The bodies of the murdered Parisians have barely grown cold before we’re starting to see politicians tiptoeing around the issue of radical Islam as a cause, liberals blaming it all on the West’s policies toward the Middle East, and even some American college students miffed because the attacks stole attention from the injustices they see on their own campus. Now we hear the distant rumblings of war, and somehow I think that it’s all going to go terribly wrong.
The only relatively sensible discussion of the issues I’ve seen is by the liberal Muslim Maajid Nawaz, who has argued in both The Mail and The Daily Beast that we can’t kill our way out of terrorism, and that nonviolent Muslims must change the climate of their communities before the terrorism will stop. Nawaz may be right, but how long will that take, and how many deaths will ensue before that happens? And is it reasonable to expect Muslims in Europe to be the catalyst for change, given that so many of them favor a literal interpretation of the Qur’an, and think that there’s only one acceptable interpretation of Islam?
According to Nawaz, then, as well as Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her latest book, de-fanging Islam requires Muslims to both take their sacred book more allegorically, and to urge their coreligionists to do likewise. Is that possible? The video below argues that it may not be. The relevant part of the video, which substitutes the honey badger Terence for God, starts in the middle, and that will happen automatically when you click on it. (The whole video is worth watching, though.) Reader “Terrance”, who sent this to me, added this note:
CoolHardLogic is a fantastic YouTube hobbyist with lots of great content. Sadly, one of his videos he made around Charlie Hebdo is timely again, especially this segment linked to below. It’s so far the best illustration of what’s the problem with the moderate vs extremist dichotomy.
Regrettably, I think this is going to be with us for the rest of our lives, Jerry. x
Depressingly, agreed. Getting this shit out of public life is a multi-generation effort.
If the Enlightenment hasn’t wrought change by now, it ain’t gonna happen.
I fear you may be right.
We seem all to agree that the first brick in the wall is for western leaders to admit a problem with Islam and that reformers need support: Cameron has just done it in his most explicit speech to date (despite the fact that the Home Secretary Theresa May was wittering on about religion of peace earlier today). Here’s the link: 1 minute long.
Much as I hate to say it, Cameron gets it, and Corbyn is clueless. x
news.sky.com/story/1588715/pm-unveils-plan-to-tackle-extremism-epidemic
Another cogent essay is Ali Minai’s Unreal Islam.
Excellent. Thank you for this.
Hear, hear! Well worth the read: thanks.
Nice article.
“Can true Muslims only be either militants or hypocrites?”
Some hypocrisy would be welcome.
Trying again.
As I have posted here previously, I suspect fundamentalism is harder to break when the sacred scripture is all the work of one author (Joe Smith or Mohammed) than when it is the work of a multiplicity of authors with somewhat divergent perspectives (the Jewish and Christian bibles, the Buddhist Pali canon, and the Hindu Vedas.)
Alan Dershowitz has noted it is a hallmark of Judaism to argue with God (his recent book describes Abraham as the first Jewish lawyer), and even traditional Jews can raise questions as to whether the Bible really got it right or not.
The Koran is (allegedly) a single-author work (just like “Jesus and Mo”), but even the most ardent of Islamic scholars admit that the hadith is multi-author and was produced over decades to a century or so. And much blood has already been spilt on that account.
What to do about it … probably the only effective recourse is going to be exposing rising generations to the power of evidence, as well as the sheer diversity of different religious bullshits which have been put out over the centuries. Which is precisely why many religions demand to withdraw their children from exposure to dissenting (from their particular strain of bullshit) information.
When I was goven “Religious Education” at school (when it was still a legal requirement, before I got a RE school report card reading “Exam score : 100% ; as an atheist, GravelInspector should be ashamed of himself”), I was moderately surprised that the class’s (IIRC) 2 JWs, token Jew, half-dozen Muslims, several Hindus and the balance “default Xtians”, ALL chose to attend the RE classes, even though they had the option of not attending (an option not available in any other subject). And it got moderately vigorous in there. (Of course, as a declared atheist, I wasn’t eligible to opt out.) If I still had contact with any of that lot, I’d be surprised if any of them had sunk into fundamentalism, because every one of them knew that there were dissenting opinions in their own peer group.
