| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In "Do Radicals Dominate Islam?" at Commentary's Contentions blog (thanks to all who sent this in), Max Boot says it doesn't, and discusses a debate held in New York recently. The debate thesis was "Islam is dominated by radicals."
Boot begins by saying he came into the debate on the fence:
I am seldom accused of being wishy-washy or noncommittal when it comes to major issues of foreign policy. But I was decidedly undecided when I showed up last night for the Intelligence Squared debate in Manhattan on the resolution “Islam is dominated by radicals.”The pro side was argued by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a former Islamic fundamentalist turned Christian evangelical who is now at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Paul Marshall, formerly of Freedom House, now at the Hudson Institute; and Asra Normani [sic], a former Wall Street Journal reporter (and good friend of the late Daniel Pearl) who has chronicled her own battles against Muslim hardliners at her hometown mosque in Morgantown, West Virginia.
It's Asra Nomani, not Normani. Anyway, I was originally invited to be one of the participants in this debate, but the invitation was rescinded when one of the panelists arguing that Islam is not dominated by radicals objected to my presence. They were:
On the con side were Reza Aslan, a professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside; Richard Bulliet, a professor of history at Columbia; and Edina Lekovic, a Muslim of Bosnian descent who is director of communications at the Muslim Public Affairs Council (and who was wearing a head scarf).
I wasn't able to find out who got me dropped from this debate -- it could have been any or all of them, since I've written about the distortions of all three: Aslan here, Bulliet here, and Lekovic briefly several times, notably here and here. It doesn't matter, but it's interesting that the Intelligence Squared debate organizers had no problem featuring the notorious Lekovic, who, as Steve Emerson has documented, lied on national television about her editorial role in an Islamic publication that praised Osama bin Laden as a great mujahid in 1999. And here this mendacious woman is arguing that Islam is not dominated by radicals! Bravo for life's little ironies.
But Boot, apparently as unfamiliar with Lekovic's odious track record as were the debate organizers, doesn't pick up on this irony, and indeed, thinks that Lekovic's side won the debate.
Both sides threw out a lot of good arguments. Gartenstein-Ross and Aslan, in particular, engaged in some heated exchanges that entertained the audience. The problem is that neither side could really define the crucial terms in the debate—“dominated” and “radicals.”
I didn't see this debate, but it would indeed be crucial to define those terms. The lack of agreement on the meaning of those terms and others has severely hampered our ability to mount a comprehensively effective anti-jihad resistance.
Both agreed that radicals were certainly a big problem within Islam. The pro side pointed repeatedly to the Saudi and Iranian regimes as emblematic of the problem, and said that the Saudis are spreading their hateful Wahhabi doctrines. All true. But does Wahhabism dominate global Islam? The con side could point to convincing Pew opinion surveys showing that most Muslims reject Al Qaeda and its ideology of violence. They could also point to surveys (and election results in countries like Pakistan) that show most Muslims don’t want to be governed by hard-line Islamic parties.
Of course, I was not there, but this sounds as if, not surprisingly, neither side pointed out that Wahhabism is by no means the only source of Islamic "radicalism," but that violent jihad and the subjugation of non-Muslims are universally taught by all the orthodox sects of Islamic jurisprudence. Nor is Al-Qaeda the sole manifestation of this "radicalism." And as for those polls, actually Islamic hardliners have made significant electoral gains wherever remotely free elections have been held -- and the "moderates" elected in Iraq and Afghanistan made sure that Sharia was enshrined as the highest law of the land in the Iraqi and Afghan constitutions.
The pro side replied that the views of the majority were irrelevant: the radicals were able to dominate the institutions of Islam and intimidate the moderate majority into acquiescence. There seemed to be some truth to this. But the pro debaters were, I thought, confused: were they complaining about the dominance of theological conservatism or of violent radicalism?
Here Boot is apparently unaware, since he probably adheres to the Islam-Is-A-Religion-Of-Peace-Hijacked-By-A-Tiny-Minority-Of-Extremists Dogma, of how deeply theologically conservative the contemporary jihadist movement is. It is a revivalist movement, reasserting theological principles of jihad warfare enunciated in the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad, and codified very early on by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
Normani [sic], in particular, complained that a “patriarchy” dominated Islam: she cannot become an imam preaching to men; in more and more mosques women and men have to sit separately. That may be true, but that’s very different—and much less alarming from my infidel perspective—than saying that more and more Muslims are lining up to practice terrorism in the name of jihad. In fact, most conservative Muslims (e.g., Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq) oppose radical calls for a religious war even while preaching a version of sharia that would be intolerable to Western liberals.
