Is "mainstream"/"moderate" Islam a problem?

[Wotan]

*** Mod's note: Split from another topic ***

Once again Islam announces its nature -- and openly displays its soul -- to the whole world. And once again the world adamantly refuses to listen and see. Everyone blames radical and extremist Islam for this horror. But the real culprit is normal, average, standard, common Islam. The enemy we all need to hate and destroy is mainstream and moderate Islam!

Edited December 2, 2008 by softwareNerd
Added 'split' notice

[TheEgoist]

No, it isn't. These are extremists, or, people that take their religion seriously.

[Jake_Ellison]

Once again Islam announces its nature -- and openly displays its soul -- to the whole world. And once again the world adamantly refuses to listen and see. Everyone blames radical and extremist Islam for this horror. But the real culprit is normal, average, standard, common Islam. The enemy we all need to hate and destroy is mainstream and moderate Islam!

Perhaps some evidence, or at least some argumentation beyond the larger letters, is in order, oh Mighty One.

Here's for instance a way to prove your theory: Can you prove that the Muslim family living down the street from you, in NY City (all perfectly average, normal Muslims), need their belief system destroyed before there can be peace? How is their mere belief in God (irrational as it is), different from your Christian neighbor's belief in God? Keep in mind that they are both religious, and also very much supportive of the American way of life.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The enemy we all need to hate and destroy is mainstream and moderate Islam!

I would say this is true ideologically, though I don't think we need to focus on destroying that religion per se any more than we need to focus on destroying religion as such by the application of reason. There was a time when religion was almost wiped out in the West during The Enlightenment, but along came Kant and violated that standard of reason.

I certainly don't think we need to target mainstream Islam in the sense of using force against them, though in places like India and Pakistan, the mainstream Islamics probably do encourage some of these violent acts and lionize the militants and encourage them. Even in the US, there are Muslim charities that funnel money to terrorist organizations indirectly, as in paying the families of suicide bombers, and with the War on Terror some of those charities are being shut down or driven out of the US, with possible jail time for the operators.

But, I don't know how many times something like these raids need to occur before people realize that the religious view untempered by reason is dangerous, and that countries like Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia insofar as they go along with that religious view ought to be reigned in and not be considered our allies. The War on Terror ought to be primarily an ideological battle, but the Conservatives will not come out against religion as such, and so they don't chose the right targets -- i.e. Bush never targeted Iran properly as a primary sponsor of world wide terrorism, with the necessity of destroying it.

[Jake_Ellison]

I agree completely with you Thomas. However, I think there are two issues raised in Wotan's post: one is the irrationality of the muslim religion, and the other is the irrationality of Wotan, who is suggesting we declare war to (and thus physically attack) huge numbers of people, not for their actions or hostile intentions, but merely their religious beliefs.

I think we should address the latter attitude first, since it actually proposes the initiation of force. (No question because of some type of collectivist ideology Wotan holds)

Then we can discuss what moderate Muslims should do to oppose militant Muslims, and more generally what we should do to limit or destroy religion.

[edit] It's possible that by saying normal Islam Wotan is just trying to express the idea that the militant side is dominating the religion, which is a valid point, although I don't think it is factual, at least not precentage-wise.

But that possibility aside, I stand by my opinion of him, based on what he actually wrote.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[Timeless]

Quoted by Jake_Ellison

How is their mere belief in God (irrational as it is), different from your Christian neighbor's belief in God? Keep in mind that they are both religious, and also very much supportive of the American way of life.

I might be missing something. How is a Muslim or a Christian very much supportive of the American way of life? It just seems that there are supportive of the parts that don't conflict with their religion.

[Devils_Advocate]

Quoted by Jake_Ellison

I might be missing something. How is a Muslim or a Christian very much supportive of the American way of life? It just seems that there are supportive of the parts that don't conflict with their religion.

Or supportive of the parts of their religion which don't conflict with their American way of life. One of my friends is Muslim, but I really, really doubt he prays 5 times a day. He plays too many video games to have that kind of time.

[aeinste1n]

Once again Islam announces its nature -- and openly displays its soul -- to the whole world. And once again the world adamantly refuses to listen and see. Everyone blames radical and extremist Islam for this horror. But the real culprit is normal, average, standard, common Islam. The enemy we all need to hate and destroy is mainstream and moderate Islam!

