Mainstream Muslims Finally Take on Extremists

[bedstuy]

There are a lot of caveats to be made here.

One, this is Indonesia, as the article says, "Analysts say the theology developed organically in a place where Hinduism and Buddhism were the primary religions before Islam."  This is not an example of "Mainstream Muslims," if there truly is such a thing.  Indonesia has a history of secularism and a synthesis of various religious traditions, which says more about Indonesia than about Islam.  And, even in Indonesia, there are Al Qaeda groups and areas where sharia law is enforced as a matter of course.

We should also actually define what is "moderate" and what is "extreme."  Being against ISIS or Al Qaeda does not make you "moderate."  Being non-violent does not make you "moderate" or "mainstream."  The sad fact is that liberals oversimplify Islam to make apologies and defend Muslims, as much as conservatives oversimplify Islam because of xenophobia. 

In my opinion, mainstream Islam is fairly extreme and getting worse.  You have the influence of Saudi Arabia and Iran, which have both turned Islam into a very dangerous thing.  In much of the Islamic world, Islam has become, in large part, a hateful fascist ideology, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan.  So, what is the "true" Islam and what is the anomaly?  What is extreme and what is mainstream?

[bedstuy]

Islam also shouldn't be judged on what Muslim countries do. Well, not entirely.
The question in my mind are countries with minority Muslim populations, where Muslims don't have the same kind of power that they do in majority Muslim countries.
Muslims in a country such as the USA are more likely to be moderate to the degree that they accept the values, culture and ethics of whatever country they are in.
Of course, secular countries with Muslim majorities would be better than non secular ones. This would be true of other religions as well.

Islam shouldn't be judged by what Islamic societies do but by what Muslim minorities in non-Islamic societies do? Why? This seems like a random assertion. The only reason I can think of for making it is that you think Muslim minorities make Muslims look better. The fact is, they don't though. It does not look good when a group only supports freedom of expression when they they themselves are a minority.

Right.  It's very interesting how people defend Islam.  There is no much obfuscation in lieu of making actual claims that could be refuted.

An analogy is helpful here.  Let's say we're talking about whether ice cream is a healthy food.  Does the following sentence make sense?  Some people who eat ice cream in moderation are healthy so ice cream is healthy.

Of course not.  It's like people think the argument is, can you be both Muslim and non extreme/moderate?  Sure!  But, speaking up in favor of moderating ice cream, or Islam, or cigarette smoking doesn't necessarily recommend any of those activities.  It recommends not demonizing anyone who is Muslim, smokes one cigarette a year or eats Ice cream, certainly.

I think what everyone wants from Muslims is to very basic.  Accept secularism, secular government and law, accept the basic western liberal conception of civil liberty, and take your religion with an appropriate grain of salt, IE don't be literal or fundamentalist.  That's the same thing we expect from Jews and Christians.

[bedstuy]

I'm defending these patriarchal conservative groups, but they typically aren't the source of jihadism. Indeed why would they? Typically they are loyal to their own ancestral form of heterodox tribal Islam, not some speculative 'worldwide caliphate'.

Well, that's true.  I think Islamic fundamentalism is going through a revival period.  Uneducated people who can't read and aren't part of a globalized society are less likely to see religion as a global struggle.  They're less likely to hate people from around the world, because they don't even care.  As we've gotten more globalized though and Saudi/Iranian influence has radiated out, Islam has gotten more extremist and fundamentalist.

And, I hate to say it, there is a connection between conservative Islam influenced by Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda/ISIS.  Here's how it goes:

Conservative Muslim:  "Sharia law is the ideal, it's totally awesome.  We should have an Islamic government and Western values are corrupt and wrong.  America and Israel have evil foreign policy and they're committing genocide on Muslims.  BUT, we don't condone violence and terrorism is wrong.  Our religion is peaceful."

That's a dangerous message, it's sedition.  Young Muslims hear that and they internalize it.  More impressionable and violent people just delete the caveat that violence is wrong.  And, it's not a huge leap at all.  Violence is a normal human tool and people will inevitably justify it, if they care about something enough.

They aren't especially devout normally - levels of religious piety seem to have very little correlation with 'going jihadi' or not.

Totally disagree.  ISIS members are extremely devout.  They're not religious scholars or experts, sure.  But, if you blow yourself up expecting to go to heaven, you're devout or fanatical in your religious beliefs, by definition.  I think the better point is that they're often young, uneducated in religion and swept up in fervor rather than educated on the finer points.  You actually see ISIS members who can't speak Arabic as I understand it.

