’Moderate’ vs ’Severe’ Muslims

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 41

My god! Excuse me drsyedasad you took my post rather too seriously and critically when I had intended it to be a sarcastic remark in a lighter vein.

You said:

``Firstly, hinduism is not a profession, its a religion.``

This made me look up the dictionary. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary , the firstmost meaning of the word `profession` is given as ``declaration of a faith in a religion``.

What I had meant was that Justice Bhagwan who professes to be a Hindu by faith seems to be wary of the name of `Bhagwan`, a Hindu god` and chants the name only of `Allah`, the Islamic Bhagwan when even most of the muslims chant the name of `Khuda`, a Persian god, in their mundane talk. So Allah in the mouth of Bhagwan looked rather strange to me and somewhat hypocritical and sinister also. But sorry to say you started to teach me English, for which, no doubt, I should be thankful to you, in any case.

Btw, I guess you are a medical doctor by `profession` perhaps as I expect such a response only from a `professioanal` only.

Dear Asad

I think your analysis is off the mark. By West, I think you mean Western media. The Western media is a very different institution from the political and state institutions. Watching CNN you`d imagine they were related but they are not. The Western media`s prime responsibility is to make Western foreign policy palatable to the local people. To make that happen, the media throws up words like `moderate` Muslims. This does not mean `unbelievers` or non-authentic muslims. It just helps local people view Muslims as threatening, scary and bad. If you examine Western foreign policy it has been supporting and encouraging religion through-out the Middle-east and satellite Muslim states like Pakistan. Religion keeps people quiescant, accomodating, ill-educated and tame. Most alliances of the West have been with non progressives in the Muslim world. Or the alliance has been short-lived.

This is why I think your analysis is off-key. You are reading too much into FOX or what have you. Media channels like this are just meant to manage the thoughts and information consumption of local people, so that local people remain wary, afraid and suspicious of Muslims and are convinced to view them as dangerous elements abroad who must be controlled using hostile means.

SOme Muslims see this as an opportunity to go out and Public and get famous. The media likes that--it plays up writers like Irshad Manji and or any others. At best it is a game to keep people confused and wasting time writing about moderate, severe et all Muslims.

There is very little difference between Muslims and other monotheistic religions. They are just the Arab versions of Christainity. The real minds behind State policies knew that before you and I were born to tell them `the grand truth` about Muslims. The idea itself that somehow Muslims are a threat to the West, is a self-pertuating fantasy of Muslims like yourself. In the meanwhile while people ponder, prevaricate and wonder, all the oil of the world is being taken by UK, US and Canada, and that is all what this drama is about--NOTHING ELSE.

Re: # 40
Firstly, hinduism is not a profession, its a religion. Secondly, people should not be judged on the basis of their religion since it is a personal matter. They should be judged on what they do in the society.

Just watch a new phenomenon in Paky history: The acting CJ of Pakistan (He might become actual CJ earlier if he gets rid of the incumbent CJ), Shiree Bhagwan Das, a Hindu by profession, seems to be fond of calling the name of Allah. Paradoxical and sinister does it not look; Bhagwan reciting the name of Allah.

Re: # 38

[“Why don`t you ``bifurcate`` amongst moderate and extremist Christians …”]
We were not talking about Christians, Neocons, Basque Separatists, the IRA or Jews. Your entire first paragraph is a giant, mixed-up fallacy. Red herring, tu quoque, ad hominem; I am unable to classify precisely. “At least we bifurcate…” was sarcasm. Bifurcation is the logical fallacy of allowing only two choices (e.g. ‘moderate’ or ‘extremist’), which is better than allowing only one (e.g. the West). Personally, I am a splitter not a lumper. Mass slaughter is a crime, so however I define extremism is irrelevant. (And I will assume the small ‘i’ was a case of parapraxis.)

