the Qu'ran and Hadith. It merely troubles him that an ex-Muslim would mention it at all—especially in front of Jews!—and that she would further have the temerity to mention it in an unflattering light.
Some moral equivalence from Fatah, comparing Ms. Sultan to "radical Islamists":
"Take for instance the Toronto imam caught on videotape praying to Allah for the “defeat of the kufaar,” a thinly disguised reference to Christians and Jews."
..................
How is claiming Muhammed was violent—even if she were incorrect—the same as calling for the violent defeat and subjugation of those of other faiths? Also, Fatah is disingenuous here—"kufaar" is not "a disguised reference" to Christians and Jews—it is a widely used slur. It's no more a "disguised reference" to Infidels than "n*gg*er" is a "disguised reference" to African-Americans.
more from Tarek Fatah:
"However, instead of using her newfound fame to challenge the established theocracies and corrupt kingdoms of the Middle east, Sultan veered off the deep end and could not resist the temptation of becoming the poster child of Islam haters, joining their ranks with the fervour of a convert."
..................
Why should Wafa Sultan limit herself to challenging "the established theocracies and corrupt kingdoms of the Middle east"? Much of the danger to Infidels and apostate Muslims comes from individual Muslims and stateless Jihad terror groups. Fatah never explains this, either.
Hesp
As for the question posed about the threat of moderate Muslims, I would be happy to accept that there are MFIPOs who present only a low level of risk on account of their history of good citizenship. I would not have admitted them if I had had a say, but given their established status, it would probably be too destructive of the present relative harmony to chuck them out for no reason.
The main guarantee of future good behaviour would, to be realistic, reside in their status as a small minority. Hence I would be firmly opposed to admitting any more Muslims to Britain and ideally would look for policies aimed at encouraging as many as possible to return. The prospect of persistent high birth-rates leading to ever-rising levels even without further immigration is more than enough for me to call a halt.
I agree with Hesperado except that I wouldn't mind a peaceable Muslim presence of around 2-3%.
At present there are no reliable figures, but I'm sure there must be more than 5% Muslims currently in UK (mostly England).
Cornelius,
You wrote:
In the abstract, every human being who is not physically infirm is "equally dangerous" because every human being is capable of killing. But as we all know, not every human being is "equally dangerous". A twenty-something male with a violent, criminal past is potentially much more dangerous than a fifty-something female who is has never harmed a fly (although, again, both are theoretically capable of killing).
Then you went on to conclude:
The same logic applies to Muslims.
That's where you go wrong. It does not apply to Muslims for a variety of reasons that should be clear by now to any long-time reader of Jihad Watch (let alone of other sources similarly disturbing).
Your example of bin Laden and Irshad Manji does not allay the problem of millions of Muslims who do not have a famous face and regularly presented appearance of moderation. To generalize from the microscopic handful of Irshad Manji types to the hundreds of millions of Muslims whose degree of Islam in their hearts & minds we do not, and cannot ever, know with sufficient reliability, is not only faulty, but potentially dangerous to our own safety were it to concretely influence policy. (In fact, a stronger version of it already does influence policy; and it has been costing lives in various ways).
One could argue that by maintaining the pretense of her Muslim faith, she is more SOCIOLOGICALLY dangerous than Bin Ladin
She is sociologically more dangerous in terms of the Stealth Jihad -- but the Stealth Jihad is not divorced from, much less is it at odds with, Violent Jihad. They operate hand in glove, even when some of the Stealth Jihadists are sincerely confused naifs who might really feel they are against Violent Jihad.
The pool for radical recruitment certainly comes from MFIPOs who are suddenly activated by circumstance. But this is much less likely in the case of Muslims who have taken an ideological position against supremacism and Sharia.
Again, the latter are enabling the Stealth Jihad, whether they realize it or not; and I don't think we, the West, should be wasting our time, energy and resources on trying to figure out which Muslims are safe and which not, which are semi-consciously naive, and which cleverly disguised as moderates. It is too vast and complex a project, and one that defies the controlled laboratory conditions that would be necessary to deliver the kinds of results that would make a difference for the problem of our safety against innumerable minions of Muslims possessed of a fanaticism to kill us unprecedented in human history, including the Japanese elite squads of kamikazes.
I understand the paradigmatic importance of your phraseology; "equally dangerous" is the means with which you derive intellectual and moral justification for your mass expulsion schemes.
The "equally" stems from our inability to tell the difference with sufficient reliability between the dangerous and harmless Muslims. If we cannot tell that difference -- with sufficient reliability -- then we obviously, logically, cannot tell the difference between degrees of dangerousness, such that we can with reliable certitude point to any given Muslims who pullulate out of the billion-plus-strong Diaspora and say, "This Muslim is less dangerous than that Muslim over there, and that other Muslim is somewhere in between; meanwhile, this Muslim here is very deadly, while that Muslim is hardly dangerous at all." Proceeding to do that in various contexts where our safety is concerned will be to do so at our peril.
HESP: "Again, the latter are enabling the Stealth Jihad, whether they realize it or not"
In what way? These groups I referred to are OBSTACLES to the Stealth Jihad, not enablers.
A few years ago, when Canada's government was ready to codify Sharia as a voluntary mechanism to settle family disputes between Canadian Muslims, 'Muslims Against Sharia' were the FOCAL POINT of opposition to the legislation, while infidels were largely impervious. Without them, the legislation would have certainly become law.
In France, 'Neither Whores Nor Submissives' is out in front in supporting the banning of the Burka and Niqab. They're also out in front in opposing sex-segregation in school and a host of other initiatives that Sharia-advocates are pushing.
These groups are in many respects doing our (the West's) dirty work for us because we're too intimidated and/or oblivious, and yet you see them as the enemy.
I admire the way you can discuss the issues so dispassionately Hesp, but this doesn't hide the fact that you have a very forceful personality, something which can be seen as a virtue or a defect, depending on circumstance. It'll be interesting to see whether or not you can concede on such an obvious point.
"The "equally" stems from our inability to tell the difference with sufficient reliability between the dangerous and harmless Muslims. If we cannot tell that difference -- with sufficient reliability -- then we obviously, logically, cannot tell the difference between degrees of dangerousness, such that we can with reliable certitude point to any given Muslims who pullulate out of the billion-plus-strong Diaspora and say, "This Muslim is less dangerous than that Muslim over there, and that other Muslim is somewhere in between; meanwhile, this Muslim here is very deadly, while that Muslim is hardly dangerous at all." Proceeding to do that in various contexts where our safety is concerned will be to do so at our peril."
***
Your logic seems flawed to me. First you declare that we can't reliably distinquish the "degrees of dangerousness" of Muslims, and then you tell us that you HAVE reliably determined their degrees of dangerousness, and that it's equal for all Muslims. Surely one can't declare that two things are of equal value when one admittedly isn't able to determine the value of either.
Saying that we can't tell how dangerous any given Muslim might be is just that---we can't tell. One can't logically infer from that that all Muslims are equally dangerous. If you make the argument that we should TREAT them equally, since we can't tell, then that's something entirely different. But saying that they ARE all equally dangerous is not logical, IMO.
Even assuming all Muslims are equally dangerous (an assumption I personally do not accept), there is not in America at present any Constitutional way to act upon this assumption. For at least the present, felonious actions, not warped beliefs, are the matter at hand to be punished. Besides, as already mentioned, current law would allow for no other course. Theory, even if correct, is useless when it comes face to face with reality. One step at a time.
Politics is the art of the possible. What is ideal is often not related to the possible at all. Geert Wilders maintaining that he is not hostile to all Muslims is a great example of this verity.
Hesperado, Cornelius consider the following analogy:
All radiation (ionizing)is equally dangerous. If by dangerous you mean winding up ill or dead, even umpteen generations from now(latent genetic manifestation of mutation. It is also true that not all (ionizing) radiation is equally dangerous. One minute of sunshine versus a dip in the bluish waters inside of your typical reactor.
So it is possible that both Hesperados position as well as Cornelius are both true.
Yet like the radiation analogy, when it comes to avoiding harm and destruction Hesperados is not only correct but prudently defends best agist the harm.
Hugh, you hammer home the point that there is no such thing as "Islamism" since Islam itself is inherently political and supremacist. And in doing so you reduce all Islamic doctrine and practice to one possible interpretation. Of course this is a valid one and the traditionally dominant one. But by making it the only one logically possible from the onset, you define out of existence any non-political, non-literalist school that was or that can ever be. It doesn't matter that such schools have never become orthodox or that the practice of non-literalist, non-supremacist interpretations of Islam have remained marginal to the dominant orthodoxy. The point is that you render these as "unIslamic" by a tautological argument: Islam is and can only be supremacist, etc because there are no other orthodox schools that are not supremacist, etc, and there are no orthodox schools that are not supremacist because Islam itself is inherently supremacist, etc. But you do not have to define out of existence Islamic movements that don't conform to the dominant, jihadist, supremacist tradition, since it is sufficient to note that this tradition exists in order to understand the roots of jihad. You are allowing the violence that has prevented alternative schools to become mainstream in Islamic history to define what Islam is and can possibly be. Again, this argument is not about what is orthodox - I grant that orthodox Islam is supremacist - but about defining "Islam". You want to reserve that only to the orthodoxy. Why can there never be anything such as the unorthodox practice of "Islam"?
