| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Home Front | |||
| Daniel Pipes on identifying moderate muslims | |||
| 2003-11-25 | |||
| Hat tip LGF I often argue that if militant Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution, but that begs the question — how does one differentiate between these two forms of Islam? It’s a tough question, especially as concerns Muslims who live in Western countries. To understand just how tough it is, consider the case of Abdurahman Alamoudi, a prominent American figure associated with some sixteen Muslim organizations. FBI spokesman Bill Carter described one of those, the American Muslim Council, as "the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States." The Defense Department entrusted two of them (the Islamic Society of North America and the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Council) to vet Islamic chaplains for the armed forces. The State Department thought so highly of Alamoudi, that it hired him six times and sent him on all-expenses-paid trips to majority-Muslim countries to carry what it called "a message of religious tolerance." Alamoudi’s admirers have publicly hailed him as a "moderate," a "liberal Muslim," and someone known "for his charitable support of battered women and a free health clinic."
- Violence : Do you condone or condemn the Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians? Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such organizations as Abu Sayyaf, Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya, Groupe islamique armee, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Al-Qaeda?It is ideal if these questions are posed publicly — in the media or in front of an audience — thereby reducing the scope for dissimulation. No single reply establishes a militant Islamic disposition (plenty of non-Muslim Europeans believe the Bush administration itself carried out the 9/11 attacks); and pretence is always a possibility, but these questions offer a good start to the vexing issue of separating enemy from friend. | |||
| Posted by:Atrus |
| #15 Moderate and fondamentalism - Same thing ! We do not need moderates and as your examples testifies, we are looking for "progressive" muslims, those who can and will communicate and live with other cultures. However, what truly bothers me, in the last 20 years, that is pre 09/11, is the absolute silence of the "moderates and progressive" muslims. Their silence is like a support for the chaos and human injustices accuring around the muslim dominated world. Also, Islam is always "selling" itself as a "religion of tolerance" - I beleive that is only partly true where muslims are minorities. Name me one single muslim majority state where there truly is relgious and freedom ? Islam, like evangelical CHristians have only one goal in mind - Convert and procelytize. How can one truly use the word peace when in his own mind, his way is the only way - Can he really listen ? can he really communicate and respect others ? also, there are always fondamentalists in every societies yet fondamentalism intrinsect meaning is the "literal use of the scriptures" if that is so - how can one read the Quran without genuine reflexion and apply its teaching "fondamentally" witout creating war and chaos ? Is it not a religion of exclusion ? Or one that is in line with our President when he says: " you are either with us or against us ? Islam is a very very dangerous scripture when used in a fondamentalist way - Boudism and hindouism is more prone to self inquiry and christianity has a painful history of rectification that brought about objective truths that enhanced the message of brotherhood. |
| Posted by: Peaceandfreedom 2004-06-07 12:21:15 AM |
| #14 "Do you accept the validity of other religions?" Um... how can *anyone* accept the validity of other religions? What does 'valid' mean here? It's been my understanding that Christian don't accept the 'validity' of the teachings of Mohammed, same way that Muslims wouldn't accept as 'valid' the teachings of Buddha and so on. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-11-25 9:30:24 PM |
| #13 In addition to the lying problem, there is the problem of change. To put it simply, a person can be a moderate Muslim one day and a few days later after a little Quranic coaching from the local Madrassa, he can be a murderer. So what good was the question on the first day. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-11-25 9:01:40 PM |
| #12 Liberalhawk -- sorry, it wasn't clear what you were referring to in that bit. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-11-25 8:47:56 PM |