No, while mainstream religion is an enemy, it is definately not as serious as radical religion. Like Thompson said, mainstream religous people do not directly threaten society with force. The difference, the meaning of the term radical, is that radicals are willing to actually devote themselves to their religous commandments and force their irrationality upon the world. Mainstream means that people supposedly hold convictions, but are unwilling to actually follow and expand on them. This, while still wrong, is not the culprit behind most of the destruction we see today. It is the culprit behind the slow peaceful acceptance of the welfare state and totalitarianism. Radicalism must be destroyed for our security, mainstream religion must be phased out for our happiness.

[Wotan]

Can you prove that the Muslim family living down the street from you, in NY City (all perfectly average, normal Muslims), need their belief system destroyed before there can be peace?

Osama is the most popular and beloved Muslim on earth -- a true hero and new Saladin to most. This is the view of mainstream and moderate Muslims based on their mainstream and moderate Islamic ideology. These people also generally support and favor 9/11 and Mumbai.

Just as Nazism and communism needed to be openly excoriated as ideologies to destroy or badly hurt them, so does Islam. We need to let Muslims know in no uncertain terms that we hate their ultra-slimy religion. Barack Obama and Gordon Brown need to loudly proudly say so. This would utterly take them aback, and probably cause them to radically change their ways, and maybe institute a badly-needed Reformation. No longer would they subscribe to such monstrous -- but extremely normal and average -- Muslim beliefs such as jihad (aggressive war) and sharia (legal slavery) against the innocent.

The radicals and extremists are not the real enemy of the West. It's the philosophy of garden-variety historical and current Islam. It needs to be savagely attacked and then destroyed.

[Wotan]

Even in the US, there are Muslim charities that funnel money to terrorist organizations indirectly, as in paying the families of suicide bombers, and with the War on Terror some of those charities are being shut down or driven out of the US, with possible jail time for the operators.

This is way too little, way too late. Mainstream and moderate Muslims are commanded to give to charity -- and they pretty much all do. Last week the biggest Muslim charity in the US was rightly convicted on over 100 counts of being a jihadi organization. And mind you, these are integrated and American Muslims, which are the most civilized and BEST Muslims on the planet by far. And they're still a savage horror. All because of their evil philosophy.

Muslims as people are very nice. I'm pretty well acquainted with about seven of them, and every last one is a good person. But so what? Their ideology is sheer poison. These guys are brainwashed. And it's mainstream, normal-type Islam which poisons their minds and souls.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Muslims as people are very nice. I'm pretty well acquainted with about seven of them, and every last one is a good person. But so what? Their ideology is sheer poison. These guys are brainwashed. And it's mainstream, normal-type Islam which poisons their minds and souls.

I agree with you that Muslims can be nice and not initiate force against anyone. Insofar as they do support the Jihad against the west via charity, I think they should be reigned in; and actually, if we had a real declaration of war, they would be traitors and could be convicted as such.

But the question becomes, what if they are not involved in the support of the Jihad against the west and are not themselves, individually, engaged in the initiation of force, then their individual rights need to be protected. Intellectually, insofar as they support Islam, they are wrong and very confused and not rational, but their can be no law against living irrationally. Yet, you sound like you want to round them all up, guilty or not, and do something to them. By what right? While I agree with you that Islam is evil, so is full-scale Christianity, as well as Communism and Socialism, but each man and woman has the right to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they do not impose their irrationality on others; and this include proselytizing their views.

I think giving moral support for the Jihadists is evil; and think that it is Islam against the West and being a cheerleader for that is evil. But we cannot go around arresting people for being evil by a rational standard. If this war was being fought properly, then no country based upon Islam would be permitted because of how those countries deny individual rights and even go outside their country to engage in Jihad against reason. Those countries and that way of life needs to be destroyed; and some in the West -- i.e. Bush -- needs to stop giving them lip service about being peaceful given the accepted laws against reason in those countries based on Islam.

But what do you want to do? go around shooting Muslims? and if that is what you want to do, what makes you any better than they are? If they violate individual rights, then, yes, they can be brought to trial, and you have the right to self-defense if they attack you, but otherwise, you need to rationally take the position of live and let live, or live and let die. But you have no right whatsoever to initiate force against them merely because they are irrational.

It is not within the philosophy of Objectivism to kill those who are irrational.

[Jake_Ellison]

Quoted by Jake_Ellison

I might be missing something. How is a Muslim or a Christian very much supportive of the American way of life? It just seems that there are supportive of the parts that don't conflict with their religion.