"Islamism" does not have to refer to a hijacked version of "Islam the faith". It can refer quite meaningfully to the revival of Islam with political ambitions in the 20th century. This does not have to mean that Islam never previously had such ambitions, but it is a useful term which draws attention to a modern phenomenon with roots in the classical texts and tenets of Islam. This movement and ideology is not synonymous with the classical doctrine; there have been elaborations upon it. None of the classical texts, for example, prescribe "non-violent" jihad against non-Muslims. This was prescribed against corrupt Muslim rulers.
Curious in your long list of scholars who never used the word "Islamism" is the absence of Bat Ye'or. Perhaps you are aware of her use of the term "Islamism" numerous times in Eurabia. Like me, I don't think that she subscribes to the idea that Islamism is something utterly distinct from Islam, but she uses it to refer to the modern phenomenon of what Basam Tibi calls "Islamic fundamentalism", i.e. the revival of Islam with explicitly political ambitions.
What do you say?
In other words, both statements can be accepted as true given the empirical evidence available and the logically valid arguments for them, nonetheless within this coexistent duality if your objective is to prevent death and suffering the first statement is the superior one. All radiation is equally dangerous. On little energetic photon impinging on ones DNA is all it takes for cellular denaturalization to take place, the whole being goes down. All muslims are equally dangerous.
Our defense although aimed at the whole of islam, can be sometimes calibrated to "surgically" treat some elements with greater vigor.
@awake:
>
Its not just about what a non-literal interpretation of Islam will “net” us. It is about whether “Islamism” and “Islam” are synonomous. This is my problem with Hugh’s argument. He says that they are, I say that they are not, but that this does not mean that they are radically distinct. For Hugh, Muslims can only be practicing “Islam” if they are practicing a doctrine of hatred and supremacism. This is clearly absurd in its reductionism. Of course Islam contains this doctrine but the term “Islam” can be, and is, used to refer to more than this and can be, and is, used to refer to aspects of the “religion” other than its political, supremacist nature. “Islam” covers the entire spectrum of Muslim religion and politics, both orthodox and unorthodox doctrines and practice, including Sunni, Shia, Sufi, and the marginal sects and movements, and within these all jihadist strains and strains which, although may not have explicitly rejected jihad, did not practice it. “Islamism” explicitly refers to Islam’s central political and supremacist nature as embodied within the revivalist movement in the 20th century – which is certainly “Islamic” too - but “Islam” can be, and is, used to refer to doctrines and practices that may lies outside the phenenomen of 20th century “Islamism”.
@Hesperado
>
No it is not. I have already stated my agreement that jihadism, supremacism etc are orthodox within Islam. They are “Islamic” as much as they are “Islamist” doctrines. The issue raised by Hugh is whether “Islamism” and “Islam” are synonymous. He says they are, I say they are not. Your analogy is flawed from the onset since you are hypothesizing about one organization – already one, unitary thing judged by its possession of an immoral tenet - not a diversity of religious doctrine and practice spread over 3 continents over 1,400 years. Yes, Islam contains the tenets of jihadism, irredentism, scriptural literalism, etc, but when one refers to “Islam” one does not necessarily have to be referring to these tenets. To make this clear, I am not defending Islam and saying that it is OK to ignore jihadism etc by virtue of the existence of unorthodox schools of Islam which don’t practice it. I am saying that you cannot conflate “Islam” with “Islamism” since whilst “Islamism” is “Islamic”, not everything that is “Islamic” is “Islamist”. “Islam” is a concept, artificially binding heterogeneous elements together, some supremacist, some not. The lack of an orthodox Islamic doctrine that rejects jihad and Islamic supremacism does not mean orthodoxy ought to determine what “Islam” is.
Seems my quoted text has disappeared so I'll post again with text quoted from "awake" and "Hesperado":
@awake:
“For "dlp", I say, that yes you can view Islam as(portionally at least), as something other than political supremacism, by I must add...why bother to focus on that? What does a recognition of a future potential, non-literal, innocuous if you will, interpretation of Islam net you? With the official status of ijtihad aside, Islam is designed, from the first of the very big lies, that the Qur'an is divine, immutable and uncreated, and all the way through current mainstream Islamic fiqh, the penalty of death for apostasy from Islam, are all designed, maintained and implemented to ensure that Islam does not now nor ever will chanqe significantly enough to arrive at your desired conclusion. To do so, Islam would essentially cease to exist or be wholly unrecognizeable to its current form.”
Its not just about what a non-literal interpretation of Islam will “net” us. It is about whether “Islamism” and “Islam” are synonomous. This is my problem with Hugh’s argument. He says that they are, I say that they are not, but that this does not mean that they are radically distinct. For Hugh, Muslims can only be practicing “Islam” if they are practicing a doctrine of hatred and supremacism. This is clearly absurd in its reductionism. Of course Islam contains this doctrine but the term “Islam” can be, and is, used to refer to more than this and can be, and is, used to refer to aspects of the “religion” other than its political, supremacist nature. “Islam” covers the entire spectrum of Muslim religion and politics, both orthodox and unorthodox doctrines and practice, including Sunni, Shia, Sufi, and the marginal sects and movements, and within these all jihadist strains and strains which, although may not have explicitly rejected jihad, did not practice it. “Islamism” explicitly refers to Islam’s central political and supremacist nature as embodied within the revivalist movement in the 20th century – which is certainly “Islamic” too - but “Islam” can be, and is, used to refer to doctrines and practices that may lies outside the phenenomen of 20th century “Islamism”.
@Hesperado
“It's not about Islam being "exhausted" by the violent tenets. It's about the presence of those tenets in its central nucleus.”
No it is not. I have already stated my agreement that jihadism, supremacism etc are orthodox within Islam. They are “Islamic” as much as they are “Islamist” doctrines. The issue raised by Hugh is whether “Islamism” and “Islam” are synonymous. He says they are, I say they are not. Your analogy is flawed from the onset since you are hypothesizing about one organization – already one, unitary thing judged by its possession of an immoral tenet - not a diversity of religious doctrine and practice spread over 3 continents over 1,400 years. Yes, Islam contains the tenets of jihadism, irredentism, scriptural literalism, etc, but when one refers to “Islam” one does not necessarily have to be referring to these tenets. To make this clear, I am not defending Islam and saying that it is OK to ignore jihadism etc by virtue of the existence of unorthodox schools of Islam which don’t practice it. I am saying that you cannot conflate “Islam” with “Islamism” since whilst “Islamism” is “Islamic”, not everything that is “Islamic” is “Islamist”. “Islam” is a concept, artificially binding heterogeneous elements together, some supremacist, some not. The lack of an orthodox Islamic doctrine that rejects jihad and Islamic supremacism does not mean orthodoxy ought to determine what “Islam” is.
Hugh, you hammer home the point that there is no such thing as "Islamism" since Islam itself is inherently political and supremacist. And in doing so you reduce all Islamic doctrine and practice to one possible interpretation." -- from a poster above
What I wrote was that the distinction made by some between "Islam" and "Islamism" is a false one; that there is Islam, and then there are various reasons why Believers do not fully accept, or perhaps accept but choose not to act on, the texts and tenets of Islam, and then I offered three among many explanations that might fit one or another individual or group case.
But your second sentence does not follow: I did not "reduce all Islamic doctrine and practice" to what you call "one possible interpretation." I don't even know what that means. I said that some people might be ignorant of parts of Islamic doctrine. There are those who are sometimes called Muslim whom others, also called Muslim, might wish to deny that label. For example, the Ahmadiya Muslims, pejoratively referred to by other Muslims as the Qadianis, are not allowed to identify themselves as Muslims on official documents in Pakistan, with grievous consequences for them. The followers of the Agha Khan, the Ismailis, do have doctrines which make them candidates for being the least dangerous of the various Muslim groups; they are a special case,and their numbers most limited. There are differences in Shi'a and Sunni; there are Ibadi Muslims, mainly in Oman, but also in some isolated settlements in North Africa. There are four schools of Sunni jurisprudence, and they are not identical. I don't think anything I wrote above suggests my unawareness of this, suggests that always and everywhere there is no room for shadow, or some variety, at the edges. But I also subscribe to what Ibn Warraq says: Islam itself is not moderate. Those sects, such as the Ismailis, appear to be "moderate," should have their understandings checked against orthodox Islam, to see what does not quite coincide, and why. But the numbers of such people at the margins is so small as not to be anything one can count on. And the Ahmadis, though oppressed themselves (by, say, the Wahhabis and other uber-strict Sunni sects, enraged that any group calling itself Muslim could follow someone who claimed to be a prophet more than a millennium after muhammad), have issued bloodcurdling remarks about Infidels that cause one to lose heart and lose hope.
