Article

2013-08-20 Olde Tyme Religion

by Daniel Pipes

Islam currently represents a backward, aggressive, and violent force. Must it remain this way, or can it be reformed and become moderate, modern, and good-neighborly? Can Islamic authorities formulate an understanding of their religion that grants full rights to women and non-Muslims as well as freedom of conscience to Muslims, that accepts the basic principles of modern finance and jurisprudence, and that does not seek to impose Sharia law or establish a caliphate?

A growing body of analysts believe that no, the Muslim faith cannot do these things, that these features are inherent to Islam and immutably part of its makeup. Asked if she agrees with my formulation that "radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution," the writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali replied: "He's wrong. Sorry about that." She and I stand in the same trench, fighting for the same goals and against the same opponents, but we disagree on this vital point.

My argument has two parts. First, the essentialist position of many analysts is wrong; and second, a reformed Islam can emerge.

An interesting development, given that Mr. Pipes has been at the forefront of the argument that Islam is causing problems.

But Ms. Ali has an insider's mind on this one, and I'm beginning to think that she's got the better argument. I'd like Mr. Pipes to be right but I fear he isn't.

The real question then being not "Can this happen," because anything can happen, but "What are the odds that it will?"

Posted by trailing wife 2013-08-20 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11134 views ] Top

#1 Sure, Christianity did.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2013-08-20 00:56|| 2013-08-20 00:56|| Front Page Top

#2 Yes. But only after everyone that is part of the faith is tired of the killing. The Christians came to that point at the end of the 30 years war and millions of dead.

Posted by DarthVader 2013-08-20 01:10|| 2013-08-20 01:10|| Front Page Top

#3 No, its not. There are specific parts in the Koran that prevent reinterpretation, as well as cultural and other things built into the system. And unlike the Christian reformation, there is no central church that has authority to change things, or against which reform can be leveraged and with whome theological reform can eventually be codified -- no equivalent to the Vatican and Pope in Islam, just factionalism that promotes the most radical of beliefs as the "strong horse" prevalent in Arab culture and the cradle and center of Islam.

Posted by OldSpook 2013-08-20 01:46|| 2013-08-20 01:46|| Front Page Top

#4 If the only muzzies left are those in Morocco, I suspect the 'tone' would change. Given that the 'claim' is that the family running the place has a lineage going back to the man, there's a gamblers chance that some evolution might happen. Then again the next asteroid will probably hit sooner.

Posted by Procopius2k 2013-08-20 08:07|| 2013-08-20 08:07|| Front Page Top

#5 Islam is not your friend. It NEVER will be. Act accordingly.
You don't have any choice. I repeat, there is no choice.

You either fight and win or you suck the Jizya and take the Fatwa up your rump. Make up your mind, Dwayne.

Islam is Islam. If you won't fight you deserve what happens to you. Islam isn't going to go away on its own. And you can't live with them.

Posted by Threater Flusoper9823 2013-08-20 08:08|| 2013-08-20 08:08|| Front Page Top

#6 Agree with Miss Ali and OldSpook here. Islam, unlike Christianity, is violent and totalitarian at its core.

Any "reformation" that denied these central tenets would create a totally different animal.

Take away physical contact from the NFL and it is no longer football regardless of what you call it.

Islam is THE problem, it is more or less obvious depending on the honesty of the speakers.

Posted by AlanC 2013-08-20 08:11|| 2013-08-20 08:11|| Front Page Top

#7 the more interesting question is whether Pipes actually believes what he is saying about moderate Islam being the solution or if this is just a premise for the sake of politeness or emotional sanity

the evidence of the horror that is Islam is so overwhelming that many people, when confronted with the evidence just can't handle it; they have to make stuff up, pretend, etc.

Posted by lord garth 2013-08-20 08:18|| 2013-08-20 08:18|| Front Page Top

#8 No. Next question?

P.S. Actually maybe. But only with nuclear bombs on Mecca and Medina. And Tehran. And Karachi. And Islamabad. And Peshawar. And what are the odds of that? (Zero.)