By agreeing to coexist in a free American society without the use or threat of force. You don't have to be an objectivist to support a capitalist society, and you don't have to be against religion to agree to "live and let live".

How could you justify using force against someone who agrees to that?

[Jake_Ellison]

The radicals and extremists are not the real enemy of the West. It's the philosophy of garden-variety historical and current Islam. It needs to be savagely attacked and then destroyed.

I think Thomas made an excellent point, far better than I could've made it, especially since I'm pretty pissed off at you.

I'll just add this: I think that you are far closer to becoming my enemy than the average American Muslim ever was or will be, especially since you don't even have the excuse of being a confused teenager. I'm just hoping you don't go around misrepresenting Objectivism, causing people to think we are out to "convert or kill" the same way Osama is.

[Wotan]

...you sound like you want to round them all up, guilty or not, and do something to them. By what right? While I agree with you that Islam is evil, so is full-scale Christianity, as well as Communism and Socialism, but each man and woman has the right to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they do not impose their irrationality on others; and this include proselytizing their views.

I think giving moral support for the Jihadists is evil; and think that it is Islam against the West and being a cheerleader for that is evil. But we cannot go around arresting people for being evil by a rational standard. If this war was being fought properly, then no country based upon Islam would be permitted because of how those countries deny individual rights and even go outside their country to engage in Jihad against reason. Those countries and that way of life needs to be destroyed; and some in the West -- i.e. Bush -- needs to stop giving them lip service about being peaceful given the accepted laws against reason in those countries based on Islam.

But what do you want to do? go around shooting Muslims?...

Round them up? Shoot them? Where did I say or imply that? You misread me completely. People can beleive what they wish -- including devil-worship!

The point I was trying to make is that mainstream and moderate Islam is evil. Mainstream, moderate, average, normal Islam needs to be destroyed. We need to shut the hell up about all this "radical" and "extremist" jazz. Radical Islam is NOT the problem and radical Muslims are NOT the enemy. It's normal Islam and normal Muslims. As a matter of fact...I even think this ideology might be worse than Nazism and communism. I'm not aware of any past history of Nazis and communists killing pure innocents for the sheer joy of it, as with Mumbai. There is a kind of rawness to their evil which has to be noted. And I think it very wrong to compare them to Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, and others, as Sam Harris argues. Muslims are in a class by themselves.

The key point is their philosophy -- with their jihad and sharia -- needs to be passionately and ferociously morally condemned by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and all the leaders of all the major universities and think tanks. And the Muslim people -- to the extent they dare to go to mosque and back this loathsome ideology -- need also to publicly rebuked, condemned, reviled, and viscerally hated.

[aeinste1n]

-- Muslim beliefs such as jihad (aggressive war) and sharia (legal slavery) against the innocent.

Muslim writings also say that you should be hospitible and never initiate violence unless you are being opressed. Like any other irrational belief system Islam can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways. Some as, Thompson noted, are a more imminent threat because they advocate the direct use of force to achieve their goals. We use the term "radical" to describe these interpretations because they are not just irrational, they cause people to commit immoral acts therefore stopping them is a higher priority.

[Jake_Ellison]

Round them up? Shoot them? Where did I say or imply that? You misread me completely. People can beleive what they wish -- including devil-worship!

The point I was trying to make is that mainstream and moderate Islam is evil. Mainstream, moderate, average, normal Islam needs to be destroyed. We need to shut the hell up about all this "radical" and "extremist" jazz. Radical Islam is NOT the problem and radical Muslims are NOT the enemy. It's normal Islam and normal Muslims. As a matter of fact...I even think this ideology might be worse than Nazism and communism. I'm not aware of any past history of Nazis and communists killing pure innocents for the sheer joy of it, as with Mumbai. There is a kind of rawness to their evil which has to be noted. And I think it very wrong to compare them to Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, and others, as Sam Harris argues. Muslims are in a class by themselves.

The key point is their philosophy -- with their jihad and sharia -- needs to be passionately and ferociously morally condemned by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and all the leaders of all the major universities and think tanks. And the Muslim people -- to the extent they dare to go to mosque and back this loathsome ideology -- need also to publicly rebuked, condemned, reviled, and viscerally hated.

You are distancing yourself from "shoot them?" in one sentence, and in the next one you are calling Muslims the enemy. Well what are we supposed to do with "the enemy"? Especially since you make no distinction between that "enemy" and the terrorists, in fact you make it a point to say they are the same. Of course you are advocating violence against them based on what they believe in.