That's why I don't think the root cause of terrorism is as much theological as it is psychological.

That's an important point to bring up.  But, I think you're losing the thread a bit.

There is definitely a type of person who joins cult, a type of person who commits acts of violence.  But, if there were no people who could be driven to violence or join a mass movement, the world would be a very different place.  There are such young men who are Christian in America, atheist in China, Jewish in the UK, etc.  But, a far, far, far few of them are in a global terrorist group and are willing to go to extremes like going to another country to fight or kill innocent people.  If it was just the psychology, ISIS like groups would be distributed more or less equally, or according to poverty/opportunity. 

[bedstuy]

As for why is it's Islam and not some other Cray ideology? It's merely what is in vogue right now. A few decades ago the fashion would have been Arab nationalism, and really (although it is now dressed up in religious clothes) the toxic signs of nationalism - feelings of resentment towards foreign powers etc still seem to be there. You are right though that certain countries are inflaming things through their malignant influence - it's worth noting that many previously secular separatist and nationalistic movements are becoming more Islamist in character. I don't really know what it means though. Will popular islamism essentially be a fad like arab nationalism? Who knows.

So, we have this horrible ideology afflicting much of the world including our countries. 

Why is your answer,
"well, what if the problem was another ideology."
"well, it might go away of its own accord."
"well, the problem isn't the ideology, it's that people have low-self esteem so they get caught up in it."

You know, the problem in the 1930s could have been Islamism, but it was fascism.  And, we couldn't hope it went away on its own.  We couldn't send the Nazis to self-esteem classes.  Thankfully, the Islamists don't control a country as scary as Germany.  But, let's acknowledge that parts of Islam are a problem and it needs to change. 

You don't solve the problem by refusing to have the conversation for the sake of people's feelings.

[bedstuy]

crabcake is absolutely right about daesh's "islamism" being more of a cover than an actual deeply-rooted belief ftr.

What do you mean by that?  That seems just obviously untrue.

[bedstuy]

Partially it's logistical. It is very impractical to declare war on an entire religion and for the west to frame it as a matter of us vs Islam (like many republicans are intent on doing so) seems wholly misguided.

I mean let's take the Nazi analogy further. There were many conservatives who disliked the Nazis but never effectively targeted them, and thus allowed Hitler's regime to prosper. Some of them were chabcers who thought they could use the rising Nazi movement to their own ends (which in the Islamic analogy would be certain elements of the Saudi Arabian government). But others were genuinely choosing what they saw as the worst of two evils, with the other evil being communism in the Nazi example. To fight jihadi ideology, you need to form a broad coalition which includes non-violent Islamic conservative movements, even if they are distasteful. You don't want to leave out the mass movement islamists, because it will just prompt further polarisation between radical jihadis and the west.

Moderate radical Islamism

Listen to your argument.  You've got it backwards.  You're deluding yourself.  It's impractical to think you can defeat ISIS, while embracing people who basically believe the same stuff as ISIS, but are "peaceful."  It's impractical to be mealy mouthed and cowardly in the face of truly incompatible ideas. 

We are weak if we're afraid to stick up for our values.  We would have been weak in WWII if we tried to appeal to "moderate Nazis" and refused to frame the war as democracy vs. fascism.  The more you dilute your ideas, the more you stand for nothing.  Watering down our values into something that encompasses moderate Islamism turns them into something nobody could possible want to fight for.  A broad coalition of people who don't agree or know what they're fighting for is weak.

We can't really fight the ideological battle with ISIS unless it becomes Islamic values vs. Western values.  That's what we believe in.  Let's just be clear about what we believe and let the chips fall where they may.  We don't need to enforce these values with war or violence.  We need to stand up for our values with words, for example, supporting people who draw cartoons of Mohammed instead of surrendering our freedom to Islamists in hopes they go away if we surrender enough.

[bedstuy]

Define these "Western Values" and "Islamic Values" that you suppose are inherently exclusive

"Free speech vs. "Blasphemy laws and using violence to stop free speech"
"Feminism vs. Treating women as inferior and mutilating their genitals"
"Democracy, separation of church and state vs. Islamic theocracy"
"Cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism vs. ignorance and hatred of minorities"
"Minority rights vs. Tyranny of the majority"
"An acceptance of basic classical liberal values vs. trying to exploit freedom while speaking against it"
"Gay Rights vs. Death penalty for gay sex"
"Proper law and justice vs. sharia law"
I could go on.