[“Your concern is, and has always has been…”]
My concern?!? You are obviously a lumper.
To be factual, 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. Look at the power relationships that exist in the international community. Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? Because it could. The United States is the giant power in the world, economically and militarily. Unfortunately, might still makes right. But, like you said, America needs the oil, therefore Saudi Arabia has relative power over the United States. Besides, the Saud Crime Family was not implicated in the 911 attacks (unless you have any evidence to the contrary).
[“Democracy … is bad when ``extremist`` [M]uslims win.”] Yes, in my view, absolutely. You were being sarcastic, so am I to assume you think extremists make good leaders? ‘Democracy’ can be a vacuous term. The Soviet Union claimed to be a democracy. Iran claims to be democratic. My political values are: representative and open government, due process of law, equal rights under the law, ‘no man is above the law’, civil liberties, social justice, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, &c. Liberalism matches my values so I believe in liberal democracy. You have different values, and I understand that. If you want a Mawdudi-religiofascist state, then work for it. But do not delude yourself that by couching tyranny in Islamic terms a utopia will appear, justice will prevail, and you will live happily ever after.
I have not studied Algeria but let us reflect: the elections were cancelled out of fear of the Islamic parties, and what happened? To prove the point, FIS unleashed a bloodbath, or in your words: mass slaughter. How many died? 100,000? 200,000? And this was with the Islamists outside of government and without control of the army. Arab killing Arab; Muslim killing Muslim. The Algerian Civil War is a perfect example of the threat of ‘extremism’. “Democracy is not a suicide pact.” Pakistan, of all nations, is NOT fine, but that is your problem. If you don’t like it, change it. Blaming everybody else for your own problems is annoying. But if “you” elect a party that is on “our” {how I hate tribalism} FTO Foreign Terrorist Organizations list, “we” will cut all ties with “you” (e.g. Palestine e.g. Hamas). If I hated Muslims {I do not} I would wish for Islamist victories from Morocco to Indonesia. 40 to 45 Mullah Muhammed Omars as leaders? Qur’an-only education? Complete female disenfranchisement? Muslims in their ignorance would be in perpetual servitude to the “West” (and East, North and South). I don’t want this; and you certainly don’t want this.

[De Lacy O`Leary “fantastically absurd myth”] I repeat: Islam was spread by the sword. Muslims did not send missionaries around the world, they sent armies. Compare this with the early spread of Christianity; Paul did not take an army with him to Rome. When Christianity became the Roman Empire under Constantine that changed, without question; (I have heard Muhammad described as “his own Constantine” in this context).
Islam, unlike the primitive Christian church, was not simply a personal belief system; Islam was also a political ideology [refer once again to Ibn Khaldun]. When I use the word ‘Islam’ I take this into consideration; O`Leary is shamelessly equivocating. Islam means submission, for Muslims this means to Allah (and His representative on earth: the caliph), for everybody else, this means to the Islamic state. Obviously, collecting the jizya was more important than spreading the deen. All the poor suckers in Islamic history, told to expect their reward in the hereafter while the caliph and his cronies got theirs in this world. Die in jihad and get your 72 virgins in heaven, so I the caliph can have my virgins in this world. Suckers. Where is God in the machinations of men? As if Muslims were no longer human, and were no longer motivated by the age-old desires of greed, power and sex.

[“…they never used the sword to force the people to convert.”] This is false (or at least overstated). Just one example, when the Almohades entered Córdoba in 1148 they threatened the Jews to convert to Islam or die. This is the reason why the Jewish philosopher Maimonides left his home in Córdoba. Aren’t there any pangs of reason in your mind when imply Muslims were always the good guys? When I read history, I find what I expect to find: humans acting like humans. In India Hindus were given dhimmi status (even though Hinduism is the most idolatrous religion I can think of) because Muslims simply could not kill them all. This is about power not faith. The Islamists in India were the fiercest opponents of establishing Pakistan as a separate Muslim homeland because they wanted suzerainty over the majority Hindus. Power not faith.

[“Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims.”] Yes the Christians were complete bastards. Thankfully Christians are out of power and back in their missionary position.

[“If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.”] The Muslims did use the sword to establish their various empires, but again, this is about power not faith. Coercion can take many forms.