[FeatherFall]

I'm willing to say that support of Sharia law is evil. Can anyone show me the numbers on how many muslims support Sharia law? I would be surprised to learn that less than half do. It seems to be near and dear to muslim hearts - just one reason to believe that even moderate Islam is both a religion and a political ideology.

[The Wrath]

Mainstream or moderate Islam is evil only in the sense that mainstream or moderate Christianity is evil. I think that moderate religion is evil because, if nothing else, it provides the soil in which extremist religion can grow. Religious moderates commit the same errors in reasoning as radicals, thereby ensuring that these errors have a veneer of respectability in society at large. Radicals just take the errors and carry them to their logical conclusions. Now, this isn't to say that actual religious moderates (i.e. the people who hold those beliefs) are evil. They're just mistaken. The radicals are actually evil people.

I know I'm not the first person to make this comparison, but I'll do it anyway, since the finer points seem to be lost on some people. Islam is as old now as Christianity was during the Dark Ages. Islam is undergoing an identity crisis and will eventually become what Christianity is today...that is, a largely peaceful religious community with a few nutjobs who occasionally try their hand at judicial activism, and a few extremely rare cases of actual violence.

If you want to start a thread criticizing modern Islamic culture, go right ahead. I'm with you there, because there's certainly more to criticize than there is to criticize about modern Christian culture. But if you're going to criticize moderate religion, then there is no reason to single out moderate Islam unless it's a part some reactionary bias against all things Middle Eastern. It would be like starting a thread for the purpose of proclaiming "al-Qa'ida terrorism is evil." Well, no shit. But while you're at it, why not just claim "terrorism is evil," so that it encompasses the Tamil Tigers, ETA, Aum Shinrikyo, and the Strawberry Liberation Front (yes, that is a real eco-terrorist group).

The enemy that we need to destroy isn't "moderate Islam," but religion in general. Not "religion" as such, but irrationalism of all forms. It just so happens that Islamic nuts are creating more of a problem for the world than Christian nuts. While the tactics that should be used to combat differing forms of irrationalism will likewise differ, there is little point in singling out one of them to label as "evil," when you could just as easily lump them all together.

[Wotan]

There's so much to say on this topic that I don't know where to begin. But suffice to say that we in the West will have an incredibly hard time winning The War On Islam so long as we keep insipidly calling it "the war on terror." It'll now take us 100 times the money and blood to half-ass "win." But if we instead accurately identified it as "the war on Islam" -- as our enemies, ironically, truthfully call it -- we would be in far, far better shape.

This battle is mainly moral and intellectual. Our enemies loudly, proudly call America "the great Satan." They enthusiastically shout worldwide: "Death to America!" And they brazenly claim America is the most immoral nation on earth by far.

We desperately need to return the philosophical fire. We need to return the hatred and moral condemnation. If George Bush, Gordon Brown, and other Western leaders would tell even a hint of truth about the loathsome ideology which is moderate Islam they would be stunned. All these political leaders would have to do is publicly proclaim even a small part of their honest thoughts and feelings (even though they're overwhelmingly ignorant and morally weak).

And then the bastardly Muslims would be badly hurt -- personally and philosophically. They'd be utterly taken aback. They know from long experience in the Culture Wars (of West vs. Islam) that the West never tells the truth.

Still, once a bit of the truth was spoken on the world stage, they'd have no choice but to start retreating from jihad and sharia. Oh, they'd call it a "reinterpretation" based on past "mistakes" in which now they were adhering to "true" Islam. But they'd retreat -- and they'd retreat fast. All they need is a tiny push from the West in the form of brief, minor truths.

Instead, we in the West have engaged in non-stop displays of what Ayn Rand called "sanction of the victim." This is especially true in the 7 years after 9/11. We never shut up about how mainstream Islam is good. We say Islam is a "great" religion of '"peace" which has been sadly "hijacked" by a non-representative tiny minority. All lies.

Here's the reality folks: Every time we say "radical" Islam or "fundamentalist" Islam or whatever Islam is the enemy, we morally sanction normal Islam. And we seal our own doom.

[TheEgoist]

Who is "we"? I know I don't say that, and I doubt anyone here says Islam is great or peaceful or at all rational . What we object to you saying, is that we ought to be brutish to moderates. I will argue with them, and their ideology is certainly wrong but I don't just go around yelling at them, just as I don't go around yelling at every Christian because I despise the Religious Right.