[bedstuy]

Muslims decide what is and is not in their religion.

And, you have to understand my point in the context of my argument.  I think we need to create a break between Muslims and Islamism/Wahhabism/Salafism/Any kind Islam that conflicts with basic human rights and Democratic values. 

Crabcake said we should try to accommodate moderate Islamists and Saudi type Islam which has all the evil of ISIS, just without the extreme brutality and outward violence.  I couldn't disagree more.

As far as Islamist vs. Islamic, it's a fair distinction.  Not eating pork is neither here nor there for me, although I find it annoying.  But, Islamist values are also Islamic values.  I sometimes feel like people want to create this separate category for "bad Islam."  Islamist, Wahhabi, extreme, radical, Islamofascist, political Islam, they all just mean "bad Islam."  Well, there's a danger because some "bad Islamists" call themselves moderate and peaceful while they preach hatred and awful nonsense that goes against American values.  We need to be a bit more specific about what we will and will not accept from our religious groups.

Advocating Sharia law, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, anti-democracy/pro-theocracy, violence against cartoonists, chopping hands off for stealing, nah, that's unacceptable, period.

[bedstuy]

Advocating Sharia law, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, anti-democracy/pro-theocracy, violence against cartoonists, chopping hands off for stealing, nah, that's unacceptable, period.

Yes, I agree with this. I just disagree with the implication that this means we need to go to war against "Islamic values". There are plenty of muslims out there who don't believe in that stuff.

1.5 billion Muslims or something.  Plenty can be totally cool and it doesn't really fix the problem.  There could be 100,000,000 Muslims who are basically liberal, cosmopolitan people, that leaves 1.4 billion who hold problematic views. 

Indonesia or Bangladesh doesn't do most of what you listed.  India has one of the largest populations of muslims and they don't advocate the things you listed, although India does have sharia law for muslims (which I think is a travesty and should be changed but that's a discussion for another thread). It's just not helpful to go on a crusade against "islamic values".

Again, you can't argue in favor Islam by looking at the exceptions or the least Islamic countries. 

There also are extremists in India, Indonesia and Bangladesh.  This guy is a popular Indian Muslim speaker.  He supports the death penalty for apostates, says "Muslims can have sex with female slaves" and said the following

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, you would say he's totally fine because he's Indian?  What about the Indonesian Al Qaeda affiliates, or the Bangladeshis who have murdered atheist bloggers?  How about them?

Alright, well most of this is good to know, because from reading your posts in this thread and many others both here and on AAD I was getting the impression you thought Islam in and of itself is the problem, which is why I was so concerned with the sentence I asked about before.


However, I would like to point out that those "Western Values" that you listed before are not at all exclusive or original to the West as we understand it today, and that vast amounts of what are considered "Western values" (additionally, what constitutes Western values is a whole debate itself) actually originated in the Islamic world.

Nope.  No Western values originated in the Islamic world.  The Islamic world preserved many classical texts, but they didn't influence the west with their own views.  The scholars of the enlightenment weren't reading Arabic texts.  But, I agree that Western values are not exclusive to the West.  They're universal.  Every person in the world deserves freedom, religious liberty, democracy, secularism, rule of law, no exceptions.

Maybe I'm reading too much into what you're saying and your views, but you seem to have a very black-and-white view of the Islamic world, particularly how you bring up Sharia law a lot and your laser-like focus on just the Middle East.

The application of Islamic Sharia law to democracy is a huge topic with a very broad range of views in the debate on how it should be applied to governance and law, not unlike how America is a secular democracy yet we still trace our legal foundation to Judeo-Christian values, or how there are Christian Democratic parties across the world that are inspired by Christian values and push those values within a democratic framework with respect to human rights. I strongly suggest you read this first link, especially the "Obstacles" subsection, and while you're doing it, keep in mind the effect that the Middle East will have on Islam in the rest of the world and the counterforces to Islamist forces within Muslims communities around the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_democracy


I would also suggest that you read these articles, and maybe do a bit more digging yourself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh#The_current_schools_of_jurisprudence

The way to deal with religion and government/law has already been discovered.  It is separation of church and state.  If you don't accept separation of church and state, you're a part of the problem.

And, I'm really particularly talking about intellectually battling the people making Islam more radical.  That's where the focus should be.  There shouldn't be mosques in NYC which preach "democracy is evil" and never get any criticism and get labeled as "moderate Muslims."