You also talk about the "modern revival of Islam," and I believe -- but correct me if I have misunderstood -- that you think of this as a new ideological phenomenon. I don't. I think what explains the Return of Islam is other things, practical things. There was no change in the texts of Islam, no change in the tenets of Islam. I must have written several dozen times at this site, and one other, about those changes that brought about the Return to Islam:
1) the trillions of dollars that Muslim, overwhelmingly Arab, states, received from oil and gas revenues, money that has allowed them to hide their own economic backwardness, and to buy huge amounts of arms, to pay for mosques and madrasas all over the world, to pay for campaigns of Da'wa and other kinds of Islamic propaganda, and to buy the services of small armies of Western hirelings, prepared to do the bidding of Muslims. And finally, it has allowed them to buy into the Western media ("We would have bought all the Western media" said Prince Abdullah to the Jordanian daily "Al-Rai" back in 1979, "if we could have") and thus to influence opinion, and also to set up their own satellite channels.
2) the millions of Muslim immigrants who were so heedlessly, with criminal negligence, allowed into the countries of Western Europe (and to a far lesser extent, North America). These have given Muslims the idea that they may indeed be able to conquer, not militarily but through campaigns of Da'wa, deployment of the Money Weapon, and above all, demographic conquest, their ancient and hereditary foe, what they still think of, despite all the post-Christian views of so many Europeans, as "Western Christendom."
3) the appropriation, and effective use, by Muslims, of technology created in the non-Muslmi West, but made available or accessible to them. This technology includes the audiocassettes that proved so important to Khomeini, who made recordings from his French exile in Neauphle-le-chateau (which tapes were then smuggled into Iran, and reproduced by the tens of thousands), videocassettes (such as the beheadings of Infidels that have been made, and actually used as recruiting tools by Muslim terrorists among other Muslims), satellite television (Al-Manar, Al-Jazeera), which uses Western satellites because, of course, the Muslims have been unable to launch any satellites of their own, but are able to buy or rent use of Western satellites). And so on.
The ideology of Islam did not change. What changed are the circumstances, the new power, that OPEC oil money, and the Muslims allowed to settle deep behind what they themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines, and what changed was the ability of Muslims to disseminate, to heretofore not fully informed Muslims, and to non-Muslims too, the full message of Islam.
I do not object to the occcasional use of the word "Islamism" by those who, in their use, so clearly mean simply: Islam when it is taken fully to heart, taken seriously. But I do object -- see above -- when the word is used to posit a doctrine separate from, distinguishable from, Islam, in order to prettify the later, and offer a false comfort, based on a false understanding, to those many who are all too eager to grasp at such straws.
I'm not too fond of grasping at straws, or of using straw men, and I've never ever felt the need to wish that with the thoughts I'd be thinkin' I could be another Lincoln if I only had a brain.
Hugh,
A suggestion:
Your commentary in this thread on the latest Tarek Fatah controversy, where he defamed Wafa Sultan in the National Post (March 12) and the ensuing controversy (including Joanne Hill's excellent rebuttal, and then Fatah's claims on the Michael Coren Show), deserves to be posted more prominently in the form of an additional article--or two.
dlp,
Thanks for the reply. I believe Hugh put quite succintly, an affirmation of my main criticism. Currently, Islam is preached and practiced in the majority, and has been historically preached and practiced as far as I can recall, as Islamism. I do not see a difference worth noticing at this point, though albeit highly unlikely in my estimation for reasons already stated, Islam is certainly possibly reformable to some degree in the future.
I lauded Pipes for his work, although he uses this specific distiction in his professed criticism of Islam, but by use of the qualifying term, Islamism, I want to codify the sentiment, as Hugh recently clarified, that it should not be used as a term that tries to separate the evil of Islamism from the benign of Islam.
"Islamism" exists purely based on the foundational existence of jihad, and Islamic supremacist theme of Islam, and certainly not in spite of it.
Logically to me at this point, the distinction is all based on the hypothetical, which currently does not exist in any measurable level, hence it is a valueless distinction to try to make at this point.
That is all.
I'll see if that can be arranged.
Meanwhile, I'm still rubbing my eyes over a piece by one James Maxwell, written for a University of Edinburgh paper. Maxwell appears positively gaga over Tariq Ramadan, and what wins him amounts to every cliche in the book, including those "liquid-brown eyes" I'm always mentioning and mocking. Ramadan's colubrine quoted remarks remind me of "Conversation Piece 1945," a short story by Nabokov, with Ramadan akin to the narrator's namesake (who turns out to be a Nazi sympathizer and apologist), and James Maxwell is in the role of the Boston society ladies who fall for that Nazi apologist's sinister nonsense.
Truepeers asks:
While I appreciate why many want to deny the existence of a "moderate Islam", I really am puzzled why people get so hot and bothered about "Islamism". Clearly there are different movements within the Islamic world. To speak of an Islamist movement isn't to deny that it is rooted in Islam (one need not sign off on the silly apologetics for "moderate Islam), it is simply to point out that the Muslim Brotherhood, say, is a movement that can be distinguished from the more conservative, regime-loyal, imams in a country like Egypt. "Islamist" is a term widely used in the Middle East for just this reason.
The mark of intelligence is the ability to hold together a maximally-differentiated consciousness. If we really believe in an intelligent public discourse on Islam, shouldn't people like Hugh be arguing that "Islamism" is one interpretation or movement of Islam, rooted in a rather obvious reading of the canonical texts, and engendering a political movement that is responding to modernity and the limits of the Arab nationalist movement in a rather totalitarian, violently Utopian, and nihilistic manner. And then one can point out that those who wish to say "that's Islamism, that's not real Islam" are expressing their fond wishes but that Islamism is just as much part of the Islam phenomenon, as are those who deny or forget or never learn the literal interpretation of verses calling on Muslims to slay the infidels.
It is foolish to get too deeply involved in the idea that anyone can define Islam. A religion is not a metaphysical concept. It is first of all an event(s) that is religiously remembered. And events are open-ended, until they are forgotten. What matters, to infidels, is what Muslims with whom we have to interact believe. If Hugh is going to criticize Fatah, rightly, for the latter's denial of what most Muslims actually believe about Aisha, then why allow oneself to deny that many Muslims distinguish an Islamist movement from their own political-religious positions?
Or maybe I'm missing something?
Posted by dww/Son of Walker
On behalf of Truepeers.
First you declare that we can't reliably distinquish the "degrees of dangerousness" of Muslims, and then you tell us that you HAVE reliably determined their degrees of dangerousness, and that it's equal for all Muslims. Surely one can't declare that two things are of equal value when one admittedly isn't able to determine the value of either.
In general abstract terms, I guess this follows. But we are talking about the exigency of avoiding danger in light of actual knowledge of the actual danger Muslims pose. We have concrete, not theoretical, knowledge of the danger of which Muslims are capable, but quantitatively and qualitatively. That danger is sufficiently deadly and difficult to pinpoint in order to minimize such that, if our #1 concern is our safety, we assume the highest threat level pertains to them. Again, if we don't want to play Muslim roulette and gamble with the lives of our loved ones and fellow citizens, we must presume that all Muslims are equally dangerous, given our inability to know which ones are dangerous and which ones aren't, and our inability to know which ones are less dangerous, and which more.
If you make the argument that we should TREAT them equally, since we can't tell, then that's something entirely different. But saying that they ARE all equally dangerous is not logical, IMO.
Perhaps my wording is not ideal. How about:
"We must treat all Muslims as though they were equally dangerous."
I would have no objections to that modification. It's what I meant anyway. I already said long ago and far above, that my original statement was not meant to be ontological. And then I carefully explained how and why.
"...The point is that you render these as "unIslamic" by a tautological argument: Islam is and can only be supremacist, etc ..."
Hugh isn't doing that. He is merely noticing that Muslims do that and have done it for 1400 years, and do it on the basis of their central texts and tenets.
Fantasizing about some alternative Islam is not only silly, it is positively reckless and dangerous for our safety, if pursued and concretized in various policy we might adopt. In fact, the West has been adopting such reckless policy based on such silly notions. And we keep seeing the terrible consequences, only getting worse.
Hugh, et al commentors. this topic, Islam v Islamism, is being noted by others. and when i say others i mean "others" u get my drift? this is important.
IMO these comments are fascinating. seems we are getting to some real meat in this matter, and i will weigh in with my 2 centavos soon.
You will "weigh in with your dos centavos"? Por una Dos Equis? By all means, since I'm flat broke. So, pongame una cerveza, por favor.
"There are moderate Muslims. Islam itself is not moderate."
This is trying to mix two seperates into one, a "Moderate Muslim", and "Islam" itself.
