Thanks for your measured comments. I was getting pretty provocative so I appreciate your measured response.

I have a number of points I want to make in response, but I’m very busy this week and I don’t have time at the moment. I’ll get back this weekend.

Religion is an institution that can change easily to serve any interest. Religion can only serve a common good – and a limited one at best – only when there is a clear division between church and state. As such, I even find the non-profit tax treatment of churches in the US distasteful. Mixing religion and politics is toxic and fascists in Islamic world are molding religion for their political ends.

–
Full Disclosure — I am Muslim by birth but went to a Catholic high school and I am quiet aware of their mythology. Currently I do not practice any faiths although I do appreciate religion’s importance in creating social – albeit exclusionary – networks in a free society. I do go to the Afghan mosque in Northern VA when there is a funeral but do not really pay attention to the service as it bores me to death. Also, I could not stand the sight of what I saw in the “official” Islamic center inside Washington DC, where a self-declared mullah out on Mass Ave was spewing anti-American slogans that were no different than leftist agitprop. The myths, fantasies, and the exclusionary nature of all religions are hard for me to accept.
—-

Hitler lived in the 20th century … politically the same era you and I live in.

An aspect of this that hampers progress is (paraphrasing the words of Mario Puzo’s “Godfather”) they can’t “go against the family”. “Blood” (of the tribe) will out.

We can hope that that enough people will move away from the irrationality of the extreme movement. The West is playing for time.

Islam is what it is. Primivitve and barbaric. There are no distinctions to be made from a doctrinal standpoint.:

It was once the law in Eastern Europe that anyone (almost always applied to Jews) who converted a Christian to another faith could be put to death.

It’s not a problem with Islam but rather a lack of modernity. Islam in any region looks very much like Christianity in Europe at the same level of technological and social development. Contrast Islam in the back country of Afghanistan with that of the Muslims of the Balkans. Balkanian Muslims are virtually indistinguishable from their non-muslim neighbors in the way there religious beliefs get translated into civil law and cultural norms. Those muslims have had the same experience with modernity as most Westerners and as a result, they behave like most Westerners.

An Afghan man faces the death penalty under Islamic law for converting to Christianity:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2095263,00.html

Islam is what it is. Primivitve and barbaric. There are no distinctions to be made from a doctrinal standpoint.

The only distinction to be made is between muslims who follow what their religion in its entirety and those who don’t. The only moderate muslims are those who are willing to reject some elements of the Islamic faith. It is simply not possible to be moderate and civilized and still be a 100% faithful and observant muslim. The contradictions are too severe.

–: The Palestinians (& the IRA for a long time) are a good example of people who seem to have lost the ability (or perhaps any real leaders) to see beyond such tribal vendettas.

I don’t think this is quite the right way to catagorise our enemies.

The Soviets and the IRA (for all that both were evil and contemptible) were at least rational in the last analysis, and it was possible, in the end, to negotiate and deal with them.

The Nazis and Al-Quaida were or are, on the other hand, NOT rational. They cannot be negotiated with and quite simply have to be destroyed as co-existance with them is impossible.

The only alternative is, they will destroy us. Period.

a reminder that religion can be molded to serve the interest of bigots.

The life of the “prophet” Mohammed is also a reminder. He slaughtered entire tribes, sold women and children into slavery, raped, pillaged and plundered. These are all historical facts documented by Muslim and “infidel” sources alike. They cannot be credibly denied. The bottom line is that Mohammed was a bigot who molded Islam to serve his egomaniacal interests.

How can you condemn Hitler without also condemning Mohammed? The only difference between them is that Hitler’s 1000 year reich went down in flames, while Mohammed’s still threatens civilization.

When I think of “Islamists”, I think of people like Bin Laden who carry Islamic faith to its logical conclusion. Islamic history has produced one Bin Laden after the next. As long as Islamic faith exists there will be Bin Ladens. You and I may despise Bin Laden, but he is the most popular man in the Islamic world because his actions are firmly rooted in Islamic faith.

I agreee that democratization is the best way to proceed. But I think that unless democratization is coupled with an ideological battle, it is doomed to failure. We’d be better off with Scowcroft style realpolitik.

Sistani understands and seems to be acting, well, heroically. If enough people in enough countries see the rule of law, marginalization of fanatics, and respect for one another are reasonable goals, all of us are better off.

The Palestinians (& the IRA for a long time) are a good example of people who seem to have lost the ability (or perhaps any real leaders) to see beyond such tribal vendettas.

WRT “false hope,” I think that you and I simply read the odds differently. Time will tell.

I don’t want to write anybody off. Just the opposite.

There are obviously many muslims in the world who are great human beings. However, I think this is true in spite of their faith rather than because of it. I think these people have to create some extreme rationalizations in order to maintain their faith.