[bedstuy]

Define these "Western Values" and "Islamic Values" that you suppose are inherently exclusive

"Free speech vs. "Blasphemy laws and using violence to stop free speech"
"Feminism vs. Treating women as inferior and mutilating their genitals"
"Democracy, separation of church and state vs. Islamic theocracy"
"Cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism vs. ignorance and hatred of minorities"
"Minority rights vs. Tyranny of the majority"
"An acceptance of basic classical liberal values vs. trying to exploit freedom while speaking against it"
"Gay Rights vs. Death penalty for gay sex"
"Proper law and justice vs. sharia law"
I could go on.

You need to visit my "understanding Islam" thread...

Correct me where I'm wrong.

[bedstuy]

Is it even worth trying to make the Middle East accommodating to cosmopolitan/liberal values?  I just don't think those areas are suitable for democracy, let alone the "Western values" as bedstuy is describing them. 

1.  People and areas of the world do not belong to a religion.  Muslims do not belong to their religion, they're free people.  They have the right to think for themselves, the most basic right we all share.

2.  There is a gradient even in the Middle East and there all kind of people everywhere.  There are gay  atheists in Saudi Arabia who hate their country and want to move to San Francisco.  There are ex-Muslims, secularists, liberals, feminists, and intellectuals in every single country.  Let's water the seeds so they can sprout in 20, 30, 100 years, as the case may be. 

3.  There are radical Islamists, conservative Muslims and Muslims with problematic beliefs that need to be engaged with in America, the UK, France, Sweden, etc.  This is a global problem.  The intellectual cesspits of the world, ISIS territory and Saudi Arabia, infect our Muslims.  Globalization does not allow us to bury our heads in the sands just because the problems are mostly in other countries. 

4.  The cost of speaking out is low.  The cost of dialog is low.  We don't need to invade their countries and force anything on them.  We need to invade their brains with our ideas.

I sympathize with them; they believe firmly in the Qur'an as the way to salvation and the word of God, just as I view the Bible as God's word; I happen to believe they were deceived and chose the wrong way, but it's not surprising to see how things ended up the way they did.  I just don't see that changing at all anytime soon.

That's the problem with fundamentalism.  This kind of fanatical literalism is what allows ISIS to do incredibly evil things.

[bedstuy]

Of course I don't agree with this Zakir Naik fellow. What he says is deplorable. And of course there are extremists in Bangladesh and Indonesia as well. That being said, they aren't causing the sort of global issues we see stemming out of the middle east.

So, when an Indian Muslim broadcasts to British Muslims, radicalizes them and they join ISIS, that's not an issue?  We live in a globalized world now.  We shouldn't let anyone get off spewing hateful, evil bullsh**t.  Nobody should be able to hide behind religion to say horrible, evil things.

I just think you are going at this the wrong way. You are attacking Islam in general when you need to attack the violent extremism within it.

No, read what I've actually written.  I just don't feel the need to constantly bend myself over backwards to defend Islam.

If you think fighting 1.5 billion people is the way to go, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I think it is foolish. Muslims around the world, even in places like Indonesia or Bangladesh may be "backwards" but for the most part they aren't causing any trouble in the west.

When did I say we should fight every Muslim?  Never said it.  You're blatantly distorting my points.  And, again, globalization and solidarity.  If people accept rule of law, feminism and secularism, the world will be a better place.  They are causing trouble in the west too.  Terrorist attacks, ruining their home countries and causing refugees to flood around the world, destabilizing the world, etc.  And, idea cross borders now.  The internet is a thing. 

Why antagonize them when ISIS is the problem? Fundamentalist Islam is just one ingredient in the mix that leads to ISIS/Al qaeda etc. If your goal is to turn the muslim world into a liberal democracy, then that is foolish. You don't need to turn the middle east into the next San Francisco in order to stop violent extremists like ISIS.

This is just a grab bag of the old muddy the waters trick. 

1.  You have to antagonize people to create social change.  That's the only way you change people's minds. 
2.  How do we keep our values and not antagonize Muslim fundamentalists? 
3.  If someone says, "democracy is evil," how is that not a problem? 
4.  Fundamentalist Islam is obviously the key ingredient in ISIS, give me a break.  And, why not try to stop every ingredient in creating ISIS? 

Also, this is my opinion as to what to do about radical Islam/Isis/violent extremism in general. If you want my opinion about Islam in India, I think sharia law should be phased out and replaced with a liberal, secular uniform civil code for all Indians regardless of religion. Of course some people might say I am a BJP supporting fanatic Hindu for saying that.......