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2013-08-20 08:53|| 2013-08-20 08:53|| Front Page Top

#9 *sigh*

The latest date for the crucifixion of Jesus is 33 AD. The Christians endured persecution until 323 AD, when they united under Constantine at the battle of the Milvian Bridge. They were running from lions, so to speak, for about 290 years. Contrast with Islam, when the Flight to Medina in 620 AD, the conquest of Mecca in 630, the death of Mohammed in 632, and the Battle of Tours in 732. Quite a compressed time line, and NO, it is NOT due to them having faster camels: It was due to Mohammed devising a religion specially designed to prey on Judaism and Christianty, the latter of which had largely succeeded in turning the Mediterranean Sea into a reasonably pacifistic society without a stout military presence in North Africa from Egypt to Spain (and was Dr. Victor Davis Hanson's main criticism of Christianity in his book "Carnage and Culture")

My thesis, in fact, is that Christianity evolved from a peaceful religion into a militaristic one due to the need to respond to Islam. I regret I cannot find the link to an online video where a scholar cataloged all the Islamic slaver attacks in the Mediterranean by location and date between 700 and 1100 AD, and then shows a time lapse video of the order and location of the attacks on a map: enlightening and, to be honest, frightening. To blame Christianity for the Crusades as unprovoked is to refuse to see the world as they saw it back then, a selective "objectification" of vision to avoid the truth. It is during that response that the position and power of the Popes and church increased to the point that it attracted the corrupt and the secular (sound familiar?). The protestant reformation started in 1517, and the 30 years war started in 1618. (By the way, this is not noised about a lot, but Martin Luther the reformer penned a protest agains the Crusades because it was being used as an excuse to get rid of German Barons sympathetic to the Protestants by suggesting they were less than loyal to the Holy Roman Emperor if they didn't participate personally.)

Now, part of the problem in talking about the reform of Islam versus the "reform" of Christianity is that Leftist history has tried to paint Christianity as violent from the beginning as Islam, when the facts don't state it. Instead, they use indignation, verbal abuse, make mountains out of molehills, and selectively ignore the facts that don't support their case (sound familiar?).

Don't get me wrong: Christianity NEEDED a reformation, but it needed that reformation because it was DEFORMED and needed REFORMING. There is NO indication that Islam GOT DEFORMED and thus needs to be "REFORMED" back to where it was originally. And my take is that that deformation came as a side-effect of having to deal with Islam (sound familiar?)

Now, an even more fundamental problem is not Leftist history, but that some who are opposing Islam have bought into that history and are unaware that they are thinking based on premises, information, and pre-suppositions that have been developed by Leftism to promote their agenda. The Constitution is not a sacred document, but a secular one, and Pipes has argued that our "interpretation" of the Constitution has changed, and so the problem is "One of Interpretation". I hate to break it to you, but the current crisis in America is precisely that the Constitution has been "re-interpreted" in the way Pipes wants the Koran and Hadiths to be "re-interpreted".

How has THAT been working out for ya?

Let me illustrate the problem by telling you of a different problem: In a nuclear power plant, we must use parts with known specifications because those specifications were used in analyses of designs to establish the safe operating limits of plant equipment. Counterfeits are a serious problem since they rarely meet the design specifications of the genuine article because those specifications are hard to duplicate and raise expenses as well. The point of the counterfeit is to cost cheap while commanding the prices that only the genuine merit.

When a nuclear plant encounters a counterfeit, it is obligated to report the discovery to the NRC, who issues bulletins to the entire industry warning of the counterfeits (known as "a part 21 notification"): this notifies the supply chain so that proactive efforts to avoid purchase of deficient counterfeits for use in nuclear equipment. Careless distributors have lost business to the entire industry, and deliberate manufacturers and distributors knowingly distributing counterfeit parts as genuine to the nuclear industy ("because that's where the money is.") have been prosecuted by the federal government. And convicted.

But it doesn't end there. The industry is required to be able to track everything from purchase through inventory to issuance to use to field PRECISELY so they can do a search of their parts records to determine if any of those counterfeits were installed in the field, for the precise purpose of going out there and ripping the stuff out of the plant.

I regret to inform y'all that some of you, and some conservative commentators as well, appear to me to have notyet issued a personal "part 21" on ALL ideas, teaching, and pre-conceptions coming from the Left that you have absorbed. They have been at work since the 1800's debauching the field of ideas. Anyone who disagrees with Leftists in one field of ideas or practice, while embracing what they teach in other areas, is going to run into problems with reality and thus have to deform their reasoning and their knowledge of the facts to remain consistent. YOU CAN'T. Not possible. Look at Charles at Little Green Footballs, and be warned.

