| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
He's had a head start in making his case
The BBC seems to have momentarily forgotten that terrorism has nothing to do with religion. They report on the Rand Corporation's plan for waging a diplomatic offensive against the jihadis. According to the BBC, the report urges support of moderate Muslims. Note that one of the problems is that moderate Muslims lack infrastructure. While there are moderate Muslims, it is harder to find moderate Islam; moderate Muslims do not have a significant organization or widespread theological justification for their positions.
A strategy for the West to counter Islamic extremism by supporting Islamic moderates has been put forward in a report funded in part by a conservative American foundation.It says that the West should help religious "modernists" in the Islamic world in order to prevent a "clash of civilisations."
It states: "It seems judicious to encourage the elements within the Islamic mix that are most compatible with global peace and the international community and that are friendly to democracy and modernity."
The report, called "Civil Democratic Islam: partners, resources and strategies", was drawn up by the Rand Corporation with financial help from the Smith Richardson Foundation, a conservative trust fund which hands out more than $120 million a year to universities and other research organisations.
It is a sign perhaps that some American conservatives, many of whom want to press democratic reform in Muslim countries, realize that a focused approach is needed.
It is a contribution to a debate well under way in the West. The latest manifestation of this debate was a recent speech by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr George Carey, who wondered why Islam was "associated with violence throughout the world." His conclusion is not dissimilar to that of this report.
"Is extremism so ineluctably bound up with its faith that we are at last seeing its true character? Or could it be that a fight for the soul of Islam is going on that requires another great faith, Christianity, to support and encourage the vast majority of Muslims who resist this identification of their faith with terrorism?" he asked.
The recommendations have also come as the Bush administration is proposing to use the G8 summit in the American state of Georgia in June to push the issue of democratic and social reform in the Middle East. The summit will coincide with the handover of power in Iraq to an interim Iraqi government.
The Bush initiative has raised suspicions in Arab countries and among some of America's European allies who do not want anything imposed from the outside.
The report's writer, Cheryl Benard, said: "The United States and its allies need to be more discriminating in the way they perceive and interact with groups who call themselves Islamic.
"The term is too vague, and it doesn't really help us when we are looking to encourage progress and democratic principles, while being supportive of religious beliefs."
The report states: "Islam's current crisis has two main components: a failure to thrive and a loss of connection to the global mainstream. The Islamic world has been marked by a long period of backwardness and comparative powerlessness."
It says that Muslims disagree on what to do about this and identifies four essential positions in Muslim societies:
Fundamentalists who "reject democratic values and contemporary Western culture."
Traditionalists who "are suspicious of modernity, innovation and change."
Modernists who "want the Islamic world to become part of global modernity."
Secularists who "want the Islamic world to accept a division of religion and state."
The report says that the modernists and secularists are closest to the West but are general in a weaker position than the other groups, lacking money, infrastructure and a public platform.It suggests a strategy of supporting the modernists first. This would be done by, for example, publishing and distributing their works at subsidised cost, encouraging them to write for mass audiences and for youth, getting their views into the Islamic curriculum and helping them in the new media world which is dominated by fundamentalist and traditionalists.
It goes onto the say that traditionalists should be supported against the fundamentalists by publicising the traditionalist criticism of extremism and by" encouraging disagreements" between the two positions. It says that "in such places as Central Asia, they (traditionalists) may need to be educated and trained in orthodox Islam to be able to stand their ground."
A third strategy would be "to confront and oppose the fundamentalists" by, among other things, challenging their interpretation of Islam and revealing their links with illegal groups and activities.
Support for the secularists would be cautious and very selective, for example by encouraging "recognition of fundamentalism as a shared enemy."
The latest draft of the US government's own proposals are reported to include the promotion of parliamentary exchanges, the offering of advice on legislation, support for literacy campaigns, and the promotion of more access to personal and development finance.
The Rand approach is more overtly political and has definite diplomatic gains in mind.