In this, of course, Boot once again demonstrates his apparent unawareness of the traditionalist character of Islamic jihadism, such that the institutionalized subjugation of women about which Nomani complained stems from the same wellsprings as the calls to wage jihad against infidels and subjugate them. And as for Sistani, it has never been demonstrated that his objection to Al-Sadr's jihad is principled rather than tactical, and his affirmation at his website of the unclean status of unbelievers (per Qur'an 9:28), on a level with pigs, blood, and feces, would be objectionable not just to Western liberals, but to anyone concerned with basic human rights and human decency.
In the end, I concluded that the pro side had not proven their case. They had certainly demonstrated that radicalism is a large and growing problem. But dominant? Not on the evidence presented last night. So I voted with the con side, notwithstanding my occasional annoyance at their leftist rhetorical tics. But I was in the decided minority. 46% of the audience voted “pro” before the debate, a figure that swelled to 73% after the debate.While the debate was fascinating, the issue is not one that we should lose too much sleep over. Whether radicals actually dominate Islam or are simply trying to dominate it doesn’t really matter from a practical perspective. Either way, we need to do what we can do aid the forces of moderation if we are to prevail in the Long War.
And here's Boot's key statement: "Whether radicals actually dominate Islam or are simply trying to dominate it doesn’t really matter from a practical perspective." Instead, "we need to do what we can do aid the forces of moderation."
Really?
That sounds great, but consider that Boot would evidently consider Sistani among the forces of moderation, despite his Shi'ite orthodoxy that would subjugate the infidel, if in power, no less than Sunni orthodoxy would.
And it is, again, ironic to see him dismiss the importance of this issue as he watched Edina Lekovic herself arguing that the forces of radicalism do not dominate Islam. Did it ever occur to Max Boot that some people who support Islamic supremacism (not that Edina Lekovic is among them, of course!) might find it quite useful to deny that the forces of Islamic radicalism are a significant force, so that infidels will not get the idea that they need to spend too much of their time or energy investigating or trying to impede the activities of those radicals?
This in itself highlights the practical necessity of assessing realistically the provenance and popularity of Islamic supremacist notions among Muslims, so as to determine how best to resist it. In other words, it matters a great deal whether or not "radicals" dominate Islam. It also matters that the distinction on the ground between "moderates" and "radicals" -- that is, the Muslims who are not waging jihad against non-Muslims in any form, and those who are or will be -- is virtually impossible to determine. Whom we count as allies, what resources we devote to fighting that radicalism and in what ways -- all this and more hinges on the correct understanding of these questions.
But of course, most analysts aren't even asking this question, much less answering it correctly.
Posted by Robert at April 19, 2008 12:08 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Your response to these remarks here, is why you got dropped from the debate. These people are just not up to your knowledge level, and they know it...
Posted by: duh_swami![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 19, 2008 1:17 PM
Make no mistake, those inclined to defend Islam or to discuss it in public, want suitable attendance by confused people and Robert Spencer does not fit that bill and they know it. Invitations to such events will be very few or nonexistent.
Posted by: Sounder at April 19, 2008 2:07 PM
I do not believe that people can dominate Islam; Islam dominates people. I have read many, many rulings from despensers of Islamic opinion. I think I have only scratched the surface of the complete control that Islam commands of every aspect of daily life.
Posted by: Pelayo at April 19, 2008 3:25 PM
Sounds like Boot missed some stuff the audience didn't. To go from 46% "pro" before the debate to over 70% afterwards is impressive indeed.
Imagine if Robert had been there.
Posted by: Haid Dasalami at April 19, 2008 3:28 PM
Lekovic & Aslan have no leg to stand on:
bringing Robert to such a 'debate' would be a PR disaster not only for these trained agit-props, but for the whole ummah. They know they can't debate Robert Spencer, so they smear and try to discredit him.
Standard procedure...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 19, 2008 3:42 PM
OT - here's some bad news from the Gates of Vienna site about the ex-muslim guy who "was planning to make a cartoon animation on the Prophet Muhammad, which was to feature explicit sexual scenes, but recently agreed to give up the idea in response to an appeal from Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin."
"Dutch politician Ehsan Jami is closing down his Central Committee for Ex-Muslims. He claims people are scared to join the organisation because of threats from Muslims."
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/04/ehsan-jami-closes-his-organization.html#readfurther
Posted by: Rob at April 19, 2008 5:04 PM
The con side could point to convincing Pew opinion surveys showing that most Muslims reject Al Qaeda and its ideology of violence.
He's missing the point. Do those same Muslims believe the entire world should live under sharia law? Focusing on al qaeda means he and others like him miss the big picture. It's not so much the radicals we have to worry about as it is Islam itself. It's about more than praying in the mosque and making your pilgrimage to Mecca. Mainstream Muslims believe in sharia. Witness Dearborn. People can point to Muslims who live successfully in the West but the exceptions aren't the issue. The problem is those who bring their philosophy with them and expect all others to conform to it. The "moderates" may not support al Qaeda's methods but my guess is they are in sympathy with its goals. If not, we would have heard a lot more from them before now.