A "Moderate Muslim" is following a self created version of a "Golden idol", molded into the image of what is a desired "allah", and islam. If this is what some in the West are grasping for, they are as blind as those who declare themselves "moderate".
Islam is what it is, you can follow it, or reject it, and a "moderate" has made that decision, even if one can not admit doing so.
my 2 centavos:
national policy cannot be structured on Hugh's assertion that all Islamics are bad Islamics:
"... Again and again I have pointed out here that there is no "solution" to the menace of Islam but the threat can be reduced, the problem not solved but ameliorated, ..."
ameliorated, but not contained apparently. while JW and others are doing the lion's share of opening eyes to Islamics' inherent deceit and danger to the rest of the world, it is becoming clearer however, if we are going to fashion national policy on this precept of there-is-no-good-in-Islam, then that global policy - and more importantly its proponents, will fail politically. if it fails politically, then we continue on the road to Sharia domination and submission to the Stealth Jihad.
in other words, we MUST address this issue. (there is hope!)
for example, this forum is already starting to see posts of the "round them all up" or "nuke 'em till they glow" and "end Islam" etc ad nauseum... in fact that kind of rhetoric will have ZERO effectiveness in policy making if those shrill voices are given forum. regardless of the enmity we may feel toward Islamics in general or in specificity, are we to allow hatred of "their kind" to rule us as well? trust me, there will be no rounding up of Islamics anywhere: here, Europe, the Levant etc, and shipping Islamic agitators off to any modern day Buchenwald just ain't gonna happen. disabuse yourselves of THAT fiction and the sooner the better.
fyi, the word you're searching for is "fascism" which describes that type of thinking. (gasp!)
HOWEVER, there is a better way...
for decades the US has avoided a defense treaty with Israel. if Israel can survive Obama's disastrous second-coming of Carter, we should be able to work to make our next President and Congress most favorable to a very strong defense treaty with the IDF. one that will bite, and bite strong. no more pandering to PLO/Hamas types and cutting off the Syria-Iran puppet regime in Lebanon. Robert and Pamela's FDI is a strong step in the right direction. so is the Thurmont Statement. there are other ways to do this, but i will stay on track for now.
national policy and alliances can be made to counter something defined as "evil" even - and this is important - even if the "evil" comes primarily from the same source. for example, think of a proper deterrent to "bad" Islamics the same way as jail could be a deterrent to criminals, say, rapists or bank robbers. it doesn't mean that would-be rapists and bank robbers walk among us incognito - they do - but the threat of deterrent keeps most of men's evils at bay in proper society. in other words, a real criminal system that actually accepts the notion of crime-and-punishment instead of pseudo-intellectual rehabilitation. think Sheriff Joe Arpaio communally, and Teddy Roosevelt's "walk softly and carry a big stick" globally.
ask yourself, why are Mafia women the safest women in the world? aside from the Mafiosi themselves, who in their right minds would mess with any daughter, wife, mother, or girlfriend of certifiably sociopathic killers?
likewise, not too many pilots will take on IAF pilots anywhere. Israeli warplanes rule the Levant.
when dealing with Islamics, both "bad" and "good" can be turned into good global neighbors in much the same way.
read the Thurmont Statement. it addresses this problem. the Norquist-written Mt Vernon Statement is a disgrace in comparison.
here's an excerpt from the Thurmont Statement:
"We believe that the United States is a moral actor on the world stage, and that American enlightened self-interest serves the greater cause of humanity. They believe that the United States is an immoral colossus whose appetites must be restrained, and that American interests are inimical to the human dignity of oppressed peoples.
We believe peace and safety are achieved through reparation and strength. They believe peace is achieved through disarming and expressing good intentions, and trust of others who might harm us.
We believe our enemies are best identified by the combination of their words and above all by their actions. They believe our enemies’ words are misunderstood, their actions should be overlooked, and their only condemnation is for past actions of the United States, never against those who strike at our beliefs, hurt our allies and kill our people.
We believe that Communist states and insurgencies always will be adversaries to all that Americans hold dear, and that they must be opposed with a resolute will and sound judgment. We likewise believe that terrorists, whether jihadist or otherwise, are intrinsically evil and that they must be strenuously opposed at every turn. They believe Communist states and insurgencies are just another form of societal organization, and that terrorism can be understood as a merely unfortunate response to the root causes of poverty or Western hegemony. They therefore believe that the best Western policy regarding both Communists and terrorists is to make more persuasive appeals to reason."
@Hugh
“I do not object to the occasional use of the word "Islamism" by those who, in their use, so clearly mean simply: Islam when it is taken fully to heart, taken seriously.”
So you don’t object to Bat Ye’or, who uses the term numerous times in Eurabia? And you wouldn’t object to me using it if in the same breath I acknowledged that “Islamism” is not a separate doctrine from that at the heart of orthodox Islam? For I do acknowledge that. “Islamism” is surely not something entirely distinct from “Islam,” but the two terms are not synonymous either.
“You also talk about the "modern revival of Islam," and I believe -- but correct me if I have misunderstood -- that you think of this as a new ideological phenomenon.”
No, I don’t think it is “a new ideological phenomenon.” Like I said, ““Islamism” explicitly refers to Islam’s central political and supremacist nature as embodied within the revivalist movement in the 20th century – which is certainly “Islamic” too” But I also said that “”Islam” can be, and is, used to refer to doctrines and practices that may lie outside the phenomenon of 20th century “Islamism”.”
When I mention the “modern revival of Islam” it is just to acknowledge that Islamic doctrine has periods of abeyance, as you yourself have noted many times, and that with the creation of the Middle East in the wake of the collapse of the caliphate, the advent of the Muslim Brotherhood, the jihad waged from organized political Islamic movements against secular Muslim states, and the backlash against them, and the subsequent rise of transnational Islamic movements – this refers to a revival of an ancient ideology (hence a “revival”) not the creation of a new one.
Again you point out to the practical things that have facilitated the resurgence of Islamism, political Islam, or as you would have it, Islam. But that doesn’t affect the dispute (since it is not whether Islam contains the seeds of supremacism; it clearly does) over what defines “Islam.” For you it is the unchanging doctrine of supremacism. Your view is doctrinally reductionist: Islam for you is all about the doctrine and nothing else.
@sonofwalker
“If we really believe in an intelligent public discourse on Islam, shouldn't people like Hugh be arguing that "Islamism" is one interpretation or movement of Islam, rooted in a rather obvious reading of the canonical texts, and engendering a political movement that is responding to modernity and the limits of the Arab nationalist movement in a rather totalitarian, violently Utopian, and nihilistic manner. And then one can point out that those who wish to say "that's Islamism, that's not real Islam" are expressing their fond wishes but that Islamism is just as much part of the Islam phenomenon …”
An intelligent comment on the issue. Yes, Islamism is a core part of, and genuinely grounded in, Islam, but that doesn’t mean that Islamism is Islam. These are two entwined but different concepts. But Hugh’s argument – if I understand it correctly – is that there can be no other “interpretations” of Islam, since that would contravene the orthodoxy. The orthodoxy, according to Hugh, is what defines Islam. And this cannot be questioned because it has never been successfully questioned. Thus Islam is defined by a doctrinal orthodoxy that not only sanctifies violence but has been maintained by actual violence or the threat of violence throughout history. Islam has never contained any non-literalist, non-supremacist movements, since these were always marginal because of their oppression and thus “heretical”.
For Hugh and others, and indeed literalist and supremacist Muslims, there is only one Islam and that is the orthodox Islam: pro-jihad for universal shari’a. Anything that doesn’t conform to this ancient ideology just isn’t Islam. Anything that tries to claim Islam as anything else – non-literalist, non-supremacist – cannot by definition be Islam. Thus Islam is no longer defined by what has come to pass, but by an unchanging ideology.
@Hesperado
“Hugh isn't doing that [arguing tautologically]. He is merely noticing that Muslims do that and have done it for 1400 years, and do it on the basis of their central texts and tenets.”
Fantasizing about some alternative Islam is not only silly, it is positively reckless and dangerous for our safety, if pursued and concretized in various policy we might adopt. In fact, the West has been adopting such reckless policy based on such silly notions. And we keep seeing the terrible consequences, only getting worse.
I am not “Fantasizing about some alternative Islam”. My point has nothing to do with the likelihood of the emergence of a truly progressive Islam. I don’t hold out for that. I acknowledge that orthodox Islam contains jihadist, irrendentist, separatist, literalist, supremacist doctrines. What I am saying that whilst these may be orthodox, there have existed and do exist unorthodox teachings that – by virtue of “Muslims” expressing them – ought to be considered as part of “Islamic” culture or practice.
“Islam” to many Muslims in the West is a private matter, even though the allure of the “authentic” Islamic teachings – of jihad etc – may tempt them to relent these unorthodox leanings. The fact is that such secular understandings of Islam can never amount to a political rival to “Islamism” because by virtue of being secular such Muslims do not want to create an “Islamic” political movement. To do so is to become “Islamist”.
