Some useful thoughts from Barry Rubin:
4.There are no moderate Muslims — is it a myth created by liberals?
Funny, I know a lot of them and they don’t seem a myth to me. But they are about 1 percent, have little power, and Western governments show no sympathy for them. Again, the problem is NOT that no moderate Muslims exist. The problem is: A.) Radicals are portrayed as moderates repeatedly in the West or pretend to be such; and B.) the number of moderates is very limited, they have little influence, and they are constantly intimidated.
But there are millions of anti-Islamist Muslims all over the world. They may be traditionalists, they may be nationalists, and they may be moderates. Yet their interpretation of Islam is different from that of the Islamists. We should remember that it wasn’t long ago when revolutionary Islamists were viewed as virtual heretics. The fact that Islamists draw on normative Islam doesn’t prove that they have the only or the correct interpretation of Islam.
It is ridiculous to claim that radical Islamists aren’t “real” or “proper” Muslims. But it is equally ridiculous to claim that all Muslims must be Islamists or they aren’t following their religion.
There are three camps in the West in understanding this issue:
* Islamists represent the “right” interpretation of Islam and thus there cannot be moderate Muslims. This is the view taken by many on the “anti-jihad” side. It isn’t wrong because such a view is “bigoted” or isn’t helpful tactically. It is wrong because it doesn’t correspond to the facts and realities.
* Islamists have hijacked the real Islam which is a religion of peace. That is the position of “politically correct” people, the idea that dominates Western governments, the mass media, and academia. This view is equally ridiculous. Islamists can cite the Koran, the hadith, and many other sacred writings to justify their positions. They didn’t make this stuff up. Violent jihad, treating non-Muslims as dhimmis, and antisemitism are not new ideas which emerged from the minds of a tiny minority.
* There is in Islam, as in other religions, a struggle over interpretations. Different sides can cite texts and precedents. Were the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the worst excesses of the past the “real” Christianity? Of course not. And Christianity changed over time. Many debates and battles took place. The problem with Islam is not its “essence” but its place on the timeline. In Western terms, the debate in Islam is in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, with powerful forces wanting to return to the seventh century.
My view, the third one, can be summed up as seeing two people fighting over control of the steering wheel in an automobile speeding down the road. Both can claim ownership of the car. As an anti-Islamist Iranian intellectual once put it, the minute someone says that Islam must be interpreted in any one way they are wrong.
There’s a lot more to read there, and no just on Islam.
You know what, I’ve decided I don’t care. I’m not a Muslim, I don’t care what they think about themselves. I care about one thing only: that we stop letting people kill us because we’re too timid to keep them at a distance. Remember, the World Trade Center wasn’t destroyed by an invading force that came from outside; it was destroyed by people we let live here. And we keep trying to be friends with everyone who clearly indicates they don’t want to be pals.
[blockquote]Funny, I know a lot of [moderate Muslims] and they don’t seem a myth to me. But they are about 1 percent, have little power, and Western governments show no sympathy for them.
So 99% of Muslims are giving other 1% a bad name.
There is another point here worth making. See the holy scriptures of two religions – Islam and Christianity. According to the doctrine of abrogation, the Koran is littered with appeals to violence in the name of Allah, while the New Testament’s central message is “love thy neighbour as a man like yourself” and the message of the parable of the Good Samaritan is that your neighbour does not have to be a physical neighbour, or even someone who shares your belief. Note that Samaritans in Jesus’s day were regarded as vile heretics with whom no good Jew would deal.
In other words, violent Christians are going against the word of Christ whereas violent Muslims are exemplars.
Yeah, every time someone writes about Muslims (and yes, I know many, they are wonderful people), I replace “Muslim” with “Catholic” and names of countries with “Ireland” or “Poland”.
150 years ago, everything you folks say was said about my papist ancestors, and those of my husband. And that’s where you fail. It didn’t matter how many Micks died making the railroads, they weren’t really American, because they listened to that Pope guy. And they’re subhuman. And they just can’t learn any better.
And the Old Testament is filled with all sorts of similar stuff. And no, I’m not Muslim.
silvermine Says:
June 20th, 2011 at 4:39 am
Funny, I don’t remember too many Irish pogroms on the railroad route. How many coolie Chinese died with those Irishmen?
I follow the 3rd example too. Islam is where Christianity was 6 or 7 hundred years ago. School is still out on which side will win but the odds are changing and I don’t think for the good.
…the Old Testament is filled with all sorts of similar stuff. And no, I’m not Muslim
Yes, that would explain why all those Jews are always blowing up kindergartens.
Where is the New Testament for the Quran, silvermine?
The Poles, Irish and Papists weren’t flying planes into the sides of buildings, nor do I recall any Pope issuing an encyclical urging violence against non-Catholics. I know that the majority of Muslims are people like any other, who just want to live and let live. Their religion and hole scriptures, however, do teach violence and intolerance towards non-Muslims.