Which, as we know, is poison to faith.
Odd that you were called GravelInspector even then …
/@
I would like a copy of that Holly Shit version that was shown in the video. Was that before or after King James?
I wonder how many religious people would even understand this video?
I wish that the video were a little more suitable for distributing, but in my view the four-letter verbiage nullifies its overall usefulness. How about using “Holy Smoke” for a change?
I’m checking CHL out, so far seems pretty cool.
I’ve been a subscriber forever. He is extremely worth the time.
The problem with moderation and reform as a strategy is that anyone reading the Quran can see plain as day that allegorical interpretation of it is strictly forbidden and defines anyone who does so as an infidel for whom the fires of hell are stoked. Not only does the Quran demand to be taken literally to the letter, but it even talks about moderation and interpretation that has occurred in Judaism and Christianity as an example of what not to do or eternal hellfire awaits.
Moderation and allegorical interpretation is so obviously outlawed by the Quran and by the prophet himself that any suggestion to moderate and allegorize it is oxymoronish to the extreme.
Bless those who will attempt to moderate Islam but it just doesn’t seem possible. It’s like moderating the KKK instead of just ditching it altogether.
I agree with others who wrote above that it takes generations, but I think it can be done.
I somewhat disagree with the idea that we can’t fight out way out of terrorism, because I think Mr. Nawaz is presenting us with a false dichotomy (internal cultural change vs. total war). In truth there is a lot of different actions we can take that fall between those two extremes and yes, as illiberal as it is to say, some of the ‘harder’ actions within that range can be effective in permanently changing minds, cultures, and attitudes over the long term. External pressure, including both economic policies and yes even military threat has some place here. Consider the Mormon church with polygamy or Japan’s shift from belligerent empire to what it is today. Those changes didn’t happen because of ‘internal cultural change’ alone; they occurred only after quite a forceful push and in both cases the threat of military action should there be any backsliding.
So, while I hope Mr. Nawaz’s ‘change in the climate of communities’ is successful, I don’t think its the only strategy we should be using and I don’t think nonmuslims should be sitting around waiting for it to happen. Internal community rejection of terrorism as a tool is the ideal fix to this problem, but its not the only fix we should be pursuing.
Japan abandoned the Bushido and Germany abandoned Nordic superiority only after they got the shit kicked out of them in WW2. That may be the only answer to Islam.
Unfortunately, there’s a significant geographical difference between Japan and Germany on the one hand, and Islam on the other.
I’m in agreement that just because one solution worked in the two WWII cases doesn’t mean the exact same solution will work in this case. However IMO its a matter of nuance and degree; that specific application of hard power might not work, but other types of hardish power can probably still contribute positively to an overall ‘normalization’ effort.
Also I don’t think we need to solve the entire problem of militant Islamism in one fell swoop and I think that sort of grand solution thinking is part of the problem. IMO we should be finding strategies that are successful at suppressing sectarian organizations like ISIS, the Taliban, and so on. Look Buddhism, Christianity, and Judaism still contain violent sects; we haven’t changed the religion writ large to make it utterly nonviolent, what we’ve done instead is make those types of sects within the religion far less popular. I don’t see why we wouldn’t try the same thing with Islam. Forget winning some theological war on the meaning of the Koran; focus instead on what sects do and suppressing/eliminating the sects that choose to do violence in response to reading it.
To Islam of ISIS, at least. And if ISIS and the likes suffer crushing military defeat, other Muslims could figure out that Allah may not be so great after all.
However, there is currently a mood in the West that wasn’t there in WWII (not after Sept. 1939 in Europe and Pearl Harbor in the USA, anyway). That is, Westerners don’t want a war involving their young men, and don’t want a war against the will of the local population (read: the supporters of ISIS, al-Qaida, Hizbullah, the Taliban etc.).
I wonder if the recent attacks in France may change that position, at least in Europe. I expect the French at least may be supportive of putting more NATO or UN boots on the ground now than they were in the past. We will have to see.