No, that's common sense for India and every country.

[bedstuy]

Define these "Western Values" and "Islamic Values" that you suppose are inherently exclusive

"Free speech vs. "Blasphemy laws and using violence to stop free speech"
"Feminism vs. Treating women as inferior and mutilating their genitals"
"Democracy, separation of church and state vs. Islamic theocracy"
"Cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism vs. ignorance and hatred of minorities"
"Minority rights vs. Tyranny of the majority"
"An acceptance of basic classical liberal values vs. trying to exploit freedom while speaking against it"
"Gay Rights vs. Death penalty for gay sex"
"Proper law and justice vs. sharia law"
I could go on.

You need to visit my "understanding Islam" thread...

Correct me where I'm wrong.

Just about everything. Visit the thread. Read my posts.

OK, nothing you posted conflicts with what I wrote.  You have to explain where I'm wrong.

And, please read the prior posts here.  I was talking about Islamism vs. liberal western values.

[bedstuy]

Do you not believe in free speech? Do you not think the preacher should be able to say what he wants? You and me can both agree what he says is disgusting, but why should we have the right to stop him from saying it? And if we have the right to stop someone from doing something we find offensive, then why shouldn't Muslims have the right to stop an artist from drawing the Prophet Muhammad?

Please try to read my posts or don't respond to them.  What you keep doing is throwing out red herrings or bringing up unrelated tangents.

Did I say anything about taking away freedom of speech?  No, in fact, I specifically contrasted freedom of speech with Islamism ideas and Islamic culture, positively.  Why are you raising this issue when I obviously never raised it myself?

What you keep doing is trying to find reasons why we can ignore Islamic extremism.  You keep trying to minimize it without citing any facts.  It's extremely frustrating and it's pointless.  You don't seem to care about reality, you just want to find reasons to take the position that makes you feel good.  It's just, "shut up and bury your head in the sand too!"

To answer your stupid question, the response is not to ban speech.  It's to highlight how stupid it is and refute it.  We engage in a dialog with Muslims, we use argument, humor, satire and criticism to get them to abandon extremist positions and harmful ideas.  We don't ignore and respect their beliefs, we actually listen and we communicate why things like cutting people's hands off for stealing are barbaric.

[bedstuy]

Do you not believe in free speech? Do you not think the preacher should be able to say what he wants? You and me can both agree what he says is disgusting, but why should we have the right to stop him from saying it? And if we have the right to stop someone from doing something we find offensive, then why shouldn't Muslims have the right to stop an artist from drawing the Prophet Muhammad?

To answer your stupid question, the response is not to ban speech.  It's to highlight how stupid it is and refute it.  We engage in a dialog with Muslims, we use argument, humor, satire and criticism to get them to abandon extremist positions and harmful ideas.  We don't ignore and respect their beliefs, we actually listen and we communicate why things like cutting people's hands off for stealing are barbaric.

So who doesn't already condemn the sort of things this preacher says? I don't think even your most wishy washy liberal will try to "understand" why this preacher might feel this way. I just don't think the correct response to people like the preacher is to go on a crusade against "islamic values".

The silence is deafening.  Or, more often, the apologizing and explaining away Islam's problems is deafening.  You provide cover for guys like him.  You earlier said, "Islam in India is peaceful and liberal."  Now, you're like, "well, not him."  You're basically saying, "Islam is great, except for the bad parts."  That goes for anything, it's weak, cowardly nonsense. 

I think it should be clear that a distinction ought to be made between combating ISIS or Jahbat Al-Nusra, which aims to spread its ideology through terrorism and coercive/illegitimate state-power, and attempting to deal with Islamism, which is not necessarily violent in its attempted application.

I don't think the latter is a particularly controversial claim; Islamism or more rigid variants of political Islam do not necessarily pose threats to the West, they're toxic because they affect Muslim minorities within Western states and they're toxic because they violate the rights of all who live within regimes controlled by Islamist ideologies, whether those of Iran or those of Saudi Arabia. However, there's no reason why any of this should merit warfare or rights-violations of individual Muslims. In order to grapple with Islamism, whether it is Salafism or some other variant, Europe and the US should employ different strategies, such as cutting off ties with Saudi Arabia and re-aligning with Iran or attempting to fund opposition groups in Iran. There's no particular solution here but it's quite clear that laying blame for terrorist attacks or ISIS at the feet of Islam itself is a stupid, counter-productive strategy.