| #11 Moderate Muslim = one who hasn't attacked you. Yet. Sorry, but if a person IS a Muslim, then that means they must follow the suras and haddiths and their Imam - who is semi-independent from any higher authority / Grand Mufti. The suras are rather mild - petty and silly, but overall, mild. The haddiths are something else entirely. Much like Old vs New Testaments - only the priority is reversed in Islam. The suras and haddiths conflict frequently. Key: All flavors of Islam (as far as I have been able to determine) declare that where conflicts occur in scripture, the later "revelation" or "response" prevails. That means the haddiths prevail - and that is where the violence and hate and lying as justified and dhimmitude and designs on world domintation and considering non-believers as cattle and [insert favorite twisted Islamic "feature" here] come from. You can apply reason and logic all you like. It's your nature. They will not. And that is theirs - per their Prophet, may bees pee upon Him. [semi-rant] These people you refer to as moderate Muslims are just nice moderate people - and piss-poor Muslims. And this is where I am confortable: there are good people and bad people - of every nationality, ethnicity, religion, whatever. Those secondary labels usually don't mean much as it seldom demands of them to change their fundamental nature. Islam does make that demand when there is a confrontation between Muslim and non-Muslim. And remember, Islam demands that they NOT befriend you, you filthy infidel. If you do truly feel you are their friend, what makes you so sure they are your friend? That was the eye-opener for me in Saudi Arabia. I found they were not. Those raised outside of predominately Muslim societies - or who've logged enough years outside - might just overcome some of what is demanded of them by Islam. But then we are talking about bad Muslims - or we are mistaken about them. I have a saying that I believe applies as a parallel: If you have more friends than fingers, you've miscounted one or the other. The "bad" Muslim thing may sound like I'm picking nits. We shall see, won't we? When the shit hits the fan in your hometown, in your face, then will you know. Until then, common sense demands that you keep your eyes open to the facts of their religion and be aware that how they act with you, sans other Muslims, may be quite different than how they act when there are some True Believers around. That is an interesting test for you to try, if you can manage it. [/semi-rant] Good luck, folks. |
| Posted by: .com (Abu Skeptic) 2003-11-25 7:52:35 PM |
| #10 If you want to detect moderate muslims, the genuine variety the ones who would help us ask them? What US can do for the Muslim world? If he begins to whin about the poooooooor Palestinians then you know this guy is unfit. The Muslims you are only looking for will tell you: to hell with Palestinians, how many dead have they had? Let's care about the Algerians, the Afghans, the Kurds, teh Iraquis: each of them has ten times more victims in one year than the Palestinians in 35 years. Such Muslims are rare. But these are the Muslims you are looking for. |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-11-25 5:18:53 PM |
| #9 RC - i suggest we back thugs,etc also on a case by case basic, weighing costs and benefits. BTW your quote - This cannot be our standard - I deliberately placed in category 5 - IE we cant limit our allies to exclude the other 4 categories. Note that category 4 includes people who are NOT antisemites or anti-aemericans - they DO applaud politely at a Mahathir speech, ignoring the antisemitic parts. Apathy towards antisemitism isnt a good thing, but its NOT the same as antisemitism, and we most definitely have to overlook it. Category 3 may include genuine antisemites, but it largely includes the morally confused, the relativisers etc. Bad yes, but not necessarilly antisemitic. And yes, i would give muslims living in the muslim world more of a pass for such opinions than i would give europeans or Americans. They (the muslims) are subject to intense propaganda and social pressure - the Westerners really should know better. And yes, the muslims really do have some grievances with Israel - the opinions they form may be brutally unfair - but they arent necessarilly rooted in pure Jewhatred - demonizing people that your friends have a border dispute with is ALL TOO HUMAN behavior. For Europeans and Americans who have no such border dispute with Israel, no "dog in the fight" such opinions are MUCH MORE likely to be rooted in antisemitism. The group I call 2 - are antisemites, antiamericans, and antiliberals. Im not advocating any particular alliance with them - but i would suggest that at least being cognizant that they are relative moderates is wise, and being concerned with not pushing them into category 1 is wise as well. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-25 4:21:47 PM |
| #8 Indeed. So do I. One fellow in particular who I consider a close friend and in whom I have implicit trust. And he can answer the question without the obligatory "yes but..." He is not very popular at the local Mosque. Especially after he married a practicing Catholic. Where I work there are also a fair number of Muslims from a varity of Middle eastern countries. Good people all. I am not trying to imply that all Muslims are bad anymore than I am trying to imply that all Christians or Jews or Hindus are good. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-11-25 3:26:21 PM |
| #7 I personally know both living moderate muslims. They own the candy store near my house. They're nice people. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2003-11-25 3:15:22 PM |