Posted by: PMK at April 19, 2008 5:57 PM
"Whether radicals actually dominate Islam or are simply trying to dominate it doesn’t really matter from a practical perspective." - I have to wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Whether one is radical - willing to use violence, or moderate - only willing to use the media, politics, disinformation, etc. is meaningless. They are both waging the same battle, but using different weapons. Unfortunately, I do not believe he meant it in the same way.
Posted by: Mick_n_NYC at April 19, 2008 7:58 PM
Boot and others need a reality check if they are so deluded into believing that Islam is a 'religion of peace".
Posted by: Clifford at April 19, 2008 8:12 PM
A small percentage of vicious, bloodthirsty militants can control any docile herd, or Ummah.
SEE: the history of the nascent, numerically-small Nazis or the communist "Bosheviks", who cunningly named themselves the "majority", for the psychological advantage, even though they were literally the minority
The intolerant Koran is a terrorist-producing document.
It is the main problem, not the deluded human product.
The terrorists can be stopped by brute force, but, unless the Koran is undermined and debunked as the greatest religious fraud in history, it will continue to send out malignant ideological tumors, called jihadis.
It is the dismal dogma, not its victims, that we need to defeat.
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 19, 2008 8:51 PM
Max Booth is a Council on Foreign Affairs globalist whose last article I refuted in my city newspaper he espoused the theory of how Malaysia was a great example of a Muslim nation that was more interested in making money then in promoting Islam. I pointed out the many elements of religious discrimination in Malaysia but my take is that Booth and his CFA cronies are very much in alignment with the tyrannical, global intentions of the Jihadists.
Posted by: Briars at April 19, 2008 9:25 PM
Max Boot is like many others. Islamic doctrine on world Jihad and conquest is too unpleasant to think about. So to make life easier they engage in the sin of approximations.....
That Islam has one billion devotees so it must be approximately like Christianity Judaism and other great world religions. It must be roughly equal to and roughly as peaceful as these other religions
The Koran says fight for Jihad until the whole world is Muslim. Max Boot and others don't want to know about it
Posted by: dennisw at April 19, 2008 9:40 PM
It appears that the "decidedly undecided" blind Boot was indeed lead by the willfully blind (with an agenda) that were on the 'con' side.
Posted by: guide inside at April 19, 2008 11:06 PM
The blind leading the blind!
Proof positive from Booty's own words--"But I was in the decided minority. 46% of the audience voted "pro" before the debate, a figure that swelled to 73% after the debate".
at April 19, 2008 11:21 PM
Max Boot:
"The con side could point to convincing Pew opinion surveys showing that most Muslims reject Al Qaeda and its ideology of violence. They could also point to surveys (and election results in countries like Pakistan) that show most Muslims don’t want to be governed by hard-line Islamic parties."
So many problems with the above quote…where to start? Al-Qaeda is only one terrorist group; some Muslims oppose al-Qaeda yet support other Islamic terrorist groups. There is also a major difference between Sunnis and Shia on this point. Consider this report of a poll of Iranians (predominantly Shia):
"In sharp contrast to their views of al Qaeda, Iranians tend to evaluate Hamas and Hezbollah favorably. Fifty-six percent see Hamas as a “mainly positive influence” in the world and only 8 percent see the Palestinian group as a negative influence. (Another 14 percent say “it depends” or “neither,” while 23 percent decline to answer). They view Hezbollah even more favorably, with three in four (75%) calling the Shiite militants a positive influence, and only 6 percent labeling them a negative influence." http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/313.php?nid=&id=&pnt=313" rel="nofollow">[Source]
Still other Muslims oppose the “lawless” actions of groups they regard as terrorists, yet support Islamic governments that impose or seek to further impose Islamic laws. Such laws permit the Islamic state to carry out what most non-Muslim Westerners would regard as murder (e.g., the killing of apostates, “blasphemers,” homosexuals, adulterers and fornicators, and so on).
Even so, support for bin Laden among Sunnis remains high. Bin Laden’s popularity generally among Sunnis would make most Western politicians envious.
The PEW surveys are weak in many respects. Most of the questions asked of Muslims in the PEW surveys are vague, softball-type questions that avoid specific issues. There have also been Islam apologists among the "researchers" involved in the PEW studies of Muslims' opinions. The PEW polls that I've seen thus far studiously avoid questions about support for specific sharia laws.