This is from the Indian historian Jadunath Sarkar on the dhimmi in his History of Aurangzib:

“A non-Muslim, therefore, cannot be a citizen of the State; he is a member of a depressed class; his status is a modified form of slavery.”
“He must undergo political and social disabilities, and pay commutation-money (jaziya). In short, his continued existence in the State after the conquest of his country by the Muslims is conditional upon his person and property being made subservient to the cause of Islam.”
“No non-Muslim (zimmi) can wear fine dresses, ride on horseback or carry arms; he must behave respectfully and submissively to every member of the dominant sect”
“In addition to the poll-tax and public degradation in dress and demeanour imposed on them, the non-Muslims were subjected to various hopes and fears. Rewards in the form of money and public employment were offered to apostates from Hinduism. The leaders of Hindu religion and society were systematically repressed, to deprive the sect of spiritual instruction, and their religious gatherings and processions were forbidden in order to prevent the growth of solidity and a sense of communal strength among them. No new temple was allowed to be built nor any old one to be repaired, so that the total disappearance of all places of Hindu worship was to be merely a question of time. But even this delay, this slow operation of Time, was intolerable to many of the more fiery spirits of Islam, who tried to hasten the abolition of ‘infidelity’ by anticipating the destructive hand of Time and forcibly pulling down temples.”

And this from modern Egypt; nothing has changed:

“Christians are not allowed to build or even repair their own churches without a presidential decree.”

[[Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. -- Al Bara’at 9:29]]
[[“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” -- Lucius Annaeus Seneca (ca. 600 years BH before Hegira*)]]

*H ijra is a bad word??

Re: # 34

``At least we bifurcate. You portray the “West” as monolithic. Why do you capitalize Western and not Muslim? Both should be capitalized. Parapraxis or Freudian slip? Your essay reeks of self-hatred``

Why don`t you ``bifurcate`` amongst moderate and extremist Christians.... read the Neocons, the Basque Separatists, the IRA. Why don`t you bifurcate amongst the Moderate and Extremist Jews...i guess committing mass slaughter and holding entire populations does not fall in your definition of ``extremism``.

``Pick up a newspaper, extremists are ‘actually’ dangerous, not just ‘potentially’ dangerous. I honestly do not know what a ‘Western’ concept is, but the political liberalism found in Europe and North America (and in all free and open societies) could not care less about how many times a day a person prays or what foods they choose to eat. Our concern is with criminality and political violence``

Your concern is, and has always has been, for what furthers western imperialist agendas around the world. So although 19 Sept 11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian....the West can deal with that regime as long as it keeps the oil flowing to US industry. Democracy in Algeria and Iran is bad when ``extremist`` muslims win......military dictatorship in Pakistan is fine as long as western agendas are being met.

``Actually, historically speaking, Islam was very hostile and belligerent especially against the West (and the East and all parts in between). THIS IS KEY: Islam was spread by the sword. Until you accept that historical reality dialogue is pointless. Islam was spread by ‘amirs’ not missionaries. From Tours to Vienna, Islam was the aggressor. This is an historical fact. Europe was eventually able to beat the Muslims at their own game, but to portray Islam as peaceful is to ignore history.``

De Lacy O`Leary in the book ``Islam at the cross road`` states ``History makes it clear however, that the legend of the fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.``

When Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years, they never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims.

In the Arab world, Muslims were the lords of the land for more than 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled and for a few years the French ruled. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.


`` Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error`` (Baqarah 2:256)

Re: # 34

``At least we bifurcate. You portray the “West” as monolithic. Why do you capitalize Western and not Muslim? Both should be capitalized. Parapraxis or Freudian slip? Your essay reeks of self-hatred``

Why don`t you ``bifurcate`` amongst moderate and extremist Christians.... read the Neocons, the Basque Separatists, the IRA. Why don`t you bifurcate amongst the Moderate and Extremist Jews...i guess committing mass slaughter and holding entire populations does not fall in your definition of ``extremism``.

``Pick up a newspaper, extremists are ‘actually’ dangerous, not just ‘potentially’ dangerous. I honestly do not know what a ‘Western’ concept is, but the political liberalism found in Europe and North America (and in all free and open societies) could not care less about how many times a day a person prays or what foods they choose to eat. Our concern is with criminality and political violence``

Your concern is, and has always has been, for what furthers western imperialist agendas around the world. So although 19 Sept 11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian....the West can deal with that regime as long as it keeps the oil flowing to US industry. Democracy in Algeria and Iran is bad when ``extremist`` muslims win......military dictatorship in Pakistan is fine as long as western agendas are being met.