| #6 I think any one of the questions will do. If you can find a Muslim who will or can answer any one oth them with out the trailing "yes but..." you done hit pay dirt. Otherwise, sleep with one eye open. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-11-25 3:11:25 PM |
| #5 Some of these questions would exclude any orthodox Muslim. Well, yes, of course. That's the idea. They're the enemy. This CANNOT be our standard for muslim moderation, at least in the short term. We need allies too badly. Can we count on you to (metaphorically) beat the crap out of the next whiner who complains about the US supporting thugs and dictators, then? That's what you're advocating; that we accept a certain level of antisemitism, antiamericanism, and antiliberalism as natural. I'm uncomfortable with that, as a policy, and think it should be a case-by-case basis, if at all. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-11-25 3:08:41 PM |
| #4 In my personal work with ME muslims, I found that the one question that separates them is this: "Do you believe suicide bombers go to Heaven?" This kind of cuts right to the chase, ya know? Try it. You'll be amazed at some of their answers. Could they lie? Of course. But I don't think they're very good at it. At least the ones I've met. Takes a little sophistication to lie well. That 'honor' thing kind of bothers them, -however skewed their scruples become. |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-11-25 2:46:06 PM |
| #3 and what if the individual lies see: http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.shtml also see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/623cqjcg.asp |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-11-25 2:26:44 PM |
| #2 id suggest there are at least 5 gradations 1. sympathizers of AL qaeeda, who support attacks on Jews and Christians, and who will justify occasional attacks on muslims. 2. Sympathizers with Hamas, who support attacks on Israeli civilians and will justify attacks on Americans, but who shrink from all out war with Christians, and who are "Shocked" at attacks that kill "innocent muslims" These are the kinds of people who are repelled by the AQ attacks in Riyadh. They may not be particularly moderate from out point of view, but they are numerous, and their (growing?)alienation from AQ is of strategic importance 3. People who dont support attacks on Israelis or Americans, but who will excuse them or equivocate between such attacks and attacks to counter terrorism. While this is a position to be bitterly fought in the West, it is wise to realize that it is relatively moderate in much of the Islamic world, and that these fence sitters opinions matter in the war of ideas. 4. People who support the US, and are indifferent wrt to Israel, but wont go out on a limb to denounce Jew haters in the Islamic world Here we have MOST of our (true) allies in the Islamic world - Karzai, most Iraqis, Musharaff, Sukarnoputri, etc. Snarky criticism of these people - such as occurred after the Mahathir speech - is unrealistic and does us no good. 5. People who take a more reasonable view of the conflict - including wrt to Israel. These people are great - and are very important in our internal dialogues in the US (im thinking of Fuad Ajami at the moment) but we MUST be realistic - there are no more than a handful of these in the Islamic world outside the West (maybe even outside the US) with a few exceptions like Turkey, Kurdistan, parts of Central Asia. This CANNOT be our standard for muslim moderation, at least in the short term. We need allies too badly. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-25 2:16:36 PM |
| #1 first some of these questions, to the extent they dont mention whether the person thinks something should be state policy, intrude into the legitimate sphere of religion. For example "may muslim women marry non-muslim men?" As a traditional Jew, I beleive non-Jews may not marry Jews under Jewish law. I accept however that the law of the state in this regard should not follow Jewish law. Pluralism - I believe in many approaches to Judaism, but the majority of Orthodox Jews do not - I would hardly exclude them from the ranks of moderates. Some of these questions would exclude any orthodox Muslim. Some would exclude all Wahabis, without regard to their political beleifs. This might make sense for selecting US army chaplains (indeed it would make a lot of sense, since such chaplains must be prepared to assist muslims of all backgrounds) but is it a correct classification in other contexts? And even the question about Hamas - while I dont want any Hamas supporters in the US military, this isnt a good guide to diplomacy. There ARE people who support Hamas who nonetheless can be useful allies against Al Qaeeda, in Afganistan and elsewhere. Is Pipes expressing a criterion for chaplaincy, or for friendship in other contexts. There are, I believe millions of muslims who are far to extreme to be considered appropriate for US army chaplaincy, but who could still be useful allies in the WOT. Further - the initial line show some of the fallacy here - implying there are two forms - moderate and militant - there are at least 4 or 5 gradations that are relevant to the WOT, IMHO, (and im quite sure Pipes knows this) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-25 2:02:54 PM |