"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Friday, August 09, 2013

ISLAM VERSUS ISLAMISM: SHREWD STRATEGY OR DELUSION?

DANIEL PIPES DEFENDS THE STRATEGY OF TREATING ISLAMISM AS DISTINCT FROM ISLAM:

What motives lay behind last month's Boston Marathon bombing and the would-be attack on a Via Rail Canada train?

Leftists and establishmentarians variously offer imprecise and tired replies — such as "violent extremism" or anger at Western imperialism — unworthy of serious discussion. 

Conservatives, in contrast, engage in a lively and serious debate among themselves: some say Islam the religion provides motive; others say it's a modern extremist variant of the religion, known as radical Islam or Islamism.

As a participant in the latter debate, here's my argument for focusing on Islamism.

Those arguing for Islam itself as the problem (such as Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) point to the consistency from Muhammad's life and the contents of the Koran and Hadith to current Muslim practice. Agreeing with Geert Wilders' film "Fitna," they point to striking continuities between Koranic verses and jihad actions. They quote Islamic scriptures to establish the centrality of Muslim supremacism, jihad and misogyny, concluding that a moderate form of Islam is impossible. They point to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's deriding the very idea of a moderate Islam. Their killer question is "Was Muhammad a Muslim or an Islamist?" They contend that we who blame Islamism do so out of political correctness or cowardliness.

To which, we reply: Yes, certain continuities do exist, and Islamists definitely follow the Koran and Hadith literally. 

Moderate Muslims exist, but lack Islamists' near-hegemonic power. 

Mr. Erdogan's denial of moderate Islam points to a curious overlap between Islamism and the anti-Islam viewpoint. 

Muhammad was a plain Muslim, not an Islamist, for the latter concept dates back only to the 1920s. 

And no, we are not cowardly but offer our true analysis.

And that analysis goes like this:

Islam is the 14-century-old faith of a billion-plus believers that includes everyone from quietist Sufis to violent jihadis. Muslims achieved remarkable military, economic and cultural success between roughly 600 and 1200 A.D. Being a Muslim then meant belonging to a winning team, a fact that broadly inspired Muslims to associate their faith with mundane success. Those memories of medieval glory remain not just alive, but central to believers' confidence in Islam and in themselves as Muslims.

Major dissonance began around 1800, when Muslims unexpectedly lost wars, markets and cultural leadership to Western Europeans. It continues today, as Muslims bunch toward the bottom of nearly every index of achievement. This shift has caused massive confusion and anger. What went wrong? Why did God seemingly abandon His faithful? The unbearable divergence between premodern accomplishment and modern failure brought about trauma.

Muslims have responded to this crisis in three main ways. Secularists want Muslims to ditch the Shariah (Islamic law) and emulate the West. Apologists also emulate the West, but pretend that in doing so they are following the Shariah. Islamists reject the West in favor of a retrograde and full application of the Shariah.

Islamists loathe the West because of its vast influence over Muslims and its being tantamount to Christendom, the historic archenemy. Islamism inspires a drive to reject, defeat and subjugate Western civilization. Despite this urge, Islamists absorb Western influences, including the concept of ideology. Indeed, Islamism represents the transformation of Islamic faith into a political ideology. Islamism accurately indicates an Islamic-flavored version of radical utopianism, an -ism like other -isms, comparable to fascism and communism. Aping those two movements, for example, Islamism relies heavily on conspiracy theories to interpret the world, on the state to advance its ambitions, and on brutal means to attain its goals.

Supported by 10 percent to 15 percent of Muslims, Islamism draws on devoted and skilled cadres who have an impact far beyond their limited numbers. It poses a threat to civilized life in Iran and Egypt, and not just on the streets of Boston, but also in Western schools, parliaments and courtrooms.

Our killer question is "How do you propose to defeat Islamism?" Those who make all Islam their enemy not only succumb to a simplistic and essentialist illusion, but lack any mechanism to defeat it. We who focus on Islamism see World War II and the Cold War as models for subduing the third totalitarianism. We understand that radical Islam is the problem and that moderate Islam is the solution. 

We work with anti-Islamist Muslims to vanquish a common scourge. 

We will triumph over this new variant of barbarism so that a modern form of Islam can emerge.

IMO:

THE DEARTH OF ANTI-ISLAMIST MUSLIMS MAKES THIS STRATEGY MOOT.

A MODERN FORM OF ISLAM IS NO MORE LIKELY TO EMERGE NOW THAN DID A MODERATE FORM OF COMMUNISM EMERGE SUCCESSFULLY IN 1988 IN THE USSR.