``Actually, historically speaking, Islam was very hostile and belligerent especially against the West (and the East and all parts in between). THIS IS KEY: Islam was spread by the sword. Until you accept that historical reality dialogue is pointless. Islam was spread by ‘amirs’ not missionaries. From Tours to Vienna, Islam was the aggressor. This is an historical fact. Europe was eventually able to beat the Muslims at their own game, but to portray Islam as peaceful is to ignore history.``

De Lacy O`Leary in the book ``Islam at the cross road`` states ``History makes it clear however, that the legend of the fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.``

When Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years, they never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims.

In the Arab world, Muslims were the lords of the land for more than 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled and for a few years the French ruled. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.


`` Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error`` (Baqarah 2:256)

WOW! Finally a board on which there is some actual dialogue taking place! Never thought I`d see the day!

:-)

Asad Ali, there is much merit in your identification of the problem, though it would seem to me you`re a bit off the mark the analysis of its causes. Yes, the West would like Muslims to be more `modern`; but no, you often can`t blame them for having the impression that a stronger adherence to Islam leads to extremism.

Yes, there is hypocrisy on the part of the West (controlled as it is by a few vested interests -aka the military-industrial nexus); but no, their recognizing and encouraging `true Islam` is not the solution to the problem. Well, not the complete one anyway... Muslims need to get their house in order first big time!

---

drsyedasad sahib,
Great voice of moderation and balance here! I haven`t seen your handle here before. Then again, I haven`t been around FP for some time now. Welcome, and hope to read more of your thoughts.

---

billdunc,
Welcome, dude. I like your style, espeically your intellectual rigor. You`re right, the Muslim over-reaction to the Danish cartoons (witnessed here by nadeem`s incredible comparison of the same with the hypothetical scenario of a billboard of one`s mother in the nude) is ample evidence that reason does not attend many Muslims` reactions to the slightest sign of criticism from the West. This sorta reaction is in itself suggestive of one of the deeper problems vis-a-vis open dialog.
I also liked your take on Benedict`s reasons for provoking Islamic rancor. I was naive enough to assume he`d inadvertantly or uncalculatedly said what he did (which, incidentally, i still believe was stupid!) Read here if interested.

---

rgds.

Re: # 34

David

A wonderful analysis indeed, albeit from American point of view. In fact the severest sufferers from this `savage fundamentalism` are the people of Pakistan, the epicentre of this savagery, where it rules the roost, with the horrible loudspeaker and the law of blasphemy plus free-for-all-lynchings and carnage in the name of religion. You could not appreciate the `sarcasm and self-hatred` of Asad, but one who is subject to this savagery, both in the name of fundamentalism and enlightenment can understand it well.