Nobody said that.  And, I would argue if Islamism is toxic to Muslim communities and people in America and around the world, it is a threat.  If Islamism causes people to join ISIS, it's a threat.  If it makes people mistreat women, it's a threat.  You have to use different tactics against terrorist acts, sure.  But, the ideology that says "Islamic theocracy is the best government" is an ideology of ISIS fellow travelers.  It's two sides of the same coin, the ideology and execution.  We should fight both.  Fight the execution with military, intelligence and law enforcement.  Fight the ideology with words. 

Genital mutilation isn't inherently Islamic but most of those other things are indeed Islamic values. They come directly from the Koran and the Hadith.

Inherently, what does that mean in this context? 

Shia Islamic scholars generally says FGM is a good thing, but not mandatory.
Sunni Islam's four main schools of Islamic law vary. Some say FGM is obligatory, others say FGM a good thing, but not required. 

[bedstuy]

As usual, bedstuy is quick to locate behaviors and actions in a nebulous conception of culture. "Culture X is responsible for Action Y!" Has it ever been considered that authoritarian, illiberal ideologies bear little relation to culture but rather to material deprivation and the instability it generates? I realize that this isn't entirely accurate but it's a pretty parsimonious explanation for authoritarian/illiberal sentiment. Keep in mind that development economists have not found any relation between democracy or liberal freedoms and economic development but comparativist political scientists have found a very close relationship between "liberal democracy" and GDP per capita. I think this is a hand-wavy analysis but I think it's far more useful than pinning Islamism on Islam when secular Arab nationalism and Marxist movements were once the animating force in the MENA region or when religious intolerance/communal violence reigns supreme throughout the developing world.

Now, I'm not a functionalist but I think the overemphasis on culture has left out these facts. What about the Shining Path or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or Third Worldism etc? What about the oppression of women throughout the globe? What about the Nahua practices of arranged marriages in the year 2015? All of these practices and movements arose out of cultures but the cultures were situated in particular economic circumstances that produced these movements.

So, people in Somalia are devout Muslims and their branch of Islamic jurisprudence says you have to do FGM.  Guess what? 98% of women suffer FGM.  Whereas, in many other very poor non-Islamic countries, FGM is unheard of.  So...  Let's blame poverty?  Let's try to change the subject to the Shining Path or Nahua Practices of Arranged Marriage?  That's seriously your answer?

[bedstuy]

As usual, bedstuy is quick to locate behaviors and actions in a nebulous conception of culture. "Culture X is responsible for Action Y!" Has it ever been considered that authoritarian, illiberal ideologies bear little relation to culture but rather to material deprivation and the instability it generates? I realize that this isn't entirely accurate but it's a pretty parsimonious explanation for authoritarian/illiberal sentiment. Keep in mind that development economists have not found any relation between democracy or liberal freedoms and economic development but comparativist political scientists have found a very close relationship between "liberal democracy" and GDP per capita. I think this is a hand-wavy analysis but I think it's far more useful than pinning Islamism on Islam when secular Arab nationalism and Marxist movements were once the animating force in the MENA region or when religious intolerance/communal violence reigns supreme throughout the developing world.

Now, I'm not a functionalist but I think the overemphasis on culture has left out these facts. What about the Shining Path or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or Third Worldism etc? What about the oppression of women throughout the globe? What about the Nahua practices of arranged marriages in the year 2015? All of these practices and movements arose out of cultures but the cultures were situated in particular economic circumstances that produced these movements.

So, people in Somalia are devout Muslims and their branch of Islamic jurisprudence says you have to do FGM.  Guess what? 98% of women suffer FGM.  Whereas, in many other very poor non-Islamic countries, FGM is unheard of.  So...  Let's blame poverty?  Let's try to change the subject to the Shining Path or Nahua Practices of Arranged Marriage?  That's seriously your answer?

Did I ever claim that I had an answer? I'm simply claiming that you do not have an answer and that cultural explanations for "Islamism" run against the grain of recent history, in which political action throughout the MENA resided in secular Arab nationalism or Marxian social movements, not in Islam. Going beyond the MENA, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia experienced similar trends.

Again, I condemn Islamism and Salafism and the Gulf States etc. I posted a thread about why the left needs to stand against Islamism. I agree with most of your claims. I simply disagree that this is related to some immutable cultural aspects of Islam; that takes a short-sighted view of history and lacks understanding of social scientific evidence.

