Shariah is coming! Shariah is coming!

[SteveMetz]

A PC crowd pushing special accommodation, status, protection, etc. for Moslem's and Islam. (For reasons I will not go into on this board.) It hasn't gone as far in the U.S. as it has in Canada or Europe, but it is still there. That will inevitably alienate people who will ask why Christian prayer in school violates the legal principle of Separation of Church and State, but building a Moslem prayer room in the schools doesn't.[/LIST]

I think that for most people, not just in the U.S. but also, increasingly, in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc., these add up to concerns that are both rational and mistaken, but not delusional or hysterical. Obtaining a more accurate evaluation will require recognizing that the concerns are legitimately held, then working to demonstrate that they aren't correct. Which is why I would like to see the responsible Imams and other spokespeople given more prominence in the national discussion on the issue.

We'll agree to disagree. When an organization screaming about the Islamic take over of Oklahoma is endorsed by a former CIA director, we're well beyond "rational and mistaken." We are, in my opinion, at the point of delusion and hysteria. (Unless there is an AQ document I've missed where OBL listed his priorities as liberating Mecca, then Jerusalem, then Tulsa.)

And your statement about "why Christian prayer in school violates the legal principle of Separation of Church and State, but building a Moslem prayer room in the schools doesn't" is, at best, a red herring. No one prohibits Christian students from praying; law prohibits school officials from sanctioning prayer or making in mandatory. If schools were forcing non-Muslim students to use the prayer room, then the comparison would be valid. As it is, public schools can and do provide a space for Christian prayer groups to meet outside of class time.

And the comment "I would like to see the responsible Imams and other spokespeople given more prominence in the national discussion on the issue" overlooks the fact that it happens on a regular basis. Yet we see purportedly responsible media like the Washington Times printing op-eds by people like Ted Nugent which assert that no Muslim clerics condemn terrorism or extremism. That is a demonstrably false statement.

What concerns me is that delusion, hysteria and falsehood about Islam has moved from the lunatic fringe like Pamela Gellar and Robert Spencer to the mainstream like the Washington Times and Fox News, stoked by people like Boykin, Woolsey and some other major political figures.

My major concern, as expressed in my essay that I can't find a venue for, is that it is ridiculous to assume that this will have no effect on our strategy of building partnerships in the Islamic world. One of the most important points made in the 1980s by Jeanne Kirkpatrick and institutionalized in the Reagan strategy was that other nations couldn't spew virulently anti-American rhetoric and expect to be our partners and recipients of aid. That made perfect sense. But it cuts both ways. If Americans see Islam as a religion as a threat rather than simply Muslim extremists, then we cannot rationally expect to implement a strategy based on partnership with Islamic nations.

[Tukhachevskii]

If Americans see Islam as a religion as a threat rather than simply Muslim extremists, then we cannot rationally expect to implement a strategy based on partnership with Islamic nations.

I dare you to find a better example of both logical inconsistency and irony.



Instead of posting a fuller response to the comments above I hope to incorporate them, with the permission of the posters, into an article I have been in the process of writing for a long time now. I simply can't respond in the depth and detail I'd like to in this space/medium without my reply looking like an article (so why not write it as such anyway). However, I nwould like to know from Steve Metz what the specific delusions abour islam he is refering to....

What concerns me is that delusion, hysteria and falsehood about Islam

...I might then be able to make some informed posts in response.

[SteveMetz]

I dare you to find a better example of both logical inconsistency and irony.



Instead of posting a fuller response to the comments above I hope to incorporate them, with the permission of the posters, into an article I have been in the process of writing for a long time now. I simply can't respond in the depth and detail I'd like to in this space/medium without my reply looking like an article (so why not write it as such anyway). However, I nwould like to know from Steve Metz what the specific delusions abour islam he is refering to....



...I might then be able to make some informed posts in response.

Things mentioned in this thread alone: that Islam demands that Muslims convert non-Muslims by force, that Muslims want to impose sharia on Oklahoma, that no Muslims or no Muslim clerics condemn terrorism or extremism.

[tequila]

One of the most important points made in the 1980s by Jeanne Kirkpatrick and institutionalized in the Reagan strategy was that other nations couldn't spew virulently anti-American rhetoric and expect to be our partners and recipients of aid. That made perfect sense.