Thank you for your comments. I knew my response was harsh when I posted it, but I thought it would at least approximate the feelings that many Americans have. In the future I will speak only for myself. We live in a divided world. Bush has polarized the international community the same way he has divided the American electorate. Republicans choose “wedge” issues and voters have to take sides. I can feel this polarization emerging on a global level. It is frightening. But when I see video footage of angry Muslims giving the Nazi salute shouting “death to America” with one harmonious voice which side am I left with? Political violence does not scare me, but this group-think, single-minded, mob psychology (whatever you want to call it) is unnerving to say the least. This may be impressive in some parts of the world, but Americans are reminded of past enemies: Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Communists of every stripe. If they goose-step they are the bad guys. I am only speaking of perceptions. Obviously the myth of American moral authority has evaporated. But those of us who never believed in the myth, and are truly outraged by any injustice done in our name, are still confronted with the hateful “other”. One could argue they have every reason to hate. Fine. But the mentality of “if you kill one of our tribe, we’ll kill one of yours” will get us no where. The atrocities committed against Mukhtar Mai unfortunately illustrates this tribal mentality all-too-well. This is not justice. If a person commits a crime, they should be the one punished for that crime (including presidents, PMs, generals, whoever). My position is less bombs, more international institutions. I sincerely want all humans to work together for a better future. But (and here is where I step on toes) religion is by its nature divisive. Let me quote Ibn Khaldun in the Muqaddimah: “In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” Ibn Khaldun was not alone in this opinion. In fact this was/is the consensus opinion. To quote you again: “The fact which the Western world is yet to accept is that Islam is not a hostile or dangerous religion.” I think the truer fact is that Muslims are unwilling to accept that (at least historically) Islam was “a hostile [and] dangerous religion.” Muslims seem to love empire if it is their own. I hate empires in any form, my own NOT excluded. Death to empire; death to imperialism. Muslims still take pride in the 711 CE invasion of Hispania. You remember the words. “The sea is behind you, and the enemy is ahead of you…” That sounds romantic, unless you are on the business end of a sword. I will not recount the history of Islamic foreign relations with Europe, but suffice it to say it was neither peaceful nor tolerant. Islam was spread by the sword. Christianity (originally) was spread by conversion, one believer at a time. That of course changed when Christianity became an empire. My belabored point is that, until Muslims accept and reject their own imperial past, we are at an impasse. Humanity will not tolerate a revitalized, exclusivist, belligerent, political Islam. Islam as a personal faith is totally acceptable. I will fight and die for your right to worship and believe as you see fit. But that right has to be granted to me and everybody else as well. American imperialism/militarism is unacceptable as well, and I recognize this is a real and present danger (THE real and present danger). Maybe the division of ‘moderate’ and ‘severe’ Muslims is more accurately between ‘religious’ and ‘political’ Muslims. There are American Muslims who want to replace the US constitution with “shariah”. This is sedition (and pure fantasy). How is this helpful? This is where Muslims and non-Muslims talk past each other. Why not work for a just and equitable legal system, instead of imposing this chimera on a society? What is shariah? Shariah means a ‘path’. When did the ‘path’ become a codified body of law? Yes there are Qur’anic injunctions, but where did the rest come from? Sunnah? What did Muslims do for those two or three centuries before Bukhari put pen to paper? Is fiqh the same as shariah? Why are the four schools different? If shariah is God’s law, who is a mortal to claim a perfect knowledge of the mind of God? Shariah claims to be justice incarnate. In what sense is making a rape victim produce four witnesses to the act of coitus (and barring that rule of evidence conviction is made impossible) justice? [These are real cases!] The rest of the world is pursuing a progressive jurisprudence, and Muslims want to return to a 7th century tribal code where hands are hacked off and people are stoned to death. Again this is an area where Islam and the rest of us part ways. These are irreconcilable differences.

Let me end on a more positive note. If Islam is hated, the religion will die. If Islam is loved and respected, the religion will grow. The days of Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha marching on Vienna are over. In the future, religious belief must be sincere and not imposed (and this includes society to individual, parent to child). ‘True Muslims’ like Omar Bakri Muhammad or Gulbuddin Hekmatyar are not protecting Islam, they are destroying Islam. If there is universal contempt for Islam, your children will abandon Islam, or your grand-children, or your great-grand-children. Islam will eventually die. Even today, many Muslims are ‘practical’ apostates. Who wants to be associated with something that is hated? On the other hand, if Islam is loved people will be drawn to it, people will want to be Muslim. Muslims have ignorance/illiteracy and cultural/political authoritarianism on their side for now, but you understand where humanity is heading. Freedom is on the march. Information technology has erased boarders. May the best ideas win. You would claim the unity of God as your most precious doctrine; would you exchange that belief for a headless corpse? A mutilated thief? A battered women? The imperial glory of the Ottomans? The flexible tree will bend with the wind, the rigid tree will break. The winds of change are in full gale.

(These are just my opinions; subject to change without written notice. My intentions are pure. “There can be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. No peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions” - Hans Kung.)

Thank you for taking time and writing in such detail.

I probably should not have capitalised ``West``.

I think your vision (as I understand it) would work if the west could just keep on going by isolating it self from the muslim world. I donot think it can (or should). Like it or not, we all share the same world which is becoming smaller with time. This is why America ended up in Iraq because it could not leave Iraq to its fate in this era of advanced nuclear weapons. I think the western world and the muslim world both need to live with each other in the long run.