It's rather arrogant that you profess to hold the solution to something that's incredibly intractable. Do you think that the hot air that you've blown all over this thread is a policy solution? Frankly, it's an emotional expression that lacks substance or merit. I can't claim to fully understand Islamism and its origins but I understand enough to know that I need to read more about the MENA before I say more than it is complex and that Islamism, which is an abhorrent ideology, needs to be properly understood before it can be combated. To add to this complication, I also believe that it is rather dangerous to impute behavior to culture; a claim that cuts against "Enlightenment values", social science and history. If I abhor aspects of post-modern political philosophy, starting with Foucault, it is due to this tendency to root behavior in culture, which I think is the root of caste-based laws or logic, whether racial or religious or ethnic.

Could you restate that in a way that makes sense, without jargon?  I don't have a clue what you're saying. 

Why not use my Somalian FGM example so we're not being too abstract.

[bedstuy]

Islam in India is more or less peaceful. I separate violent Islamists from Islam in general, which can include people who are very conservative and may hold disgusting views. You seem to want to turn the middle east and the muslim world into some liberal utopia. That is a ridiculous goal to have. You keep on saying we cannot solve the ISIS/violent Islamic extremism problem without wholesale reform of "islamic values" but you yourself state these "islamic values" are widespread in peaceful parts of the muslim world. It is quite obvious these "islamic values" are not the only ingredient leading to extremism.

Also I don't have any interest in defending Islam. I just think your plan is extremely foolish. It is the George W Bush sort of mentality. I am a realistic pessimist and I want to solve the problem of ISIS, not spread democracy/liberalism/lollipops and gumdrops across the middle east.

You just keep repeating yourself and trying to straw-man my position.

My plan is literally just be more direct about criticizing Islamism and to stop giving political Islam a free pass.

[bedstuy]

Do you really think by the west coming in and saying "well actually islamism is bad" it will stop jihadism?

Yes, sort of.

I reject your phrasing.  Will it stop it quickly or completely?  Of course not.  Should the government spearhead this effort? No.  Is this truly about "the west?"  No.  Is the message simply "your religion is bad?"  No.

The way I see it, it's like a political campaign on a macro level.  You have the people who basically agree with you, you have the people who are persuadable and you have the opposition.  And, you have a multitude of issues, some you can't win on, others you have some hope.

In 1975, nobody thought Islamism would be such a big problem in 2015.  But, a terrible religious revival movement did the hard work of spreading their version of Islam.  Honestly, if we could get back to the Islam of 1975, that would be a huge step forward.  We can do the same argument and education campaigns through the media that Saudi Arabia has done.

You can use a lot of the same techniques political campaigns use.  Wedge issues, attacking people, satire, social media, advertising, etc.  And, we can do a lot of good by just withdrawing our taboo against criticizing religious ideas.

I'm also talking about what we do and say in America.  Our liberal/left-wing community is very extremely careful about not seeming to criticize Islam and they often spend more time reporting on Islamaophobia than Islamic extremism.  Many of our media organizations treat Salafi hate preachers as moderate Muslims and treat groups like CAIR as the voice of mainstream Muslims.  How about we just stop doing that?  Baby steps. 

[bedstuy]

Muslims aren't innately inferior.  Islamic culture is inferior to Western culture.  It's a big difference. 

The question is ultimately, how do you get people to modify Islam to become more amenable to our values?  Some people here say, do nothing because it's hopeless.  I can't get on board with a plan that says, both it's hopeless and we should do nothing.  And, it's not fair to Muslim individuals.  Why do they need to suffer because we're afraid of offending their "group?" 

We're all human beings, I'm offended by the idea that repugnant, evil ideas are beyond criticism because they're part of someone's group identity.  That's cultural relativism. 

Sometimes the truth hurts.  But, telling the truth about the negative aspects of Islam is ultimately good because it's the truth.  The same goes for any other religion, ideology, belief system, etc. 

[bedstuy]

To borrow a phrase from another religion, change must come from within. An external force telling Muslims they are wrong, and allowing elections to be negated if 'they vote wrong' and prop up nasty autocrats because they make a big show of secularism is just silly.

I notice d you kind of ignored my examples from Morocco and Egypt because you insist on making the war against jihadism harder than it already is. Instead you're just tilting at windmills, like imaginef cultural relativism on our parts.

What was the Morocco/Egypt point?  We don't support Egypt because we like their government.  It's for international strategic reasons.  You're changing the scale on this.

But, what about in our countries?  Should it be more socially acceptable to say you hate Jews if you're a Salafi hate preacher, but not if you're just anti-Semitic for non-religious reasons?