THERE IS VERY LITTLE LIKELIHOOD THAT A SUFI-LIKE OR FIGURATIVE APPROACH TO THE KORAN AND HADITH AND SURA WILL EVER OCCUR.

AS LONG AS SAUDI'S FUND ISLAMIST MOSQUES AND MADRASSAS AND AS LONG AS PARTIES LIKE THE AKP AND HAMAS AND HIZBALLAH AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD (AND ALL THE OTHERS) ARE TOLERATED IN THE WEST - AND WITHIN THE ISLAMIC WORLD - ISLAM WON'T CHANGE.

THE LONGER WE CALL ISLAM AN ROP, THE LONGER THE WAR GOES ON.

THE LONGER THIS WAR GOES ON THE GREATER THE LIKELIHOOD THEY WILL GET NUKES AND USE THEM AND - FAIAP - DEFEAT US.

SO, THE IDEA WE CAN ALLY OURSELVES TO PHANTOM ANTI-ISLAMIST MUSLIMS IS A DANGEROUS DELUSION.

YES: THERE ARE A FEW, BUT TO FEW TO MENTION.

TOO FEW TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

AND IRAN WILL HAVE NUKES SOON - UNLESS WE ACT.

AND THEN, THEY'LL HAVE THE UPPER HAND - AS THEY WILL GLADLY USE THEM FIRST.

AND OUR ADVANCED CIVILIZATION MIGHT NOT SURVIVE WHAT FOLLOWS NEXT ANY BETTER THEN THEY WILL.


8 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Daniel Pipes wrote: Muslims achieved remarkable military, economic and cultural success between roughly 600 and 1200 A.D. Being a Muslim then meant belonging to a winning team...

With all due respect to Mr. Pipes, he has left out something very important -- the ummah's constant search for the will of Allah.

It wasn't so much that Muslims from 600-1200 achieved mundane success, but rather that they saw -- and still see today -- earthly success as proof of following the ever-elusive will of Allah.

Reliapundit said...

i think that during that era, muslims take credit for what non-muslims accomplished while being dhimmis.

Always On Watch said...

Reliapundit,
Very likely.

Buy what I was referring to was also the inexorable march of Islam during that period. Many Muslims today believe that such an inexorable march stands as proof of the blessings of the Allah -- blessings that came about because Muslims were following Allah's will. The presence of oil on the Arabian Peninsula -- the land of Mohammed -- is also seen as proof of the will of Allah that Islam should rule the world.

Reliapundit said...

i think islam is at its core martial creed and it is domination is what they love.

i think they look at geographic extent and political hegemony and the breadth and depth of their brutality over others as the key measure of their prowess.

yes: they see this brutality as a divine right and divine mission.

there will be no peace on earth until islam is transformed as pipes DREAMS it can be or until it is eradicated as nazism was.

that means eradicating the ideology and not the people. we did not kill all nazis or kill all germans. we defeated nazism, utterly.

i have come to believe that despite the dreams of folks like pipes we need to do the same thing to islam.

repeat: that is NOT a call for genocide. most muslims are good people and bad muslims.

we won't shift them further away from islamism/the core of islam but pretending the extremists are wrong about islam.

Always On Watch said...

I absolutely agree with you!

The will of Allah thing is inherent in Islam -- and pervades "Islamic culture" as well. Muslims who are not violent tell themselves that THEY have found the will of Allah for their lives.

The danger, of course, is that non-violent Muslims can be "radicalized." I'm using that term as a short cut, BTW.

Reliapundit said...

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is no stranger to controversy. For years, the famed atheist has regularly gone after the faithful, sometimes uttering offensive statements about their beliefs and practices. On Thursday, the activist and scientist took to Twitter, taking particular aim at the Muslim faith.

“All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though,” he wrote.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/09/an-old-white-racist-famed-atheist-richard-dawkins-spawns-furor-over-islam-tweet/

DAWKINS IS THE FAMOUS LIBERAL ATHEIST.

Reliapundit said...

MORE DAWKINS:

“The comparison with Trinity Cambridge I judged less offensive to Muslims than the even more dramatic comparison with Jews (who have garnered an ASTOUNDINGLY large number of Nobel Prizes),” he wrote in an e-mail to the Guardian. “Am I surprised? Only at the number of people who seem to think Islam is a race, rather than a religion. I regard that view as racist. Anything you can convert to, or convert from, is NOT a race.”

Reliapundit said...

He then added, “Trinity College Cambridge has more Nobel Prizes than any country in the world except USA, Britain, Germany & France. Remarkable fact.”

DAWKINS AGAIN