Now, a personal note: I"ve been offline at my website precisely because I believe Leftism has fatally contaminated the Christian religion, and have been working for the past five years to do that "part 21" on my thinking. It has been extremely difficult to dig up the origins of my thinking, re-evaluate them, and sift the wheat from the chaff. The best methodology, I have found, is to read the New Testament biblical text as literally and straightforwardly as I can, then soundly question deviations from that literal reading.

So I can tell you right now that it is not easy.

Nothing worthwhile is.

Posted by Ptah 2013-08-20 09:14|| http://crusaderwarcollege.org 2013-08-20 09:14|| Front Page Top

#10 Many claim to have "reformed" just before execution time. I think that's the model that will be followed in this case...

Posted by M. Murcek 2013-08-20 09:19|| 2013-08-20 09:19|| Front Page Top

#11

It has been extremely difficult to dig up the origins of my thinking, re-evaluate them, and sift the wheat from the chaff. The best methodology, I have found, is to read the New Testament biblical text as literally and straightforwardly as I can, then soundly question deviations from that literal reading.

I haven't found it that hard. I've trained myself to look for presuppositions and unspoken assumptions in all forms of reasoning. A core element [presupposition / assumption] of modern Leftist thought is hatred of Christianity & Judaism and a desire/goal to see them both destroyed. Hence the Left's alliance with jihadi Islam.
The question of whether or not it is possible for Islam to reform itself is not particularly relevant to non-Muslims. It's up to them, if they want to get ahead at the risk of losing their own [heads].

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2013-08-20 09:33|| 2013-08-20 09:33|| Front Page Top

#12 Yes. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" meets ride the tiger meets feed the alligator in hopes of being eaten last. Leftists get it all wrong all the time...

Posted by M. Murcek 2013-08-20 09:39|| 2013-08-20 09:39|| Front Page Top

#13 Could Nazism be reformed?

Posted by Elmearong Gurly-Brown5896 2013-08-20 10:50|| 2013-08-20 10:50|| Front Page Top

#14 Reforming Islam will be as successful as rewriting the Affordable Care Act. They both have fatal flaws in their premises.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2013-08-20 11:14|| 2013-08-20 11:14|| Front Page Top

#15 It was due to Mohammed devising a religion specially designed to prey on Judaism and Christianty

To be a bit more accurate, it was designed to meld the various nomadic tribes and families into a conquering force.

Posted by Pappy 2013-08-20 11:58|| 2013-08-20 11:58|| Front Page Top

#16 Yea, however it then will no longer be an ideology what benefits Muslims---so they'll reform it right back.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2013-08-20 12:50|| 2013-08-20 12:50|| Front Page Top

#17 From what I understand there are branches within Sunni islam and some are more violent and others are more introspective. The introspective folks were out of Turkey, the violent are the Wahabi and wtih the oil money and promises of glory and such they are dominant now.

US should have been pumping money into the less violent one on Sept 12, 2001 while we were shifting to a nuclear economy to undercut the Wahabi cash flow.

Posted by rjschwarz 2013-08-20 14:44|| 2013-08-20 14:44|| Front Page Top

#18 The introspective folks were out of Turkey

Do you mean the whirling dervishes, the Sufis, rjschwarz? Sure, they're mystics, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily nonviolent. See here, for instance.

Posted by trailing wife 2013-08-20 20:28|| 2013-08-20 20:28|| Front Page Top

#19 Also this piece by Andrew Bostom for a historical perspective.

Posted by trailing wife 2013-08-20 20:28|| 2013-08-20 20:28|| Front Page Top

05:28 Whiskey Mike
05:23 Whiskey Mike
05:21 Whiskey Mike
05:18 Whiskey Mike
05:15 Whiskey Mike
05:13 Whiskey Mike
05:08 Whiskey Mike
05:05 Whiskey Mike
05:03 Whiskey Mike
03:23 Besoeker
02:05 Grom the Affective
02:04 Grom the Affective
01:26 49 Pan
00:22 EMS Artifact
00:16 Skidmark