Was this an actual Reagan Administration policy? What accounts for our long and fruitful partnership with the Saudis and the Pakistanis at that time, then? Or indeed with recipients of American largesse like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani?

[SteveMetz]

I don't remember the Saudis and Pakistanis being virulently anti-American at the time. But, of course, exceptions are always made for "strategically significant" partners.

[tequila]

I don't remember the Saudis and Pakistanis being virulently anti-American at the time.

Well, it's not like political Islamism in the 1990s came out of nowhere. The Saudis were exporting Wahhabism everywhere in the 1980s and Zia ul-Haq was forcing political Islamism of the Jamiat-e-Islami type on Pakistan while at the same time taking our money to kill Russians. And yes, both strains were very anti-American and anti-Western.

But, of course, exceptions are always made for "strategically significant" partners.

Isn't that kind of always the problem? It's not as if SA or Pakistan are less vital now - quite the opposite.

[SteveMetz]

I don't think that's really the same thing. But my point was that I think it's correct to use a nation's attitude toward us as one determinant of the type of relationship we have with it. I just don't think we can have it both ways--using a nation's attitude toward us as a determinant of the nature of our partnership, but thinking that the attitudes of the American public toward the potential partner do not matter.

Do note that I have not taken a position on the inherent nature of Islam, or on the long-term compatability of Islamic culture and the West. I've only made two points: 1) if we don't ratchet down the domestic hostilty toward Islam, we're going to have to radically revamp our global strategy; and, 2) we should take a deep breath and work with a realistic perception of Islam, both globally and domestically, rather than an hysterical notion based on ignorance, and on assuming that the most hostile and violent members of that culture characterize the whole culture.

[Tukhachevskii]

Things mentioned in this thread alone:
(1)that Islam demands that Muslims convert non-Muslims by force,
(2) that Muslims want to impose sharia on Oklahoma,
(3)that no Muslims or no Muslim clerics condemn terrorism or extremism.

Ok thanks for the calrification (p.s, because of the nature of the medium my responses may seem more "strident" than they are intended, if we were face to face I am sure you'd find me more collegial/jovial in a debate). Let's use Ends, Means, Ways as a heuristic device for the discussion. Apologies in advance for the typing errors, I have yet to fix my keyboard 9I suppose I should stop eating soya nuts at the desk!).

1. Ends.Islam and conversion. Islam (by which I mean the core historical a priori/generative grammar centred on the Prophet, the hadeeth and sharia and the Quran) deman that the call (da'wa) to Islam be made universally. Jihad is the military manifestation (ways) of that goal. According to the Shaira (supported by hadeeth that are sahih (and that's an important issue) it is incumbent upon the Muslim polity to call (da'wa) non-Muslims to Islam...if they refuse then they must be conquered and brought under the system of Islamic governance as either Dhimmi (protected persons-"People of the Book" loosely defined or killed. That's the law. Whether we like it or not and whetehr our "moderate" muslim friends admit as much is irrelevant. When a "peaceful" Ahmaddiya or Sufi is confronted with the overwhelming evidecne of his duty to wage Jihad (under an appropriate authority, more on that later) what exactly is his reponse...either to fiollow the law or renounce his/her faith (under Islam any Muslim that fails in their duties toward Islam or the law is an apostate and thus must be...killed). Jihad, let us not forget, is a universal obligation upon Muslims/ The fact that many don't is a matter of a sliding scale of adherance. The more pious the Muslim, the closer he/she follows the dictates of Islam, the more inclined (obligated) they will feel towards Jihad. Rememebr, like the US constitution, Islams generative grammar exerts a tremendous ammount of centripetal/normative presuure upon Muslims. The laws stating that Islam does not belive in conversion by force (the Meccan verses) were abrogated (every Muslim knows this or if they don't they can find out from their Imam). They are relevant only to the uninformed. Islam does not advocate conversion by force (torture) but only by ultimatum. Their reasoning is that anyone who hears the call would in their right mind convert; if not then they must be possessed by Shaitan and thus destroyed (an analogy can be found in the Communist theory of war as being inevitable).