My article is an effort to bridge this gap. I believe muslims need to do their part and saying this is not self-hatred. First step in solving a problem is to acknowledge it. I expect more out of the western world though because I believe that due to centuries of more advanced education, they are kind of ``bigger brothers`` in this relationship. If the west wants to do its part in bridging the mutual mistrust, then I have mentioned some avenues for it. You can disagree with the avenues; you can also disagree with the whole vision that muslims and west NEED to bridge the mutual mistrust. I will be interested in your thoughts.

(Point by Point)

“The Western world divides the muslim population into either ‘moderate’ or ‘extremist’ muslims.”
[At least we bifurcate. You portray the “West” as monolithic. Why do you capitalize Western and not Muslim? Both should be capitalized. Parapraxis or Freudian slip? Your essay reeks of self-hatred.]

“The general impression in the West is that the civilized world can deal with ‘moderate’ muslims so they need to be encouraged and supported as opposed to the savage fundamentalists and extremists. This approach has some fundamental flaws and I think is bound to fail.”
[One can deal with rational human beings (of whatever religion). Extremists are by definition irrational and uncompromising. ‘Savage’? Are you being sarcastic or descriptive? Actually, we do deal with cut-throats and thugs and murderers; with courts and armies.]

“The Western use of the word ‘moderate’ is based on the comparison between mild, moderate and severe. This is not mere semantics but the implication here is that ‘moderate’ muslims do not follow Islam in its ‘severe’ or pure form and have rather incorporated many ‘modernized’ or ‘Western’ concepts-hence these people are more acceptable. On the other hand, ‘extremist’ muslims according to the Western view, follow Islam in the ‘severe’ or pure form and have not incorporated the modern, Western or scientific concepts- hence they are potentially dangerous to the West.”
[Pick up a newspaper, extremists are ‘actually’ dangerous, not just ‘potentially’ dangerous. I honestly do not know what a ‘Western’ concept is, but the political liberalism found in Europe and North America (and in all free and open societies) could not care less about how many times a day a person prays or what foods they choose to eat. Our concern is with criminality and political violence.]

“The underlying Western concept is that ‘pure’ Islam in its complete form without Western influences is a problem.”
[Only if it includes harassment, criminality, and violence! Governments, in the West, concern themselves with criminality not orthodoxy.]
“The reason that the West will not be able to win muslim hearts and minds with this approach is that it attacks the religion of Islam.”
[The ‘West’ is an intellectual construct so fail to comprehend how something that does not exist in reality can attack anything. True enough though, any ideology of misogyny, sexism, homophobia, cynophobia (I live in a ‘nation of dog lovers’), paedophilia, nepotism, anti-semitism, political absolutism, intolerance, and criminality will find a cool reception in liberal societies. Wife-beaters and child abusers are hated outright.]
“Muslims sooner or later realize this Western vision and of course they cannot imagine being traitors to their religion.”
[How is being a law-abiding citizen treason to a person’s religion?]
“They do not want to be ‘half muslims’ or the so called ‘moderate muslims of the West’ so they turn into hardliners which they think is the opposite of the ‘moderate’ vision of Islam.”
[This of course is a fallacy of ‘false dichotomy’. Also, being a ‘hardliner’ in the ‘West’ is not a crime. Problems only arise when a ‘true’ Muslim engages in harassment, criminality, and violence.]
“Western efforts to apparently make them ‘semi-muslims’ just fuel their conviction to be ‘pure’ muslims.”
[There are no ‘Western’ efforts against Muslims. This is probably guilt transfer. Who are you to decide what constitutes a ‘pure’ Muslim? If a ‘pure’ Muslim engages in harassment, criminality, and violence they will find no respite in the West.]