If “Islam” is simply what Muslims practice—ranging from war on infidels and apostates to following only the personal articles of faith—then “Islamism” is certainly useful to be explicit about its political and supremacist nature.
"Islamism" is also very useful for the politically expedient function of focusing on the political aspect of the religion. To use the term "Islam" is politically suicidal even though "Islamism" can be admitted to be rooted in Islam. It makes sense to talk of "Islamism" for politicians etc since that way they can avoid accusations of Islamophobia - though these do occur even with the use of this term, though less so - and draw attention to the dangers of it. Which you could not do if the term "Islam" was used. Of course "Islamism" is "Islamic", like I said, but unless you want to criminalise or isolate the entire Muslim population in the West and beyond - not only dangerous but not very intelligent or strategic - then the term "Islamism" helps. For no Muslim, if they truly believe in equal human rights, secular liberal democracy etc will have grounds to complain about that.
reeko wrote:
"for example, this forum is already starting to see posts of the "round them all up" or "nuke 'em till they glow" and "end Islam" etc ad nauseum..."
I have a problem with this. It implies that these posts that you "see" are gaining prevalence and are accepted here at JW, neither of which is even remotely true.
There does appear an occasional comment that fits your description, but very rarely, and it is taken down shortly after it is reported. Some times they are actually planted by detractors of this site and used shortly after posting to support criticism of this site. Such is the price of unmoderated comments. That said, I reiterate that comments espousing the sentiments you provided are the overwhelming exception and not the rule here at JW, and they are never condoned or even allowed to remain once discovered.
That is an important point.
Cornelius,
See my response to Boston Tea Party for a clarification of my "all Muslims" position that might attenuate your concerns.
On the Muslim groups that are against sharia, so far the only one that has a possibility of credibility and usefulness would be the one in Canada you cited that brought about actual change. However, I cannot pronounce upon that group until I learn more about them, for there are questions that need to be answered, such as the other associations and beliefs of members of that group, and the actual process by which their success happened, to take two examples. Even if my questions were answered to my satisfaction, they represent only themselves, not Muslims at large, and not even other Muslim groups that seem to be moderate; so we take this on a case-by-case basis, and do not extend to general principles. (Example, there are Muslims who are "anti-sharia" only because they are anti-Sunnah, "Koranists" -- but anyone following the Koran is not to be trusted.) At any rate, the phenomenon remains a tiny minority in a sea of Muslims.
Beyond that, there is the additional objection I have raised numerous times: any moderate Muslim, any anti-sharia Muslim, still has a giant blemish: he or she reveres Mohammed, reveres the Koran, reveres Allah. There is no way around this. Such a person, if really trying to be "moderate", can only be explained in two ways:
1. They are lying to us.
2. They are insane.
Either way, I would not feel secure banking and building our management of the problem of Islam upon them.
As another commenter noted above:
A "Moderate Muslim" is following a self created version of a "Golden idol", molded into the image of what is a desired "allah", and islam. If this is what some in the West are grasping for, they are as blind as those who declare themselves "moderate".
dip
What I am saying that whilst these may be orthodox, there have existed and do exist unorthodox teachings that – by virtue of “Muslims” expressing them – ought to be considered as part of “Islamic” culture or practice.
Two problems with your theory:
1. The unorthodox teachings you cite as being part of our Great Brown Hope to save us from the problem of Islam Muslims are causing us are and have always been represented by minuscule numbers of individuals, not to mention hated and violently oppressed by the majority of Muslims.
2. Taqiyya jeopardizes any attempts to trust any Muslims in significant numbers. What would be left are Muslims in insignificant numbers we could trust -- i.e., not enough to make a difference.
If any such postings, such as those described by "reeko" above, are found here please report them at once to Robert Spencer. They will be immediately removed. It is clear that there are always a handful of lunatics, and even clearer that there are deliberate attempts to sabotage this site, by those who do not wish it well, and want to make it appear to be something other than what it is.
@ awake who wrote:
"There does appear an occasional comment that fits your description, but very rarely, and it is taken down shortly after it is reported. Some times they are actually planted by detractors of this site and used shortly after posting to support criticism of this site. Such is the price of unmoderated comments. That said, I reiterate that comments espousing the sentiments you provided are the overwhelming exception and not the rule here at JW, and they are never condoned or even allowed to remain once discovered."
my apologies. i've been a subscriber for several years and a follower of Robert's even longer. i rarely go back and read all comments on all posts. if as u say, the comments are indeed policed, and violent comments expunged, i did not know that. sounds good.
forward... march!
This was for me an excellent debate, to learn a lot from. I can see Hughs and Hesperado's reasoning and agree with it. But I take to heart Wellingtons approach that politics is the art of the possible. And very important for me is where do I stand in this complex debate and how can I use what I learn here in my own debates.
Sunday I spoke with a family-member (we are Dutch) who is vicar who went to a mosque with his congregation, was well received there. And who argued that we must not spread hate about Islam under any circumstances, because we now live harmoniously together and we must continue to do so. And with this "hate-mongering of Geert Wilders" acts of violence like window-smashing etc are already going on and that will escalate. It is starting to look like we are going to treat the Muslims like the Jews by the Nazi's, he said.
This man has lived in Indonesia and knows about Islamic violence there. And about Islamic violence in Nigeria and I pointed out my knowledge about the Copts and Pakistani Christians. But he and another member of my family only want to rely on diplomatic efforts abroad, while still viewing Moslims in Holland in vast majority as completely innocent and trustworthy.
They never seem to consider where the loyalty of Muslims might lie, they take the opposite approach of Hesperado and say "they must treat all muslims as if all of them, except the tiny minority that is proven guilty, are completely innocent".
They seem to implicitly say that since Islam is a religion that this is why Islam must be considered completely innocent, irrelevant for the terrorism of the tiny minority. And to begin even to talk about Islam in a negative way, without the ever present Tu Quoque-excuses, already constitutes "fear- and hate-mongering", to be despised and abhorred.
And because of that it is Wilders who gets the hardest criticism and insults, with total double standards about hate-mongering. And this primarily because so many Dutch only look at the Dutch scenery and follow the Muslims in looking only at what happens in Holland. Not aware or interested what Muslims say and do where they have majority and power.
I saids that even though the World is now "the Global Village" and I put it before them that since the primary loyalty of Muslims is to the Ummah, which is worldwide, we too should look worldwide in our response. And we should at least get to know Islam and not spare it our disapproval, even though that could lead to fear, hate, disharmony, violence.
But the people around me are so disinterested, ignorant, focused on criticizing only "the white, right-wing people". That is why although I subscribe to Hesperado's logic, and also propagate no difference between Islam and Islamism and believe in no possibility of reform in Islam, am for now for the strategy of distinquishing between the evil ideology Islam and Muslims. The people around me would scold me scathingly if I NOW was known to propose to treat ALL Muslims as potentially dangerous as a policy.
Cornelius wrote,
"In the abstract, every human being who is not physically infirm is "equally dangerous" because every human being is capable of killing. But as we all know, not every human being is "equally dangerous". A twenty-something male with a violent, criminal past is potentially much more dangerous than a fifty-something female who is has never harmed a fly (although, again, both are theoretically capable of killing).
The same logic applies to Muslims..."
Cornelius, I don't disagree with your logic because it is correct. I interface with Muslims regularily. The problem I see is with the bigger picture regarding the danger of Muslims. There is no society on earth where the Christians and other non-Muslims co-exist with Muslims peacefully. With Muslims, everything must go their way and they are trouble makers with a capital T. The worst of them will rape, pillage, and kill in the most barbaric way. The best of them will demand subserviance from all of us non Muslims. There are, in my humble opinion, no moderate Muslims. The few that appear to be moderate are not fully engaged in Islam. It all depends on their numbers as to how assertive they become. They bring nothing to the table in our society but trouble, with a capital T.
I agree with Wellington that we have no legal structure to deal with a dangerous religion. The best we could hope for is to outlaw Sharia in the US.
Demsci -
You might be interested in an article ("Going Dutch") that I published in June 2006, proposing what admittedly was an extremely demanding test for receiving Dutch citizenship, and in so doing, to make a point about what constitutes Dutch history, Dutch culture, Dutch everything, all of which was created by people who could not have existed for one minute under Islam.
You can find that article here:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=2013&sec_id=2013
then scroll down to the June 2006 link to "Going Dutch."
You may also find of interest, as immediately relevant to Western Europe, the article entitled "Douce France."
Finally, in the "Archives" above, look for -- or put into the Search Box on the upper right, the title "Islam For Infidels." Perhaps your Dutch Reformed relative would be willing to learn something.
And why have you not suggested to him that he read the testimony of, for example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in "Infidel," which has a lot about her life inside the Muslim communities of the Netherlands?