It's a good approach, but it will encounter some opposition. In an essay that would be all to easy to dismiss as lunatic raving, one Abid Ullah Jan takes on "The Myth of Moderation." He is upset that the West classifies Muslims as fundamentalist or moderate, and is angry that states such as Pakistan and Turkey would ally with America against their Muslim brothers.
It is wrong to assume that Islamic resurgence is a movement in response to the dominance of Western civilisation. The moribund Western civilisation is not dominating the Muslim world. It is the crusade-infected mentality of some in the Western world, who dominate the Muslim world through the use of deputy tyrants, fully supported by economic, military and technological might. The movement in the Muslim world is not for the revival of Islam but for revival of Muslims.
Posted by Robert at March 30, 2004 10:57 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
The chances of islam reforming itself into an organisation which will coexist with the rest of the world, fight against terrorism, battle poverty, end illiteracy, empower their women and so empower their civilisation, it's pretty slim.
The first step in improving something is to accept there is a problem. That step is impossible for many muslims. Look at the widespread condemnation of George Careys remarks. Unlike most speeches it was mostly composed of calm observation of the situation in islamic states. There then followed widespread outrage, not about mistakes that Carey had made, but of "how dare he criticise islam."
The other approach to any criticism is attacks on the West. Here's the difference however. We accept that Western civilisation is a mess, and we want to make it better. We will criticise it and push it and poke it, but in the end we are grateful to live in a flawed society that accepts it is flawed.
Currently Turkey is attempting to join the EU. Turkey is one of the worlds most modern and forward looking islamic countries. This will still be the case when it joins the EU. But woe to islam. Turkey is one of the Jewels of islamic nationhood, and it will be the worst country in Europe.
CAIR would be a great first rotten tooth for Muslims to pull.
Posted by: D C Watson at March 30, 2004 12:31 PMChristianity was reformed when Protestants stripped away the accretion of centuries of "custom," from Catholicism that eventually Catholicism voluntarily dropped. Can Islam do the same, and if it does, Will Islam be Islam if reformed?
The BBC isn't the only news outlet or public institution that fails to link terrorism to religion. What U.S. press. They go around the edges, but rarely to the focus on the nut of the matter so that the public see that the problem is more than bombers, WMDs, dirty bombs, terorist coming across the borders, etc. They have teamed up with politicians to avoid the real issues. When will we be told?
Posted by: epg at March 30, 2004 1:41 PMEPG:
Could you please explain this statement:
"Christianity was reformed when Protestants stripped away the accretion of
centuries of "custom," from Catholicism that eventually Catholicism
voluntarily dropped. Can Islam do the same, and if it does, Will Islam be
Islam if reformed?"
I am not sure what your statement is says. I don't consider
the reformation to be exclusively positive. Much of
the anomie and radical individualism can be traced
to the Protestant's quest for purity of doctrine,
creed, and action.
As for an Islamic reformation who knows where that may
lead. The Protestant reformation lead to 30 years of
war in Continental Europe
There is no chance the muslim street will accept anyone who tries to reform islam.
To reform islam means to renounce the quran and to come up with a brand new religious doctrine.
In other words ,if they try to take out the radical content from the quran,there will be no quran left,at all.
For muslims,the quran means everything, and to scrap it would leave them with nothing.
It is worth trying it,but it will fail miserably.
The only solution is a complete separation between the west and the muslims,and whatever needs to be done to implement it,will eventually have to be done.
"I don't consider the reformation to be exclusively positive. Much of the anomie and radical individualism can be tracedto the Protestant's quest for purity of doctrine, creed, and action."
You thusly conclude that purity leads to violence, so it would be better to continue living a lie. Amazing. This is the sad conclusion when the only thing that is important to someone is maintaining order.
" The Protestant reformation lead to 30 years of
war in Continental Europe"
That's like saying the "failure of the Oslo accords led to the infatada." No-one is responsible. Violence just breaks out. Do you write for the AP by any chance? I'm just wondering.