2. Muslims wish to impose/introduce Sahir'a to the whole world. Theuir religion dmenads that. Islam and Muslims have bnot fulfilled the Prophets mission until the entire world is Islamic (not necessarily Muslim). What people tend to forget is that according to Islamic law (but, curiously Shia versions differ because of their emphasis on the Hidden Imam) wherever Sharia law operates can be ipso facto declared Islamic territory and we all know the consequences of that. The Prophet stated that if a Muslim lives in a land without sharia then he should either conquer it (bring Sharia to it, sort of like American's bringing freedom and democracy) or they should elave for somewhere where Sharia is operative. The great number of Muslim fence-sitters ("moderates" to you) merely sit between their "foundationalist" co-religionists and their host societies and reap the rewards from both.

3. There are a great many Muslim clerics who denounce terrorism against women and children and suicide. They do not denounce Jihad (ways) or the goal (ends) of sumbission of all to Islam. Islam forbids the murder of non-combatants (civilians) only if they are not aiding and abetting the enemy (Us) but aiding and abetting can run the whole gamut to providing sanctuary to food (talk about a moveable feast). What clerics differ over is who constitues an appropriate polictal authority endowed with the wherewithall to declare jihad. The Shia resolve this with the Hidden Imam, hence they view their Jihad as purely defensive. But don't let that fool you. According to Islam Jihad is defensive because any non-Muslim entity that exists is a threat to the mission, veracity and truth of Islam (analogous to Nazism's view of the jews, hence Hitler could get away with stating that his war against the USSR was defensive because the Jews were a biological threat, Communism was a Jewsih plot and the Commisars were all Jews, even though his victims would have seen it differently).

Our problem is that we refuse to listen or examine Islam on its own terms (according to its own "rules of formation"/"generative grammar") and instead analyse it in accordance with what we think it should be. Robert Spencer's analysis of Islam is bang on the money but his subsequent programmatic goals (as a pro-Christian revivalist) is not. Indeed, if you compare his jingoistic Islam for dummies book with the more nuanced, reasoned and schollarly work of Bonner's Jihad in Islamic History you will fidn their conclusions are identical. I don't like Spencer or his approach either but that shouldn't detract from the essential soundess of his argument. Besides, like Bonner above, their are several score authories on Islam would state exactly the same (Espositio is not one of them).

[SteveMetz]

Sorry, but I stopped reading when I hit the sentence, "Jihad is the military manifestation (way) of that goal." I'm certainly no expert on Islam but even I know that's not correct.

Ironically, when asked about Old Testament passages advocating things like genocide, Christians usually contend that they have to be understood in historical context. But then some of the same will cherry pick a verse out of the Koran and assign a meaning to it which most Muslims disagree with.

[Tukhachevskii]

Sorry, but I stopped reading when I hit the sentence, "Jihad is the military manifestation (way) of that goal." I'm certainly no expert on Islam but even I know that's not correct.

What? Are you serious. Sir I absolutely cannot belive that you would say that in all seriousness. I don't have references to hand (who would have thought I needed them, given that I am merely stating both the consensus of Islamic scholars and Islamic texts themselves) but I will endevour to find them...I really think you need to start aqcuianting yourself with that material. I am truely shocked.

For a start this is as good a place as any.

[SteveMetz]

Without boring deeper into the question of whether Islam really is as insidiously aggressive as you suggest (and I clearly believe that you ascribe the beliefs of the most extreme Muslims to the religion as a whole), let me pose a question: If there is an irreconcilable "clash of civilizations" underway, what is the appropriate strategy for the West? I haven't seen any of the Islamophobic community, from the Spencer and Gellar to Woolsey and Gingrich, spell that out.

On an historic note, what eventually led to success in the Cold War was that rational, cold headed people like Kennan and Nitze, who understood communism as it was, were able to trump the hysterical anti-communism of the mass public.

[SteveMetz]

What? Are you serious. Sir I absolutely cannot belive that you would say that in all seriousness. I don't have references to hand (who would have thought I needed them, given that I am merely stating both the consensus of Islamic scholars and Islamic texts themselves) but I will endevour to find them...I really think you need to start aqcuianting yourself with that material. I am truely shocked.

For a start this is as good a place as any.

The statement that you are "merely stating both the consensus of Islamic scholars and Islamic texts themselves" is simply false. Jihad is a complex notion. Any Islamic cleric will tell you that military conquest is by far the least important idea. In fact, most will argue that it is not part of jihad at all--that the AQ portrayal of it, which you seem to accept, is wrong.

By the way, here's the introduction of the book you linked. You tell me if the author says that jihad=coversion by military action.