Finally, I recommend Wafa Sultan's "The God That Hates," Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not A Muslim," and Nonie Darwish's "Now They Call Me Infidel" -- all books by people who were born into, and raised within, Islam. Why should not your relatives and friends begin to educate themselves, or be educated by you?
Many people in the West spend more time investigating which television set to buy, or which dishwasher, than they do finding about Islam, the presence of whose adherents has already created a situation in Western Europe that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous, for the native non-Muslims, and also for the other, non-Muslim, immigrants.
Why should this be igored? The ideology of Islam, the Total Belief-System of Islam, should not be allowed to be camouflaged by the word "religion." That is what Bush, who became a Born-Again Christian, did, and he believed that all religions should be accorded respect, and that is what he did with Islam. Obama is a bit different; he thinks he "knows what Islam is all about" because he spent the yeas 6 to 9 in a most unrepresentative school in Jakarta, at a time when Indonesia was still under the rule of the immediate post-independence largely secular leaders. He also thinks that his father, whom he only saw briefly at the age of 2, was a Muslim, and not a wild fanatic (so he believes); but he does not realize his father was a relaxed black African (Kenyan), hardly someone who took his Islam to heart.
You have a duty to educate yourself and others, and to make them see why they must vote for Wilders, whatever they think of him or his Party (I like both), because they must force the other parties to stop their appeasement of Muslims, and -- in and outside the Netherlands -- the forces of Islam. More Miep Gies, less Pieter Menten.
Demsci - here, for what it's worth, somewhat revised and added to in places, is something I wrote in an earlier thread, from March 5, when people were discussing Geert Wilders' visit to London - there was a clip from the press conference. Several people commented that Mr Wilders looked tired.
This is part of what I wrote. I'll write it again, because I think you are lucky to have him.
"Re. Geert looking tired. I am sure he is.
"...I pray for him, regularly and often and with great fervor (and for his wife and family - I don't think he and his wife have children, but am sure he must have some family, e.g. a parent or parents, cousins, brother or sister perhaps - and for his friends and colleagues). Just as I pray for Mr Spencer and Mr Fitzgerald, and for Bat Yeor and David Littmann and *their* family (children and grandchildren) and for so many, many others who are right out on the front lines with great big targets painted on their shirts.
"I pray for his physical *and spiritual* protection; not only for protection from assassins, but for deliverance from despair, confusion and fear. I take Muslim curses seriously. I bet that besides all the very real and this-worldly death threats and assassination plots, there are occult curses being hurled at him from just about every mosque in Europe, not to mention elsewhere. Perhaps St Nicholas of Myra, patron saint of the Netherlands, can walk beside Geert and hold out that big crozier and ward off the darkness.
"It has been intensely interesting watching Geert's political and spiritual journey, watching him change and grow and gain in focus since he first came onto the radar screen here at jihadwatch.
And in that connection, here are two items from the archives, the first from June 2006, the second from two years earlier, that you may find interesting:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/06/waiting-for-churchill-or-waiting-for-godot.html
Funnily enough, though that was written in 2006, by someone who regularly contributed essays to jihadwatch, Wilders had already appeared as a blip on the jihadwatch radar screen, in 2004
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/12/interview-geert-wilders-the-new-fortuyn.html
Back to what I said on March 5.
"I think he is growing into his job.
As he does, it's like you can *see* a great weight steadily coming down on his shoulders.
"And as he accepts that weight, and just keeps going, obeying his vocation, walking forward into fire, what I'm seeing besides the tiredness is a real beauty developing in his face. Three, four years ago, I wouldn't have called him beautiful. But he is, now.
And – folks think he looks tired now. Suppose he’s vindicated in this stupid trial. Suppose he does become PM of the Netherlands - I think on that day, you’ll look at him and think of these words from Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, about Aragorn after he looked in the Palantir and for the first time defied Sauron face to face: “Merry had eyes only for Aragorn, so startling was the change that he saw in him, as if in one night many years had fallen on his head”.
Geert is walking open-eyed into a wall of fire; and I think, I hope, that as that happens you will see the steel revealed in him; the spirit that enabled his Dutch ancestors to fight the sea, and resist invading tyrants, and win.
If I ever had the chance to speak to him directly, I would say to him – atheist though he is – the words that the dying John Wesley wrote to William Wilberforce who was going up against the slave trade: “Go on, in the name of God and the power of His might’. Go on. Go on.
Just let's all of us who are Christians - and the Jews, too - keep on praying for him. I don't want him to be assassinated like Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh were. It would be shattering. He's the third Dutchman who's stepped forward into the line of fire, after those two fell.
Something else to bear in mind, from Bat Yeor this time (from her essay, 'Persecution of Jews and Christians: Testimony Versus Silence', in Spencer's "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance", p. 258): "...the meaning of testimony is to stand up against a tyrant, to denounce injustice, and to proclaim the dignity of all humanity...
"...Testifying is no easy task, as it also brings persecution, loneliness and despair.
"Challenging 'evil', unveiling it from behind its ubiquitous masks, is dangerous, and an unending life struggle".
That is what Geert is doing. He is testifying. He is challenging evil; an evil that is deeply entrenched, masked, camouflaged, shapeshifting. He needs all the spiritual covering fire we can give him; and our donations to his legal defence fund, as well! (God bless and guide his lawyer!).
Spot On,
My biggest point of contention with Hesperado is his contention that Muslim groups like 'Neither Whores nor Submissives' and 'Muslims Againdt Sharia' are somehow abetting the Jihad. As I pointed out, the reverse is true, that these groups are in the front-line of the anti-Jihad, often carrying the water for infidels who can't otherwise be bothered.
Yet, in Hesperado's world view, these people, because of their status as nominal Muslims, are no different than those advocating for Sharia or otherwise silent. He couldn't be more wrong.
One more person with a good knowledge of Islam who appears unimpressed with the attempt by some in the West to make a distinction, to hope for a distinction, to take comfort in a distinction, even possibly to bet the farm on the existence of such a distinction, between Islam and "Islamism," can be seen, speaking the perfect truth with perfect passion, right here:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2416.htm
Hesperado, you still don't get it do you. You clearly haven't read my posts properly and are arguing something entirely different from what I am saying. The thread concerns whether Islam and Islamism are distinct and if so how, and whether that means that they cannot be employed as useful terms. Rambling on about small minorities of secular Muslims (who don't abide by classical doctrines of jihad etc) and taqiyya is besides the point. Bat Ye'or uses the term "Islamism" and does so to emphasise the political program of Islam, which not all Muslims and not all Islamic groups, sects and schools adhere to, regardless of the amount that do. It has nothing to do with deception or numbers, but to do with the usefulness of the terms. "Islam" may well be dominated by orthodox jihadist doctrine but the term also includes doctrines and practices - however marginal, ineffective etc - that are not. "Islamism" as I have already said does not have to imply a doctrine separate from the classical texts of Islam, but it does help us be explicit in referring to the political, supremacist movements today that must be fought. In the same sense it is useful to use the term "Islamist" as opposed to "Muslim" since the latter does not necessarily mean a Muslim who supports political Islam.
Hugh - how is it then that you can accept Bat Ye'or's use of the term "Islamism" - which appears numerous times in Eurabia, but still imply that anyone using the term is necessarily making a hard and fast but false distinction between Islamism and Islam? Is it because you actually agree that one does not have to make a hard and fast distinction, since Islamism is Islamic? Use of the term "Islamism" surely does not have to imply that there is an ontological distinction between Islamism and Islam. Yet is has practical use in political circles because governments, whether dhimmified or not, do not wish to incriminate all Muslims. And why should they? How would that help anyone fight jihad?
I have been looking into "Eurabia" in preparation for writing a long reply to you, and as I go through her use of the term, keeping in mind the very first sentence in her Acknowledgements, I do not believe you are correct in ascribing to her an endorsement of the word "Islamism" as used, for example, by Daniel Pipes and Charles Krauthammer. I intend to look up every single appearance of the word "Islamism" in "Eurabia" and, what's more, to contact Bat Ye'or to see if my understanding is correct. Then, in a few days, I will answer you.
But right now I can say the obvious: when Krauthammer and Pipes and others use the word "Islamism" they are using it to separate out all the "bad parts" of Islam, leaving only that which is entirely inoffensive, this thing they call "Islam." When Bat Ye'or uses the word "Islamism" I see it is being used differently (in a few cases, when the historian David Littman is quoted, he uses the term "Islamism" not because he thinks it is a real and useful concept, and Islam itself is just fine, but for purposes of protective coloration, in order to avoid arousing too much fury from Muslim delegates when in his stirring addresses at the Geneva meetings of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights he is already stirring the pot, and has to watch himself.
You may have overlooked my many discussions of the word "Islam" and why, of course, I do not think at this point government officials should use the term "Islam" with the full force of condemnation that I think, and Mus'ab Hassan Yousuf (see my last posting, just above), and Wafa Sultan, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Ibn Warraq, should really be used.