I am in agreement with you on this one. Mr. Nawaz’s ideas are okay but we do not have years and years to see if this even could work. War will be the end game – but we have to be much smarter about it than we have for the last 14 years. Even if we do not need war from here, the Europeans will and that means us.
We need to work as hard at after the fight as we do with the fight and start figuring that out now. Maybe Nawaz has some thoughts on this? The Muslim people still have to run the show after the military job is done.
Unfortunately this scenario is unlikely to work. War against a nation with a government is very different that war with international terrorism. You should probably put quotes around “war” in that context.
My view has been that we are stuck with the status quo for a very long time. Nothing you can do about it other than try to dampen and discourage these groups where possible. But it is unrealistic to say jihadism can be stamped out. It will have to run it’s course until the overall environment changes enough to make it uninteresting for the next generation of jihadists.
Arguably, Daesh is a nation (at least in its own eyes), and is selling oil and waging war on the ground in Syria just like a “real” country. Terrorist acts on foreign soil are its Vergeltungswaffen.
/@
Arguably.
‘War’ is not necessarily what I’m implying. That’s the other end of the spectrum from Mr. Nawaz’s suggestion, and I’m complaining there isn’t enough consideration given to the middle of that spectrum. This would include mixed strategies such as heightened or semi-military policing, economic carrots and sticks, and yes even negotiations.
IMO the real problem with the sort of terrorism we’re seeing now is that there is no viable local government structure that we can act with or through to enact changes. Terrorism in Ireland and Peru in the 70s-90s and terrorism in Egypt in the 90s all used a combination of hard and soft power without either total war or waiting for internal cultural change. However that was possible because there was a well-functioning local government that could serve as the ‘pointy end of the [policy] spear.’ In Afghanistan western nation-building has largely been a failure since the 1800s and in Syria we don’t want to strengthen the Assad regime. I don’t know what the solution to that problem is, but I continue to think that a combination of hard and soft power that avoids the extremes of total war or waiting for culture change is going to be our best bet.
Thank you, Mr Sven, for finding this and sending thus for Dr Coyne to post. ” … … the correct response is to question their sanity.”
Yes, and forwarded far.
Blue
ps Will it be okay, though doest thou believe, for me to keep on talking “to the walls,” … … as has been my (“comforting”) favor to date so unto do?
sub
This is essentially what Sam Harris has been saying for years about moderate, and liberal theists tacitly supporting extremism.
I myself resign the pacification of Islam as a long term process and what we see now is an eruption like a boil (an extremely pussy one at that) armed to the teeth with cash.
Islam like Catholicism is under threat, Western and circular values are eating at it’s core, think science, technology, more educated population and so forth.
So one (CC) takes the ‘nice guy’ as they have tried the violent track and one the ‘bad guy’ approach as they partake and live out their scriptures to the letter. Then, there is that other lot, who are just as dangerous, are just obstinate silly children who have all information at their finger tips but refuse it, like being made to eat broccoli when all they want is a Big Mac.
But they do not really matter as long as the rational adult (as in not believing in a fairy tale for one)and let reason, science and the science method move us forward and out of this misery that religion inflicts on us.
Now more than ever this process has to hold steady and beat it with rationale and reason, which includes freedom of speech. This idea is intriguing to say the least to me and as far as I can tell has marginalised religion in the past and can do it again.
However, I don’t see how free speech can survive in the presence of Islam.
Until the drawing of cartoons stops bringing torturous pain to hundreds of millions and the killing of homosexuals and apostates starts causing more than a flinch, we are fucked.
Great distillation!
Here’s Nawaz being interviewed on CNN:
He seems to focus in on the “ideology of caliphate”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiGBZZ-EmnE&feature=youtu.be
The article you labelled as being liberal actually seems to be from a conservative, anti-immigrant, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish point of view.
It blames the Paris attacks on neocons who allegedly destabilized the Middle East with the Arab Spring then pushed for mass immigration of the refugees.
Well, the neocon war in Iraq certainly destabilized that country.
We are having problems mainly with Syria, because the support of Russia prevented Bashar Assad from being destabilized.