[FeatherFall]

I'm not convinced words like "extremist" and "Moderate" are useful. We could all be extremists in promoting rational philosophy and capitalism. A Muslim could be a moderate in support of Sharia law (through what has been called "soft" jihad - democratic action, voting, etc). I don't understand why people allow these terms to have the normative connotations they do.

Being moderate isn't good as such, and being extreme isn't bad as such.

[Jake_Ellison]

I'm willing to say that support of Sharia law is evil. Can anyone show me the numbers on how many muslims support Sharia law? I would be surprised to learn that less than half do. It seems to be near and dear to muslim hearts - just one reason to believe that even moderate Islam is both a religion and a political ideology.

So what? Everyone agrees with that. Do you think we should do something about it militarily, if some province in Nigeria decides to implement Sharia? Are they trying to impose it on us?

As far as a majority of muslims wanting it, that's hard to tell, but not the point. Moderates in the West don't want it, in fact it's why they moved.

[Jake_Ellison]

Here's the reality folks: Every time we say "radical" Islam or "fundamentalist" Islam or whatever Islam is the enemy, we morally sanction normal Islam. And we seal our own doom.

I wouldn't even go as far as to say that fundamentalist Islam is our enemy. I'm sure there are plenty of nut job sects out there who mind their own business. As long as they don't come in conflict with us, or in contact with the enemy, they are not the enemy.

The enemy is militant (or expansionist) Islam, which seeks to take over (Muslim) nations and conquer new territories (in Kashmir, Russia, Israel, China, etc), and threatens our interests around the world, which we should crush, along with the countries that choose to harbor them.

As far as me taking a neutral, or even friendly position toward people who are neutral or friendly to me, I'd love to see some demonstration of how that means sanctioning their stupid belief system.

Am I also sanctioning catholicism by hanging out with a catholic?

You don't seem to understand the basic principles of individualism. I have no desire to belong in any of the two or three categories of people your ideology allows for, nor will I ever refer to people as you define them.

[FeatherFall]

Jake, I just wrote that I don't think words like "moderate" are useful. So, I can't know what you mean when you say:

Moderates in the West don't want it, in fact it's why they moved.

Your assumptions as to why muslims move to the West aside, I've heard some people assert that "soft" jihadists are moderate. In case you forgot, a soft jihadist is someone who agrees with sharia law but prefers to impose it by working within existing political apparati as opposed to commiting acts of revolutionary violence.

Anyone who weds Islam to politics is my enemy. I don't know the numbers, but I'd be surprised to learn that most US muslims completely sequester their religion from their politics. If they refuse to commit acts of revolutionary violence in favor of co-opting the hammer of the state, they are still my ideological enemy. Against such people the appropriate assault is not violence but activism; activism best engaged in by truly peaceful muslims. As for guns, tanks and bombs; loose them on states that govern via the Koran/Hadiths when threatened. The world is awash in such targets without Nigerian hypotheticals.

Edited December 4, 2008 by FeatherFall

[Jake_Ellison]

Jake, I just wrote that I don't think words like "moderate" are useful. So, I can't know what you mean when you say:

Your assumptions as to why muslims move to the West aside, I've heard some people assert that "soft" jihadists are moderate. In case you forgot, a soft jihadist is someone who agrees with sharia law but prefers to impose it by working within existing political apparati as opposed to commiting acts of revolutionary violence.

Anyone who weds Islam to politics is my enemy. I don't know the numbers, but I'd be surprised to learn that most US Muslims completely sequester their religion from their politics. If they refuse to commit acts of revolutionary violence in favor of co-opting the hammer of the state, they are still my ideological enemy. Against such people the appropriate assault is not violence but activism; activism best engaged in by truly peaceful Muslims. As for guns, tanks and bombs; loose them on states that govern via the Koran/Hadiths when threatened. The world is awash in such targets without Nigerian hypotheticals.

I agree with you completely. By moderate I just mean non-militant, tolerant of other beliefs. (I don't consider soft jihadists moderate for instance, even if they are trying to impose their religion on others only through political means. They still are the enemy.)

I'm definitely open to using a different word, I just didn't think of one. I guess every Muslim (like every Christian) tries to spread the faith, but the means through which they do it is important: I don't know that we have a word for those who do it only through words, but never through force (direct or via the State).