I prefer the artful use of synecdoche. Thus I would have government officials denounce not "Islam" but those who "foster, or work for, or take part in, or support through financial, diplomatic, propagandistic, or other means," the "Jihad."
But at the same time, I expect among those who write about domestic and foreign policy, who have a duty to know the truth and to make sure that policies are based on the truth, that whatever sly elisions and obliquities might be necessary for a leader, even if that leader turns out to be a statesman, the same must not be mimicked by everyone else. At our level, we have the responsiblity of enlightening people. We don't live in a world where everyone grasps the meaning, and menace, of Islam. We live, rather, in a world where there are a thousand ways for Muslim apologists -- see Tariq Ramadan -- to inveigle the unwary, and to delay the day of recognition. And there are another thousand ways for those who wish to avoid unpleasantness of every sort (see Mr. Podsnap in "Our Mutual Friend," who "puts things out of his mind because they offended him"), to come up with strategies and stratagems for fooling themselves, or for going back to bed and silently expressing the though "Wake Me When It's Over."
No. No can do. Must not do. Much too much at stake. Much too dangerous.
People must understand there is not something called "Islamism" and that is the bad stuff, and something else, an innocent creature called "Islam," and that is just fine. And while they must be encouraged to speak among themselves, that is to other Infidels, truthfully about Islam, knowing full well that many Muslims will overhear, on the Internet, and elsewhere, what it is the Infidels are now saying (and will be unable to rebut it in the debating-halls of their own minds -- at least the morally and intellectually most advanced will be unable to do so, while the others won't even entertain uncertainties and doubts, not even for a minute), when government leaders of Infidel lands have to speak, they can be slightly more cautious, but not by using such phrases as "violent extremists" or, a term that is the equivalent, "Islamists." Again, I will put in a word for "Jihad" as the synecdochic stand-in for Islam.
More, in a few days. Other dismal duties call.
they take the opposite approach of Hesperado and say "they must treat all muslims as if all of them, except the tiny minority that is proven guilty, are completely innocent".
If the West does not learn, soon enough, to reverse the Golden Rule and the American principle of fairness by which one is "innocent until proven guilty" -- with regard to Muslims and Muslims alone -- then Muslims will succeed in slaughtering untold numbers of us in the coming decades.
And the blood of those slaughters will be on the hands of Westerners who anxiously thought they were preserving Western principles, when all they were doing was forgetting to protect their own.
"It has nothing to do with deception or numbers, but to do with the usefulness of the terms."
I must disagree. Usefulness of the term is all about deception and numbers.
Spot on reaction, Hesperado! So many people here follow the "fair-minded" rule; Islam/ Muslims are innocent until proven guilty! And so, even if someone even begins to try to indict Islam the teachings and the loyalties and responsibilities of Muslims, (s)he is bombarded with: Yes, but ........endless tu quoque. With tu quogue-arguments people are making sure that even the known facts about Islam/ Muslims still keeps them "no more guilty than the rest of us", because of the "Universal nature" of the crimes as opposed to a Unique-to-Islam-nature.
And as you said; many Westerners want in their own country to uphold their own values and norms. Considering Muslims as their countrymen, which is correct, but then also not even considering where their deepest loyalties might lie, what their leader's intentions might be, or their power. They want to think only about their own country and give the world a good example, at all costs.
But I pointed out a variation of the theme that the constitution is not a suicide pact. That the Political Corrects are irresponsible and that they have no right to demand from us to totally blindly trust them and all the Muslims.
In the situation that these Political-Corrects and Muslims lack much knowledge about texts-tenets of Islam and behavior of Muslims worldwide, where they have majority and power. As if Holland were some isolated island! Without such knowledge I said that they were in no position to make the assessment about security they were making.
I said that they have highly double standards by pointing to what the Quran/ Hadiths + Muslims in the Islamic world say about Jews and Infidels. While they disapprove only of nearby Geert Wilders, without viewing him in a worldwide context. Without so much as listening to his contents, always harping on his "hating tone".
I said if they were against hate-mongering they should look at Quran and what Muslim leaders/ media say. And apply the same standards as they use on Wilders. Really, if he is lying they have a point, but if he is speaking the truth, then the far worse real hatemongering is in Islam and Muslim-speakers. And I said that they were much more ignorant about Islam/ Muslim-speakers than all those non-Muslim-Islam-experts that are now speaking up and proliferating their message and are growing in numbers, who should also be "respected as the Muslims are respected".
Although I was very careful to make equal listening and feedback-efforts with my speaking efforts, I had the impression they could not on contents refute what I said and as always they withdrew from the conversation with "other concerns or topics".
Oh, they already know that I adore Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is very well known in Holland. I think there are many good people who just only now start to see SOME DANGER, but as yet are not even sure it comes from Islam or Islam-critics!
I do not believe you are correct in ascribing to her an endorsement of the word "Islamism" as used, for example, by Daniel Pipes and Charles Krauthammer.
I don’t ascribe this use to her. I am referring to BY’s use of the term to exemplify the point, that “Islamism” does not have to refer to something separate from “Islam” with jihad and all the “bad stuff” loaded in the former and subtracted, artificially, from the latter.
I intend to look up every single appearance of the word "Islamism" in "Eurabia" and, what's more, to contact Bat Ye'or to see if my understanding is correct. Then, in a few days, I will answer you.
I appreciate this. Though I suspect that BY will affirm that her use of the term “Islamism” in no way suggests that “Islam” is something utterly distinct. This is obvious from reading her works. Like I said, “"Islamism" does not have to imply a doctrine separate from the classical texts of Islam, but it does help us be explicit in referring to the political, supremacist movements today that must be fought.”
But right now I can say the obvious: when Krauthammer and Pipes and others use the word "Islamism" they are using it to separate out all the "bad parts" of Islam, leaving only that which is entirely inoffensive, this thing they call "Islam." When Bat Ye'or uses the word "Islamism" I see it is being used differently
I am not defending Krauthammer and Pipes’s use of the term or put more clearly, their conceptual distinction. But one does not have to do this in order to distinguish the concepts. They are different but related: “Islamism” is “Islamic” but not everything “Islamic” is “Islamist”; similarly, “Islamists” are “Muslims” but not all “Muslims” are “Islamists”. If we were to radically distinguish “Islam” and “Islamism” then no “Islamists” (i.e. jihadists) would be “Muslims”. This is clearly nonsense.
(in a few cases, when the historian David Littman is quoted, he uses the term "Islamism" not because he thinks it is a real and useful concept, and Islam itself is just fine, but for purposes of protective coloration, in order to avoid arousing too much fury from Muslim delegates when in his stirring addresses at the Geneva meetings of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights he is already stirring the pot, and has to watch himself.
Right. Like I said, it is politically expedient to use the term “Islamism” without necessarily implying that “Islamism” is not “Islamic”.
You may have overlooked my many discussions of the word "Islam" and why, of course, I do not think at this point government officials should use the term "Islam" with the full force of condemnation that I think, and Mus'ab Hassan Yousuf (see my last posting, just above), and Wafa Sultan, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Ibn Warraq, should really be used.
Perhaps. But it seems that you still do not grant the usefulness of the term “Islamism” despite accepting that it is prudent for government officials not to use the term “Islam”.
I prefer the artful use of synecdoche. Thus I would have government officials denounce not "Islam" but those who "foster, or work for, or take part in, or support through financial, diplomatic, propagandistic, or other means," the "Jihad."
But “Islam” and “those …” are not equivalent types of term. On the one hand is “Islam” and on the other are people. Why not – if you don’t want to draw attention to Islam per se and also don’t want to use the term “Islamism” - use the term “Jihadism” which Walid Phares so likes?
But at the same time, I expect among those who write about domestic and foreign policy, who have a duty to know the truth and to make sure that policies are based on the truth, that whatever sly elisions and obliquities might be necessary for a leader, even if that leader turns out to be a statesman, the same must not be mimicked by everyone else. At our level, we have the responsiblity of enlightening people. We don't live in a world where everyone grasps the meaning, and menace, of Islam …
The truth is too important to hide in deceiving pleasantries, I agree. That was never my bone of contention. Yes, reveal the truth that jihadism, Islamic irrendentism, supremacism, etc are based in the classical doctrines of Islam (i.e. not just the products of something called “Islamism” that is falsely distinguished from Islam). But why can’t one write in a way that grants Islamism’s roots in classical Islam? Why can’t it just be a clear way of describing “political Islam” – which doesn’t necessarily say anything about its relation to the canonical texts?
People must understand there is not something called "Islamism" and that is the bad stuff, and something else, an innocent creature called "Islam," and that is just fine.
I agree completely.
… when government leaders of Infidel lands have to speak, they can be slightly more cautious, but not by using such phrases as "violent extremists" or, a term that is the equivalent, "Islamists." Again, I will put in a word for "Jihad" as the synecdochic stand-in for Islam.