Polls that have asked Muslims specific questions (rather than general ambiguous questions about "freedom," etc.) tend to show large minorities to majorities of Muslims supporting sharia generally. For example, a World Public Opinion survey reported last year indicated that most Muslims in the most populous Muslim countries want sharia and even want a caliphate to be set up:
p. 21. “Most respondents express strong support for expanding the role of Islam in their societies, a view that is consistent with the goals of al Qaeda. Large majorities in most countries—an average of 71 percent (39% strongly)—agree with the goal of requiring ‘strict application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.’ Pakistanis were the most enthusiastic with 79 percent agreeing. About three in four Moroccans (76%) and Egyptians (74%) also agreed. Indonesians showed the lowest support: 53 percent agreed and 40 percent disagreed.”
p. 22. “Majorities even agree with the ambitious goal ‘to unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate’ (overall average 65%). Seventy-four percent of Pakistanis agreed with this goal, as did 71 percent of Moroccans and 67 percent of Egyptians. However, in Indonesia, only 49 percent agreed while 40 percent disagreed.”
p. 22. On average 76% agreed with the aim ‘to keep western values out of Islamic countries.’
[Source]
A major survey of Muslims living in Britain also showed large minorities to majorities of Muslims supporting sharia laws and standards. [Source]
at April 20, 2008 12:35 AM
2.
Further information on Sistani’s views [Source] :
Re: Quran 65:4 "Divorce » Iddah of Divorce
2519. A wife who is under nine and who is in her menopause will not be required to observe any waiting period. It means that, even if the husband has had sexual intercourse with her, she can remarry immediately after being divorced.
2520. If a wife who has completed nine years of her age and is not in menopause, is divorced by her husband after sexual intercourse, it is necessary for her to observe the waiting period of divorce. [...]
2524. If a woman who has completed nine years of age, and is not in menopause, contracts a temporary marriage, for example, if she marries a man for a period of one month or a year and the period of her marriage comes to an end, or her husband exempts her from the remaining period, she should observe Iddah. If she sees Haidh, she should observe Iddah for two periods of Haidh, and cannot marry again during that period.
But if she does not see Haidh, then she should refrain from marrying another man for forty five days. And if she is pregnant, she should observe Iddah till the birth or miscarriage of the child, or for forty five days and as a recommended precaution, she should wait for whichever period is longer. [...]"
[Note: Below, Q = Question, A = Seestani’s answer ruling].
“8. Slandering Allah (s.w.t.), Prophet (S) or Imams (a.s.)
Q194: During verbal disputes, some people unfortunately employ words in a non-serious manner that imply disbelief in Allah (s.w.t.) or articulate that which is inappropriate for the infallible ones (a.s.). Is it obligatory to impose a penalty (hadd) on them for that?
A: As long as they are not serious and do not mean what they are saying, there is no shar'i penalty on them but they are deserving of ta'zir. (FM, p. 419)
Q195: If they are serious and intend to slander Allah (s.w.t.), the Prophet (S), the Imams (a.s.), religion or school of law (madhhab) and persist in this.
A: The ruling upon them is death. (FM, p. 419)”
[Source: http://www.al-islam.org/laws/contemporary/ ]
at April 20, 2008 12:46 AM
Didnt Radicals Dominate Japan, Germany, Rome, etc and wasnt it the radicals who caused those horrific wars???
I do believe however that there will be a leader who will come from Islam who will do seemingly incrediable things. This leader will bring peace throughout the world for a short time, notice (for a short time only) then he will turn and force everyone to join Islam or be slaughtered.
at April 20, 2008 4:01 AM
Didnt Radicals Dominate Japan, Germany, Rome, etc and wasnt it the radicals who caused those horrific wars???
I do believe however that there will be a leader who will come from Islam who will do seemingly incredible things. This leader will bring peace throughout the world for a short time, notice (for a short time only) then he will turn and force everyone to join Islam or be slaughtered.
at April 20, 2008 4:02 AM
I posted this befor, but it seems most appropriate now.
A German's point of view on Islam. (By Dr. Emanual Tanay, a well known and well respected psychiatrist.)
A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War ll owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
'Very few people were true Nazis 'he said,' but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it,they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the 'peaceful majority', the 'silent majority', is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War ll was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way acrossSouth East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims
will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands world wide, read this -think about it - and send it on.
Emanuel Tanay, M.D.
2980 Provincial St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
734-997-0256
drtanay@umich.edu
at April 20, 2008 9:00 AM
"Here Boot is apparently unaware, since he probably adheres to the Islam-Is-A-Religion-Of-Peace-Hijacked-By-A-Tiny-Minority-Of-Extremists Dogma, of how deeply theologically conservative the contemporary jihadist movement is. It is a revivalist movement, reasserting theological principles of jihad warfare enunciated in the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad, and codified very early on by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence."
And the revivalist movement didn't have very far to go.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 20, 2008 10:21 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)