It is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between civilized and uncivilized.
OK, read later
Ping
The search for Moderate Islam will take you to the same place as would the search for an informed comment by Ted Kennedy.
| [snip] Yet much more is now required of the adherents of Islam: the reinvention of their religion. No longer can the words of the Koran be considered inerrant, infallible, those of Allah himself. The words must be read thoughtfully and critically, and the wisdom they contain extracted with reflection, not reflexively. Christianity emerged from its Dark Ages when its sacred texts were considered infallible and criticism condemned (often to death) as heresy, to subject itself to historical examination and rational discussion. It is stronger for it. For a religion's strength does not lie in fanatical belief, in an unquestioned assumption that disagreement or criticism of it is an incomprehensible perversion. A religion's strength lies in the goodness it does for people's souls. As Al-Rawandi puts it: The claims of Islam do not depend on historical origins, but on an inner knowledge of God, the accompaniment and reward of piety. What makes Islam true is the spiritual life of Moslems, not religious history but religious experience. While Jadidism was snuffed by the Soviets, its revival, combined with the inner peace and truths provided by Sufism, could reinvent an Islam prepared to participate and prosper in the 21st century. The combined synergy of Sufism and Jadidism would be the salvation of Islam. Today it stands in dire need of being saved. I hope that dedicated Islamic scholars will appear on the scene to create such a salvatory synergy. In the meantime, none of us any longer needs to be afraid or intimidated by the Myth of Mecca. -- Jack Wheeler, HERE |
We all hear what Dr. Pipes is saying but, if it is true (and at this point this is pure speculation), how do we reconcile this with the fact that, after 9/11, moderate Muslims around the world joined hardliners in rejoicing and cheering.
I respectfully agree with Mr. Pipes and would argue that Moderate Islam is the solution. Islam desperately needs a Reformation and such forces come from the common folk in society which account for 90+% of Islamic citizenry.
Pipes is absolutely correct. I have felt this way for some time. Moreover, much of what we call "Radical Islam" might not be related to Islam at all. Might want to check out the following article for more...
http://www.worldthreats.com/russia_former_ussr/Terrorists%20In%20Muslim%20Diguise.htm
If your interested, read original post and then see link in post #12.
This is the crux of the problem.
Islam cannot remain Islam if it is changed into the "peaceful religion" Bush claims it is. If Islam cannot be changed into a more civilized religion then it will remain the anti-democratic, barbaric, religion it has always been.
Jonah Goldberg
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
Earlier this month the Washington Post's Richard Cohen
wrote, "As the late Susan Sontag bravely pointed out
in a New Yorker essay published right after Sept. 11,
2001, those terrorist attacks were in response to
American policy in the Middle East - not, as Bush has
said repeatedly since, because Islamic radicals cannot
abide freedom."
And Patrick Buchanan - allegedly on the other side of
the ideological spectrum - has declared countless
times, "Osama bin Laden and his crew up there in Tora
Bora did not stumble on a copy of the Bill of Rights
and go berserk that Americans are free in the United
States."
In short, the notion that America is in a war for
freedom over tyranny has elicited bipartisan
snickering and guffawing. In the wake of Bush's
inaugural, the chorus of complaints intensified. And
understandably so, given the fact that his address was
the most forceful articulation of his "freedom" vision
to date.
But before the cackles could reach their crescendo,
the naysayers hit an inconvenient snag. Musab
al-Zarqawi, the "prince" of Al-Qaida in Iraq,
appointed by Osama Bin Laden, came out and agreed with
President Bush. "We have declared a fierce war on this
evil principle of democracy and those who follow this
wrong ideology," Zarqawi declared in a statement.
"Democracy is also based on the right to choose your
religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of
God."
You can almost hear Cohen and Buchanan snapping their
pencils "Darn it, stop stepping on my message!"
Zarqawi's declaration came after a statement by Bin
Laden himself in December, in which he pronounced:
"Anyone who participates in these elections . has
committed apostasy against Allah."
Now, this doesn't mean that Bin Laden and Zarqawi
aren't motivated by less lofty - or merely different -
principles than an Islamist rejection of democracy. To
be sure, Bin Laden's initial grievances included
America's relationship to Saudi Arabia, Israel and all
the usual complaints. But underlying these gripes was
an ideology - and remains an ideology - opposed to
freedom and democracy. The intellectual founder of
Islamism, Sayyid Qutb, wrote in 1957: "In the world
there is only one party, the party of Allah; all of
the others are parties of Satan and rebellion. Those
who believe fight in the cause of Allah; and those who
disbelieve fight in the cause of the rebellion."
If you peruse the incalculably valuable website
Memri.org - which translates articles, manifestoes and
broadcasts from across the Arabic world - you will
find countless declarations from Islamist groups
declaring that democracy is an "atheist" heresy that
replaces the law of God with the law of man, and that
anyone who advocates elections is ipso facto an
infidel. In his December statement, Osama Bin Laden
"ruled" - as if he has any right to do so - that Iraqi
forces who aid the upcoming elections "are apostates
who should not be prayed over upon their deaths. They
cannot inherit, and they must not be inherited from
[after their deaths]. Their wives are divorced from
them, and they must not be buried in Muslim
cemeteries."
Sure sounds like someone hates democracy to me.
Those who pooh-pooh the notion that our enemies hate
freedom believe that such ideologically totalitarian
movements can exist within their own borders
indefinitely. All we have to do is treat them like a
hornet's nest and don't upset them (no matter that
they topple their own governments and seek ever more
conquests).
Unfortunately, we live in a world where a bunch of
antidemocratic and homicidal zealots can make life
dangerous for all of us. "Not our fight," the
president's critics seem to say. But if they're wrong,
thousands or millions could die as a result. And, like
it or not, that fight is in Iraq right now.
For the first time in a hard-fought, bloody, and at
times metaphysically depressing couple of years, it
looks like there's cause for optimism there.
Indications are that turnout will be high in Sunday's
elections. Sunni leaders now say they want a role in
constructing the new constitution. Zarqawi's prized
bomb-making lieutenant was captured, and interim Prime
Minister Allawi is gaining support.
But the best news from Iraq in a while is Zarqawi's
forceful and forthright rejection of democracy and
freedom as a principle. He doesn't want a more
"authentic" democracy, he wants to kill it. This alone
gives Iraqis, particularly the Sunnis he claims to
represent, a stark choice: Accept the painful but
promising path of elections, or side with the man most
responsible for the car-bombings of mosques and
markets, who would replace Saddam's nationalist
totalitarianism for a new religious one ruled by
foreigners like him and Bin Laden. Given that choice,
who can doubt the Iraqis will vote with their hearts
and ballots for what's behind Curtain No. 1.
Islam-list
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
I'm betting on finding Atlantis first.
There is no moderate Islam. That includes the terrorists we are wasting our time with in Iraq.
I have defended Pipes before in a letter to the editor. He makes a lot of compelling points, and I hope he is correct. However, I also think there is a core pathology in Islam that cannot be addressed by trying to cull the extremists from the moderates. It would require a full-scale re- evaluation of the concept of jihad and how Islam is promulgated. At the end of the day, Islam in its current state does not believe that someone should be allowed to move from Islam to another religion. My former mother-in-law and father-in-law were both born as Muslims and converted to Christianity - and had been shot at and threatened with death by their relatives for doing such. Until Islam goes from such a feudal mentality to instead offering its views and competing in the marketplace of ideas without threat of death to those who disagree or want to leave the fold, it will remain a medieval religion at heart.