I don’t think that “Islamism” has to be equivalent to the awful phrase (used in the UK) “violent extremism”. And I think BY’s work attest to that. So again, why can someone so learned and enlightening as BY use the term “Islamism” without implying it is something different from Islam, but government officials not? Because, like I say, to use the term “Islamism” does not imply anything about its relation to Islam. This relation can be spelled out in the same text or breath.
Hesp wrote,
"If the West does not learn, soon enough, to reverse the Golden Rule and the American principle of fairness by which one is "innocent until proven guilty" -- with regard to Muslims and Muslims alone -- then Muslims will succeed in slaughtering untold numbers of us in the coming decades."
Hesp, The Islam vs. Islamism argument has been distorted due to a misunderstanding of terms. Commune vs.communism, I believe, would be one good comparison. Individually, Muslms can be very innocent and appear to go with the flow. Collectively, they pose a life threatening problem for the West. The violent Muslims take over the pacifist Muslims in their society. The survival of the fittest within Muslim society runs its course. The Koran ultimately rules.
You are correct in your statement above. With the same certainty of death and taxes, we will succumb or be Dhimmified by Islam, if large numbers of Muslims surround us. We must understand this or there is no future for our grandchildren.
Having two standards for Muslims and non-Muslims in the face of law (relating to presumed innocent/guilt) is not only a prime example of the fascism in Islam that you do deplore. Is it also extremely counterproductive. You have stooped so low that you no longer have any faith in our liberal, democratic values. Our institutions and governments may be failing us in not protecting these values but that is no reason to give up these values. We do not fight for freedom by becoming fascists.
Except in very small amounts, our form of government, is not designed to accomodate alien social designs (i.e. communism, facism, Islamism, etc.). The popular refrain from liberal friends that I have spoken to, is that in time, Muslims will conform to our secular societal standards. Since this has not happened in any country with similiar democracies after up to five generations of Muslims, how can this be believed. Faith is a wonderful thing and my liberal friends have more faith than I when it comes to denying the cold hard facts that now exist in Europe.
Our constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact but it is possible that it now is being used by many to be just that. In WWII we did what we had to do to convert Germany and Japan to our way of life. We used unlimited force with a great deal of compassion and we converted these countries to our way of life. It worked.
Our citizens want our government to make things work but instead we try to lawyer every little detail to the tenth decimal point. We cannot continue on this path with Islam because Islam en masse is an existencial threat. We need arguments toward solving the problem. Our imaginative lawyers must start thinking of something that will work for us because our constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact or it would never have been adopted by our founders in the first place.
Re: Bat Yeor's use of the term Islamism, the likelier explanation -- rather than Hugh's faith in Yeor's position on the learning curve or dlp's tortured logic -- is that Yeor, like most everyone else in the still inchoate Anti-Islam Movement, has residues of asymptoticism, which carries PC MC pathogens, in her system. I.e., she can't confront the full horror, the full catastrophe, of an entire People being evil, unjust and dangerous. Her asymptoticism might well derive from the "Never Again" mantra about the Holocaust, given her personal history and culture -- a mantra solidly justified with respect to the Jews, but more recently subtly transferred onto Muslim people. According to the paradigm of this mantra, we must "never again" think thoughts too negative about a "collective" people, for those negative thoughts put us on a "slippery slope" leading inexorably to genocide. Since "Islam" denotes the abiding culture of an Entire People, to condemn Islam logically condemns that People, regardless of the pretzel logic anxiously deployed by those who don't want to face the consequences of condemning Islam itself. Thus "Islamism" serves as a safety valve, to avoid going down that old slippery slope -- to save innumerable millions of nice innocent Muslim human beings, and more importantly, to save ourselves from our own anxious unease about our own hateful, genocidal inclinations against an Entire People.
Thank you, Dumbledore's Army, that was beautiful
dlp, thanks for showing me a mirror like that. I'll take very good care in trying not ever getting more fascist myself as a result of desiring to defend our society against Islam's fascists.
But maybe it is all about going to trial indicting Islam and a guilt or innocent-verdict? I think we now live in an age in which many of us endeavour to understand both Democratic values and rules AND Islamic ones very very deeply.
Studying Islam exhaustively, together with the sayings and actions of Islamic leaders and followers may produce a guilty-verdict for Islam in the indictment that it threathens Democracy and that it oppresses minorities and women when in power.
SOME kind of court may reach some kind of decision that could enable us to let Muslims choose where their utmost loyalty as citizens must lie, namely with the Democratic system, and to react when they betray that loyalty to an enemy-system.
I still hope we can reconcile all our democratic values and rules with our need for security. And I hope and intend that political-correct people cannot force us to "go meekly to the slaughter" while holding on to these values-rules.
Hesperado
Since Geert Wilders does not meet your exacting standards ( I assume that if you were living in the Netherlands, you would not vote for him? but who else would you vote for, then?), nor Bat Yeor, nor Mr Spencer, nor indeed anybody else out there, it seems, at the moment:
Do you yourself intend to stand up and supply the lack? Do you mean to run for some kind of office - in the local PTA, say, or the city council, or the union, or any kind of organisation that will give you a platform from which to say what you think Wilders and Spencer and Bat Yeor and everybody else are too deluded and stupid, or cowardly, to say?
Are you debating face to face with Muslims, not in cyberspace but in reality, as Mr Spencer has been doing since he first began attending university?
Do you attend Mosque Open Days, and call out the da'wa artists on their lies?
Have you, yourself, to your face, under your own name - not under a nom de plume, not to your blog but to your actual self - received death threats from Muslims, as Geert Wilders has done, as the apostates like Magdi Cristiano Allam and Wafa Sultan have done, and as Mr Spencer has done, and as - I would bet on it - Bat Yeor has done (sure, she uses a nom de plume, but her real identity is well enough known...all the Jihadis doubtless know who she really is, and they probably have a pretty good idea where she lives)?
Have you put boots on the ground by going to a pro-Israel rally, or a pro-Copt rally, as others in this company have done? *That* is showing your face to at least some of the enemy.
Awhile ago, someone here - Eastview it may have been, I think - asked you how you, personally, put your 'risk assessment' of Muslims - that is, your working assumption that all identifying Muslims are not human and can never *become* human again but are rather, something like orcs, 99.999% beyond redemption (that is, permanently damned in the here and now, totally beyond the power of YHWH to save, since the arab blood-demon allah is obviously - you seem to have concluded this, in despair - so much stronger than the nonexistent or hopelessly feeble YHWH ) - into practice in daily life, if that daily life includes occasional contact with Muslims.
Well? What DO you do?
Suppose you go into a shop and the girl available to ring up your purchase is wearing a hijab (The shop itself appears to be owned by a non-Muslim). There is no other salesgirl to choose from. *What do you do*?
@ dumbledoresarmy,
Superbly and succinctly put. Hesperado, as right as he may be, and as much as you or I may subscribe to his position on Islam, his "holistic" approach, does not now, nor has it ever given him the rightful credence to criticize all those besides himself, for their words and actions on this "still inchoate, anti-Islamic movement", in his own explicit estimation.
This is a central criticism of Hesperado that I have espoused publicly, and also privately to him, in the past.
I will say that you are probably not going to get an adequate response (as you deem), by Hesperado to your criticism here, or for his reasoning behind his long-term and repeated attacks against Robert and JW, which has historically been displayed on his own blogs. I for one, gave up that fight long ago.
That said, I respect his analysis, his substantive writings, and I think that he is an important cog in the anti-Islamic movement.
Another vital point of criticism thst I have posited in the past against Hesperado, quite simply, is that sometimes, his perceived pompous and brutish delivery to presupposed and even potential allies, actually offsets the pertinent substance of his arguments.
It is a minor problem in my opinion, but far from the actual problem itself, which is Islam.
Regards.
@Hesperado
1. Please substantiate the charge "tortured logic". Nothing, not one sentence, demonstrates you have actually read anything I have written. I bet you can't even accurately paraphrase what I have said, despite saying it numerous times.
2. Accusing Bat Ye'or of political correctness is absurd. And downright insulting to a luminary in the field.
3. To claim that "an entire People" - self-described Muslims, whatever their interests in and commitment to shari'a and jihad or lack thereof- of "being evil, unjust and dangerous" is naive, unintelligent, paranoid, impractical, dangerous, and ridiculous. You, like others on JW, have succumb to a hatred of Muslims - "an entire people" you generalise about so freely - when the problem is with the Islamic doctrine and practice of jihad.
Serious academics, analysts, journalists, policy makers etc will never take JW seriously as a source of information whilst the level of "debate" is this low.
"he [Hesperado] is an important cog in the anti-Islamic movement."
He most certainly is not. Noone with any sense will take him seriously with views that incriminate all Muslims. That just cannot work in real politics. And to say that does not mean that otherwise, Muslims are, as a bloc, a problem who, in line with the ridiculous proposal by some to deny them equal rights (an inverted shari'a).
Hesperado, still waiting for your answers to the above. But I won't hold my breath.