[bedstuy]

Many of our media organizations treat Salafi hate preachers as moderate Muslims and treat groups like CAIR as the voice of mainstream Muslims.

[Citation needed]


I have never seen The Media treat "groups like CAIR" as the voice of mainstream Islam, let alone try to make a distinction between Salafism and other branches.

Political correctness, like Libertarianism, is not actually a thing outside of the internet and college campuses. Our news is nothing but covering Islamic extremism and the wars in the Middle East for 15 years. The reason people on the political left talk about Islamophobia more than Islamic extremism is because Islamic extremism is not an existentional threat to our liberal society (at least, not until it ) the way Islamophobia is.

Perhaps it's out of ignorance more than anything else, but I think it's often the case.  CNN will invite someone from CAIR essentially to speak for Muslims.  They'll make the distinction between terrorists and radicals, but they basically give anyone else the benefit of the doubt.  Someone like Pat Robertson gets treated like a conservative religious person with a real agenda, someone from CAIR like gets to play the put upon victim. 

When people talk up "moderate Muslims," often they aren't moderate.  The New York Times praised Anwar Al-Awlaki as a moderate Muslim leader after 9/11.  That's a textbook example.

Honestly, if we could get back to the Islam of 1975, that would be a huge step forward. 

What does this even mean? How has Islam as a whole changed for the worse since 1975?

There has been a move away from secularism and Islamism has gained steam.  Not uniformly or anything, and it has also been accompanied by growing atheism and liberalism in some places.

The Saudi regime, the Iranian regime, the rise of Islamism in Pakistan, it's kind of a pattern.  Nationalist movement in the Middle East have largely disappointed people and many places, a fair election would lead to awful Islamist type regimes.  That's my point.

Also, to continue a debate from earlier about "Western" versus "Islamic" values/culture, I pointed out that universal human values are not exclusive nor original to the West, and you agreed and said that Western values are essentially universal values.


Which negates the "universal" part of it.


You can't just attribute everything good in the world to the West, and then claim because of the West the world was blessed by these good things. That's just Eurocentric arrogance and feeds the flames of culture wars, and then you get a backlash when people find out the not-so-nice things about the West and Western culture who then group it in with the good stuff (see: anti-liberalism, utopian extremists, religious conservatives, etc. reacting to the negative aspects of a consumerist, capitalist, permissive society and/or imperialist legacies by trashing universal rights and political secularism as well).

Islamic culture is inferior to Western culture.

Which also makes this sentence hilariously wrong and just weaponizing the concept of human rights into a intercultural conflict, which it is not.

Multiple Muslim scholars (and other religions as well, by the way) have issued declarations of rights by tracing them back to Islamic teachings based on the Quran and the Sunna of Mohammed, and the rights they give are the universal values. You have many Islamic scholars arguing that Shariah law needs to be freed from its medeival legal basis, the same thing that happened with Christian teachings today having abandoned the ancient tribal laws of texts like Leviticus.  Tradition is not incompatible with the modern world or universal rights.


If you keep going on in a divisive fashion about how this is about Western values/culture versus Islamic values/culture, then you're only going to perpetuate this conflict.

Well, sometimes you should perpetuate a conflict is you have a legitimate of difference of opinion.  If you sweep differences under the rug, you tend to just let your differences fester.  I think people should feel pressure to accept secularism and human rights.  And, I think most American Muslims do accept those things and they're a part of the solution globally.  If Muslims around the world were like American Muslims in terms of their beliefs, there really wouldn't be much problem.

As far as reinterpreting the Islamic texts to make them jibe with human rights, great!  That's what I want to happen. 

[bedstuy]

Well, sometimes you should perpetuate a conflict is you have a legitimate of difference of opinion.  If you sweep differences under the rug, you tend to just let your differences fester.  I think people should feel pressure to accept secularism and human rights.  And, I think most American Muslims do accept those things and they're a part of the solution globally.  If Muslims around the world were like American Muslims in terms of their beliefs, there really wouldn't be much problem. 

Oh come on, that's just  ridiculous. These aren't roommates upset over which way the toilet paper goes. You really think that showing up, actively antagonizing local Muslims and propping up secular forces is going to lead to less people hating America?! I've got some beachfront property in Des Moines to sell you dude.

What do you mean?  I never said this was about American foreign policy.  I said it's about opposing the values of Muslim extremists.  That will antagonize extremists, but not the majority.