“Instead of focusing on encouragement of ‘moderate’ or ‘semi-pure’ muslims, the Western world should encourage and support muslims to find the true vision of Islam-just like they support other scientific initiatives all over the world.”
[Your religion is strictly your business. If Muslims cannot decide upon a “true vision of Islam” what good could we possibly do. Science benefits all humankind, what interest do we have in your theological debates. What if we decide the Shi’a possessed the “true vision of Islam”? Where would that leave you? Also, I find it interesting that you describe ‘moderate’ Muslims as ‘semi-pure’ and separate from Muslims in general. You are basically agreeing with islamophobes that Muslims are not moderate.]
“The fact which the Western world is yet to accept is that Islam is not a hostile or dangerous religion.”
[Actually, historically speaking, Islam was very hostile and belligerent especially against the West (and the East and all parts in between). THIS IS KEY: Islam was spread by the sword. Until you accept that historical reality dialogue is pointless. Islam was spread by ‘amirs’ not missionaries. From Tours to Vienna, Islam was the aggressor. This is an historical fact. Europe was eventually able to beat the Muslims at their own game, but to portray Islam as peaceful is to ignore history.]
“It has been deformed by the uneducated leadership and masses over the past few centuries and hence we see an aggressive, confrontational side now.”
[Islam has always had an aggressive, confrontational side.]
“True spirit of Islam is that of peace, tolerance and that of civic responsibility.”
[The reality is something else, isn’t it? Peace through conquest, tolerance by submission, civic responsibility ignoring corruption.]
“It actively stimulates scientific research and is very progressive.”
[“Very progressive?” There must be a semantic shift in the word progressive. Take an “Islamic” republic like Pakistan with female illiteracy at over 60%, and try to convince me this is progressive.]
“I think that the way for the West to deal with the muslim world is to support the muslims in the in depth study of Islam.”
[Any interference by the West in your dogma would be resented. And fruitless.]
“They need to help the muslims in finding themselves. This should be done both in the West by supporting Islamic think tanks like Zaytuna Institute in US and also by scholarships for studying Islam in the muslim countries themselves.”
[No. I mean, obviously you hold your birth religion in great esteem, but we are not going to support it. The only relevance Islam has in the West is that it has followers that are perceived as trying to kill us. Rightly or wrongly. There are a billion Hindus but we have the luxury to ignore them because they are not blowing up tube stations. This is incredibly harsh, but the unfortunate truth. If Islam was simply a faith, it would be ignored like any of the other great religions. We are secular which means we are out of the religion business.]

“Currently Islamic study is not financially feasible for the youth but if there is a market for this skill, then I am sure true spirit of Islam will come out in the society.”
[Why not a “true spirit” of humanity? We share a common humanity, not religion.]
“I think this investment will lead to long term harmony and peace between Islamic and Western civilizations.”
[Peace will only come through self-criticism on both sides. Indoctrinating impressionable youths with empty dogma is a dead end.]
“The current Western policy of dividing muslims into ‘moderate’ or ‘non-pure’ and ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘pure’ muslims is counterproductive and is never going to work.”
[We are not the ones yelling takfir.]

While democracy has been spreading and taking root in the rest of the world, most Muslim countries continue to be ruled by dictators, autocrats , despots or mullahs. Is this phenomenon related to the faith of Islam? Do we take it that the vast majority of Muslims in the world accept this state of affairs because they believe that Western concepts of democratic life is not in consonence with the Islam`s tenets and they think that now is how they should continue to live? It is strongly believed that if democracy is allowed to take root and flourish in the Muslim populated countries, this Islamic fanaticism that is so evident today might just dissipate, because the Muslims then would learn to coexist peacefully with the rest of the world.

billdunc

If you happen to see this post, let me extend to you a personal welcome.

Some of us have been afraid recently that there is a total breakdown of communication between the world of Islam and the world inhabited by the rest of us (nonbelievers in Islam in particular, but nonbelievers in general). And that this breakdown is rooted in a general failure to understand our mutual differences.

If that is true, then the single greatest service one can offer to both the followers of Islam and the rest of mankind is to engage in constructive and open discussions of those group-level and ideological differences. In undertaking this endeavor, you deserve everyone`s best wishes.

Re: # 28

The people of Pakistan are in fact caught between the deep see and the devil: on one side is the martialian law of enlightenment and on the other the lynch laws of the extremist fanatics. One demolishes (martyr?) a mosque and the others get it reconstructed, or demartyr it in mullaistic terminology, all at public cost. The Mush-writ fails miserably against the mullah and his madrissa girls.