I wish US troops had gone there to destabilize it. I wouldn’t want to live under a dictator dropping barrel bombs on my head, and I don’t see why anyone else should.
Are there any other places you’d like to see the flower of American youth go in harm’s way to be possibly (likely?) killed or maimed for life?
Am I the only one who thinks the aim of terrorism is to isolate Muslims and prevent them from assimilating?
I think that’s the objective of many religions. Silly hats, silly underwear, dietary restrictions that may once have had some basis but no longer, and so forth. Adhering to those things makes you only want to associate with those practicing the same tribal customs.
For the first time ever, I’ve had to log out of Facebook because I can’t deal anymore.
As bad as it is, we should keep things in perspective. Terrorism is an insignificant contributor to violent death in Western countries, and a minuscule contributor to preventable death.
I’m not saying we should do nothing, but we should not make hasty and counterproductive military attacks or trash civil liberties for no good reason. We should not waste trillions of dollars on security theater just so politicians can claim to be “doing something”. If we’re going to fight terrorism, we should do so intelligently and proportionately, not latch onto knee-jerk responses, and continue holding on long past the point where they’ve been shown to be worse than useless, as we’ve been doing so far.
I also have to mention that it seems silly for France to say “now we’re at war with ISIS”. (The attacks in Paris were apparently done by ISIS.) France’s war with ISIS started when France began bombing ISIS. Did they think they could just attack ISIS in Syria and be immune from retribution? (The attackers said the attack was “for Syria”.) That’s not to say they “deserved” it, but what did they expect? ISIS is a terrorist organization that has repeatedly shown itself to be militarily and strategically competent, and we’ve repeatedly underestimated them. Attacking groups like ISIS isn’t a game to be played for political gain or military exercise. It’s just another example of these things not being thought through or taken seriously.
If we’re going to go to war against ISIS we should really go to war. Not just drop a few more bombs – which hasn’t worked so far despite us dropping thousands – and pretend to be “doing something”. If we don’t have the political will for real action against ISIS, we shouldn’t be doing dangerous half-measures that don’t stop ISIS and that mark us for retribution. It’s like we have no real strategy.
ISIS has a strategy, and we’d best have a real plan if we’re going to interfere.
It has often seemed to me that one of the main goals of “jihadist terrorism” is to provoke Western countries, especially the US, into military battle.
If we go back in, it would put a lid on the terrorism, since our military would be right there to be attacked. When we leave again, they will do another terrorist thing to provoke us into coming back again. If not ISIS, then whatever group forms after them.
So I dunno. Do we just keep playing this game?
Hmmm, Triceratops as a plough beast. Now there’s an idea. Where’s my stock of Jurassic mosquitoes and a box of frogs?
Cute JP reference, but if you want a Triceratops, you actually want Late Cretaceous mosquitoes rather than Jurassic ones. You’re off by at least 75 million years! 😀
I’m content with long breeding programmes. Xenu was too impatient, which is why we were inflicted with LRon.
This is a glacially chilling article that appeared in The Atlantic, which I received yesterday, on who ISIS is and how they are totally different from Al Quaeda. They believe they can provoke the Endtimes when, as foretold in the Koran, Islam will triumph over the world and Jesus (sic – the Chiites do believe in Jesus and the Virgin Mary, although both are far inferior to Mohammad in their eyes) will set up a kingdom of heaven on earth. “Tens of thousands of foreign Muslims are thought to have immigrated to the Islamic State” because this is the best place to be when the apocalypse happens. Since the Endtimes are at hand, the members of ISIS are immune to the fear of death. The author of the article points out that this is not without precedent: when Hitler said to the people, “I offer you struggle, danger, and death,” a whole nation flung itself at his feet. He concludes, “The war may be a long one, even if it doesn’t last until the end of time.”
Here is the link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
I read this recently and found Graeme Wood’s take on motivation confirms my own:
“In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.”
Daesh is primarily a movement led by religious zealots who take advantage of the political environment to further their aims. The followers are motivated by a mix of psycho/social and religious factors.
The video is spot on. Excellent material to share with those who don’t understand the supporting role of the moderately religious play in the actions of the more extremely religious.