~T
Posted by: Tenebrous at March 30, 2004 3:50 PMTenebrous:
The 30 years from in the 16th Century was directly
caused by the Protestant reformation. That is
undeniable.
The current state of Protestantism in the west
is very fractured.
Your comments seem to suggest that Catholics have
been living a lie. Well, I am a Presbyterian, but
there are millions more Protestant groups.
I ask you: "Do they all have the truth, or which
one or groups contain the truth, as opposed
to the lie you mentioned".
Perhaps your congregation is the one in possesion
of the "Truth"?
What does this have to do with the false religion (aka Islam)?
Posted by: Mustapha Burger at March 30, 2004 4:35 PMIf this the best approach,then we are in big trouble. Absent some globe-wide mindset change, and without any kind of infrastructure, the "fundamentalists" seem to hold all the cards, just as the Nazis held the cards during the Weimar period. In fact, I believe that overt Western support for "moderates" would doom them to complete ostricism. Our approach to "radical" Islam (all these quotes is to suggest that these names do not stand for anything distinct) should be similar to our approach to Nazism.
Posted by: Seymour Paine at March 30, 2004 4:37 PMI am not sure that I agree with Adela's comments about reforming Islam.
Although I am a Christian, liberal and inclusive in my theology, my understanding of some of the basic precepts of the Islamic faith do not automatically put it at odds with the other
Abrahamic faiths. It seems that it is your contention that there can only be limited breadth in the interpretation of Islamic scripture or else the Qu'ran has to be ditched completely. Says who?
If you have the courage to open a bible and read the book of Joshua, you will find that the Israelites, or at least the author of that book, believed that the complete and utter destruction of the Canaanites was the will of G-d. Could it have been that religious zealots put that spin on the stories of that book? What better justification for killing our enemies than the "will of G-d." I think it was propaganda at its most hateful.
You conclude that the West and Muslims need to be kept separate, thereby condeming Muslims to second class world status--a global aparthied.
If you are a Muslim, and you know your people better than I do, then I pity you and them if the only workable solution is the one you proposed.
Posted by: H.Katabolae at March 30, 2004 6:07 PMFirst of all we as christians do not and will not take the bible literally, the muslims take the koran literally without question and obay its every word; including hate and killing. Secondly, the christian history has been full of viollent events; this is our past history that it is to learn from or repeat. The muslum islam lives its past history and present history, it never learns from its mistakes nor tries to correct them. The christian history is exactly that history, not our religion. islam it just the other way around their history is their religion; a history of hate and killing. Islam will never be changed from what it is a religion of hate.
Posted by: christian at March 30, 2004 9:29 PMI used to say that nothing is totally positive nor totally neative, even Islam, which,I believe, cannot be reformed. Without the offending passages, Islam would not be Islam.
As for my assertion that the Reformation stripped away centuries of accretion…, I was talking about the additions that were added to Christianity to make it palatable to the populations that they were attempting to convert, the indulgences, the customs that were formed or adopted that muddled the message. Many of these were latter dropped by the Catholic Church itself during its own reformation process. I wasn't focusing on the following political upheaval, only on the changes within the Body of Christ within the different denominations.
Posted by: epg at March 31, 2004 4:54 AMit would seem that the splaying of the denominations of protestantism is due to a similar psychological mechanism that accompanies politics or division among academic disciplines -- i.e. whenever a lot of people look at information and can think as individuals, shades of understanding will develop. the protestant reformation was metaphysically a movement whereby religion became fully accessible to the individual and need not rely on the agents of the church to conduct the religion in conjunction with or for the benefit of the individual. it is interesting to note that the protestant reformation accompanied the invention of the printing press and the subsequent proliferation of the printed Bible. just goes to show that knowledge is empowering.
Posted by: ted at March 31, 2004 12:47 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)