Another point that needs to be made is that the ‘moderate’ Muslims (those that exist, and yes…I have met some myself) will say or do NOTHING to condemn the violent ones. We are constantly subjected to the litany of excuses, evasions, etc., all of which are used to avoid any responsibility for the actions of one’s co-religionists, while at the same time claiming victim status as a part of that group. Most (not all, sadly enough) in the pro-life movement, for instance, openly condemn those who use violence to promote their cause, and disassociate themselves from those who do. Most of the so-called ‘Moderate Muslims’ (by and large, there are always exceptions) do not do this.
There are many fine and decent men and women who are Muslims. There are many evil and violent ones who are Muslims as well. Until group 1 decides that group 2 is engaged in intolerable behavior and does not tolerate it (either by word or deed), they are complicit in the evil that group 2 does.
Simply using the word “Jihadist” goes a long, damn way in shaping the debate in a fashion that you don’t have “moral equivalency seeking.”
You’re fundamentally making the “key descriptor” revolve around their violence instead of their religion. If an idiot then argues about that term, you can then say “Fine, I’ll call them crusaders.”
Doing this comes back to exactly what we did to the violent Catholics. We called them ‘terrorists’, and fundamentally focused on their violence instead of their religion.
I had a blog post a couple of years back where I criticized terrorists, and got a troll attacking me for “Islamophobia.” My reply?
I never heard from him again.
Think it might be about time to let it go?
My Irish mother and her Irish mother-in-law certainly thought so.
There are many misconceptions that prevails in the society about people around us. It is better to a have a personal view rather giving ears to what other thinks!!
Al,
Clever shuffle, but no sale….
In the case of the Jihadis, the so-called moderate muslims resolutely refuse to condemn their violence, asking instead for understanding and tolerance. In the case of violent Christians (or Jews, for that matter), their co-religionists are far, far more likely to condemn their violence and aggressively DISOWN them. The difference is significant. No terroristic Christian, for instance, is given aid, comfort and ideological shelter by his coreligionists, Jihadis, expect (and demand) this as a matter of course.
Their are violent criminals in every religious group, and every religion has those who pervert the word of God to defend their own crimes. The test is how the religions themselves respond to this perversion, and sadly Islam has shown itself to be utterly craven in its feeble attempts at self-hygiene.
f1b0nacc1, what you said is unfortunately just not true. Americans may think it is but we Brits know better. In particular, quite a lot of Catholic priests refused to condemn the IRA; in fact, IIRC at least one was arrested for terrorist offenses. And the extremists (short of actual violent action) on both sides were perfectly willing to aid the terrorists. As were quite a lot of Americans, before 9/11 showed them the error of their ways and the flow of money through NORAID dried up.
muslims do not assimilate into western society because islam is a theocracy and demands supremacy. there is no radical, moderate, hijacked or any other nuanced semanticism type of islam. there is only islam which is based on the life of a murdering 8th century warlord.
the twin fogs of political correctness & ignorance must be dispersed before western society better understands this menace. even a brief review of islamic theology & history quickly exposes the deadly roots of this evil ideology.
see the links in the pdf version below for more accurate info about islam
==========
islam is a horrible ideology for human rights
5 key things about islam
1. mythical beliefs – all religions have these (faith) because its part of being a religion: having beliefs without proof until after the believer dies. the problem is people will believe almost anything.
2. totalitarianism – islam has no seperation of church and state: sharia law governs all. there is no free will in islam: only submission to the will of allah as conveniently determined by the imams who spew vapors to feather their own nests. there are no moderate muslims: they all support sharia law.
3. violence – islam leads the pack of all religions in violent tenets for their ideology & history: having eternal canonical imperatives for supremacy at all costs and calling for violence & intimidation as basic tools to achieve these goals.
4. dishonesty – only islam has dishonesty as a fundamental tenet: this stems from allah speaking to mohamhead & abrogation in the koran which is used to explain how mo’s peaceful early life was superseded by his warlord role later.
5. misogyny – present day islam is still rooted in 8th century social ethics: treating females as property of men good only for children, severely limiting their activities, dressing them in shower curtains and worse.
conclusions ??
there really are NO redeeming qualities for this muddled pile of propaganda.
islam is just another fascist totalitarian ideology used by power hungry fanatics on yet another quest for worldwide domination and includes all the usual human rights abuses & suppression of freedoms.
graphics version
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/5792/dangero.jpg
1 page pdf version – do file/download 6kb viewer doesn’t show fonts well, has better fonts header footer links, great for emailing printing etc
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_UyNP-72AVKYWNiNTFlYTEtMTA1ZC00YjhiLTljMDUtMDhhNDE0NDMzNmYz