I think that these false doctrinal distinctions allow moderate muslims to cling to their rationalizations rather than confronting them. And I think it is better if people confront their rationalizations. Otherwise, we are just deferring the inevitable ideological showdown.

I understand why you disagree with me. The consequences of what I’m advocating are pretty serious. But I think the distinctions you are making just give false hope.

Anyway, here is a good David Warren essay on this topic (apologies in advance if I mess up the html):

link

You keep asserting that Islam as a whole is evil, based on your interpretion of Islamic writings. Meanwhile, in the real world, I see a diverse range of Muslims from self-proclaimed jihadis who are generally hostile to the West (and to Muslims who are more tolerant) to many Muslims who are friendly to the West. There was a rally in sympathy with the USA in Teheran after 9/11. You want to write those people off?

The point was that Turkey has been able to accommodate itself to the western world.

They have done so by taking extreme measures to guard against an Islamic resurgance. If these very same measures were adopted in the West, then “moderate” muslims would be screaming like hell against them.

Ah, but this isn’t mainly about doctrine. It’s about what people do and are capable of doing.

You seem to be missing your own point. The whole premise was that there are doctrinical distinctions between Islam and “Islamism”. And your hope is that by making this distinction the West can appeal to moderates.

I think this is a dead end approach. You are arguing for an equivalent of detente with the Islam. I think idea is as likely to succeed as it was with Communism. It was only when Reagan characterized Communism as the evil it was that we were finally able to defeat it.

So it will be with Islam. Islam is an even greater as Communism and Fascism. It is Communism and Fascism WITH God. We must confront this evil head on. We will not win this ideological battle by encouraging moderates to cling to their beliefs by making false doctrinal distinctions. They must be told the truth, just as the Commies were.

The point was that Turkey has been able to accommodate itself to the western world. It didn’t do so by acting like Massachusetts, because the cultures are different and require somewhat different standards and institutions. If the Turks can do it, why not Iranians or Jordanians or Iraqis? It won’t be easy but — and I suspect millions of Muslims realize this — it’s better than the alternatives. We should do everything we can to help such Muslims, and the starting point is to recognize that they exist.

I’m not missing the point. I was ignoring it because it was a distraction from the main issue which is the nature of Islam itself. Whether or not segments of the Islamic world follow every aspect of their faith has no bearing on the demands of their faith. There are plenty of Catholics that have abortions. Does that mean Catholic doctrine supports abortion?

Ah, but this isn’t mainly about doctrine. It’s about what people do and are capable of doing. To the extent doctrine is a variable it is reasonable for us to draw distinctions and to discourage adherents of jihadist doctrines and encourage others. As in your example about Catholics, there are many Muslims who are not adherents of jihadist movements or are not devout or who are selective in their adherence to doctrine. As long as that is the case it makes no sense to interpret the behavior of all Muslims as mainly a function of the nominal doctrines of some narrow jihadist movements.

This comment reveals a complete ignorance of both Islamic and Christian theology, along with a very loose grasp on reality.

Seperation of church and state is a central tenet of Christian doctrine straight from Jesus himself – “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. Theocracy is anti-Christian.

In contrast, there is no theological distinction between mosque and state in Islam. They are a single, indvisible entity in the form of the Caliphate. This example was set by Mohammed himself when he became the first Caliph and made himself both Caesar and God.

You’re crazy if you spend any time worrying about a bogeyman like Christian theocracy. Theocracy hasn’t existed in the Christian world for hundreds of years.

In contrast, the Caliphate was only sent to the ash-heap of history a mere 80 years ago (much to Bin Laden’s despair) and there are little micro-theocracies littered throughout the Islamic world today.

I have a question for you. I have said harsh things about your prophet and the religious law he invented. And you have chosen not to defend your prophet and his law. Furthemore, you have spoken out against theocracy, so I assume you don’t support restoration of the Caliphate.

If you won’t defend your prophet or Sharia law, and you won’t support the Caliphate, one what basis do you consider yourself a Muslim at all? What remnants of your faith do you believe in?

I do not think, for example, that the people of Turkey are using democracy as a jihadist tactic.

Maybe you should ask yourself why Kemal Ataturk was not so complacent. Why did he ban Islamic parties and constitutionally empower the Turkish military to overthrow democratically elected Islamic governments at the military’s discretion? Why has this power been use repeatedly since the establishment of the modern Turkish republic, and even threatened in the last election in 2002?

What did Ataturk know about Islam and the Turkish people that you don’t?

On your arguments you continue to miss the point.

I’m not missing the point. I was ignoring it because it was a distraction from the main issue which is the nature of Islam itself. Whether or not segments of the Islamic world follow every aspect of their faith has no bearing on the demands of their faith. There are plenty of Catholics that have abortions. Does that mean Catholic doctrine supports abortion?

So, your point is irrelevant from a theological standpoint. Do you make this point out of real conviction, or is it a matter of expediency? Are you practicing Western-style taqiya?